 Hey everybody tonight we're debating atheism versus pantheism and we are starting right now with Jennifer's opening statement defending pantheism thanks for being with us Jennifer the floor is all yours. Thank you so much for having me this evening James great to be back again nice to meet you T jump looking forward to this debate where I will be defending pantheism that's right. In my belief system we assert that the universe is God amazing strange at first and maybe a tautological equivalence but metaphysics and cosmology is sort of requires us to really situate a fixed point about which to make all of our other judgments and i'm going to attempt to convince you. During this debate that identifying the universe as God is the optimal way of prioritizing your thought process very important because it frames all the rest of the questions that we ask. Whether questions have answers sometimes depends a lot of the times actually depends on how we frame them and if we'd like all of our questions to have answers, we have to frame them correctly. We have so much technological development in the modern day but we're sort of lacking in spiritual awareness and suffer from what I would describe as a fair bit of existentialist angst. Man individually has some wiggle room as regards to the beliefs that he espouses but i'd like to invite you to consider the possibility that on the civilizational level, we really do need God. Going back for a bit of a historical review as I mentioned the last time I was on the show Giordano Bruno as recently as the year 1600 was actually burned at the stake for espousing pantheist style beliefs. On his heels in the year 1655 things had cooled down just a smidge when Baruch Spinoza was only excommunicated from his community for espousing the same type of divine equivalence with the universe. Going a little bit further we see that this idea sort of took root with a lot of philosophers of the day and they developed it into different dualistic and non dualistic interpretations and debates there in. And finally we have Gottfried Wilhelm Liebnitz, the inventor of calculus who also espoused a pantheistic approach to his understanding of mathematics as well as the universe. And so that's definitely some evidence in the pile that believing this way does have good results or at the very least. Triggers some people in a way that justifies us inquiring further as to why we have this idea of the monad that the atheist can't really contend with. Because it's easy to just equate reality with truth and say that truth exists because reality does as my co debater has stated in the past. But what does that really mean what is this one essence from which the rest of the universe emanates we can claim all we want to have an understanding of universal logic but it needs to be demonstrated in a tangible way in order to be a valid form of proof. Pantheism gives us the framework, the metaphysics, the axiomatic architecture to go further into the ideal forms and drive more valid and demonstrated predictions there from. I'm very familiar with the argument that he argues espoused calmly by atheists namely that religion has been responsible for much human cruelty, as well as a subversion of the path of acquisition of greater knowledge and while I acknowledge these points. I think it is an error to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As I stated earlier man really does seem to at least on the civilization level need this concept of God both to unify his own thoughts, as well as unify the overall vision of the civilization so that it can progress forward in a cogent manner without sort of tripping over itself as it moves into the future. We are fundamentally as human beings contrast detectors that means we tell the difference between light and dark hot and cold and so on and so forth. Now if we want to really maximize the bandwidth of that contrast detection, we want to give ourselves a supreme ideal from which to calibrate the rest of our ideas and identifying the universe as God which is the largest conceivable thing. Is making that calibration optimized. How can Jen know this you might ask well I could show you my awesome 3d periodic table right now which I think feel very strongly indeed that it is more beautiful than any periodic table you have ever seen before. And indeed the correct rendition of it isn't three dimensions. No one else figured that out but me. And it is indeed because I understand the universe this way the results of my beliefs and my beliefs themselves are inseparable. Without idealism we are essentially animals. It's better to accept our theocratic nature and strive to optimize it rather than denying God altogether. I agree that truth is a property of reality as you've said in the past, but if this is true. How come we don't agree on everything. And why are we having this debate. How come reincarnation isn't as self evident to you as it is to me. You say cogito ergo some but don't computers think does that mean that computers share our sense of being in any way shape or form if they do indeed think and if they don't well how do you distinguish it. These questions are important. And having a path towards the correct validated answers is important for people developing their sense of personal identity which we are all driven to do. And should seek to do that in the best way possible ideals and rich identity strong identities required for civilizational stability because again it's calibrating everybody's vision towards the same end. Rather than attacking the religion of people who often don't know any better. Why not lead with a better example and simply embrace pantheism which is not at all at odds with science. Thank you so much for listening to my introduction and I'll see my time to my opponent. Thank you very much Jennifer and we will kick it over to Tom jump and just want to let you know folks if it's your first time here at moderate debate. We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics. And so we have many juicy debates coming up. In fact folks want to let you know we are absolutely thrilled in case you had not heard. So we are absolutely still hosting this debate that you see at the bottom right of your screen. It's just postponed to some time this month. Something that I want to not rush but we are definitely planning on hosting it this month. So hey folks you don't want to miss that one. Hit that subscribe button so that you get a notification for it and so that you don't miss out on that epic debate with that Tom the floor is all yours. Thanks for being here. Thanks James for hosting. Thanks for the debate. Thanks for showing up church of entropy. It's an interesting name I do like that quite a bit. But I don't really understand what the topic is so from your intro I still have no idea what exactly it is we're debating. The word God to me refers to a supernatural non physical mind of some kind some kind of non physical mind. The universe does not have a mind as far as I know science said it doesn't. And so it would not fit the definition of a God. So I don't think that would work. Now if you just want to say matter itself or matter and energy is divine like I don't know what you mean by divine but I'm fine with that. I don't really care one way or the other but I just but I don't think saying the universe is a God would work because it miss it doesn't have that consciousness aspect to it but other than that I don't really understand what your argument is like you're just saying that. People benefit from religion and so if we treat the universe as the divine being then we can benefit from religion to because that seems to be what your claim is and I'm fine with that but I don't see any reason doesn't seem to be factual difference between what you're saying. And just naturalism and just calling naturalism a religion which is okay but I don't I don't really understand what your position here is so I'm just going to. Give the rest of my time to try and ask you like what exactly are you arguing for here. I'm just saying that people by and large need to believe in God. I'm saying that atheism isn't really a tenable position because you're asserting a negative. I don't understand what you mean by a tenable position like I'm an atheist most philosophers or atheists that's pretty tenable I don't you mean like it's not as pragmatic it's harder to live harder to find meaning or whatever. Well you're basically denying the validity of God as an ad hoc assumption you can't possibly validate like you earlier said the universe isn't conscious. How do you know that induction I'm using the evidence we have right now. It's only present in mind and so we can conclude that the universe which doesn't have a mind isn't conscious isn't the periodic table proof the universe has a mind. No how would the periodic table be proof the universe has a mind is doing inherent computations that are always equal computations don't require a mind calculators can do computations. The universe can be demonstrated to be conscious if you define consciousness as the ability to make observations. Because quantum mechanics observation and waveform reduction are identical and everything that a waveform does in some sense is waveform reduction. Well if you're defining consciousness that way every electrical diode is conscious because in quantum physics and observer is any sensor that causes the collapse of a quantum function it doesn't actually have a mind at all it's just anything that can cause the collapse which are physical objects like sensors so by that definition sensors are objective. Or intrinsic action is observation doesn't that imply that it's a mind that's doing it. No because observation doesn't mean mind in physics observation just means collapse of the wave function. Exactly. And it requires interaction. So the thing that the universe is conscious of is the fact that it exists in a three plus one dimensional causality. So there's definitely a way to defend a conscious cosmology cosmology not that I necessarily take that position because it doesn't really make biological predictions which is usually what people are interested in they're interested in subjective consciousness. More so than objective consciousness but you can nevertheless prove that the universe is at least proto conscious as Dr. Stuart Hamroff has said. No you definitely can't. Hamroff's position is hypothetical and it's rejected by the majority of philosophers you definitely can't prove it's proto conscious. It's essentially just a hypothesis that there are proto consciousness particles and his idea of consciousness being fundamental to the universe has no basis in reality it's rejected idealism and panpsychism are like single digit percentages and philosophy and even less and science. Well that's an adpopulum fallacy and when in all of human history have the majority of people been right about anything. So it's not an adpopulum fallacy because an adpopulum fallacy is when the majority of random non experts in the field have a position Stanford encyclopedia philosophy on fallacies number 10 actual authorities are reasonable to reference when we're talking about a field of expertise so it's not an adpopulum fallacy. It's not an adpopulum fallacy but again can I still demonstrate an understanding of the subject it purports to understand like what's what is consciousness consciousness is phenomenal logical consciousness is the quality experience we have when we like see experience stuff. Yeah so you're using hammer off stuff or definition there quality is something hammer off came up with so it's like there are no quality because there's no instances of non consciousness for because for there to be an instance of consciousness means it has to have a boundary and there is no boundary to consciousness so that the very framing is self refuting. No so again quality quality of the word being invented which I'm pretty sure he didn't actually invent the word but well he certainly uses it he popularized it. Most most philosophers use the word because it's a word in philosophy it's like saying Richard Brown invented the word epistemology because he uses it a lot this isn't an argument I'm still not understanding your argument here so the best evidence we have is that the universe is not conscious we all evidence indicates consciousness requires brains the universe does not have a brain the universe is not conscious. Can you isolate it? Can you establish the quality exist? I can experience it. You can experience it but that doesn't prove anything because you have no idea what the nature of the experience that you're having even is you don't know what's under the hood. So that's called an argument from ignorance fallacy neither can you but we can use the best evidence we can to show that no brain. Well I know what consciousness is I have an answer for it you don't it's an entangled photonic waveform. So making up an answer isn't actually. It's not a made up answer it's a demonstrable fact. A demonstrable fact like well then you should win a Nobel Prize in philosophy because. Well I mean that's just a silly thing to say I mean things get discovered all the time and now you get to. Yeah so if you've discovered it go win a Nobel Prize don't waste my time I don't care what you think you've discovered. I don't need your advice I don't need unsolicited advice much less. Actually you do actually you really do so if you think you've discovered something tell the scientists otherwise you haven't discovered a damn thing don't waste my time with. James I really don't need advice from this guy in terms of how to run my life so maybe he could come back to the actual point of the. How fiery it is we might. Pardon my so we might jump into two minute intervals just to be sure there's no interrupting. So yeah so again your opinion of what you think you have discovered is about as good as the drunk down the streets opinion on what he thinks he's discovered publish a paper and then you have evidence until then you have an opinion I don't care about your opinion. So if you think you've discovered or proven what consciousness is demonstrated or you haven't and until you have done it and you demonstrated it to everyone that we can find a published paper to actually replicate these results. You have an opinion I don't care about your opinion I'm going to go with the consensus of experts who have demonstrated their results to show that consciousness is in brains that is the best evidence there is no other hypothesis accepted in the field at all. Because the best evidence indicates this. There are many many examples of quotes talking to actual neurologist psychologist cognitive scientists on my channel and other channels where they literally explicitly say this. Then you have nothing you have an opinion, you think you've demonstrated consciousness but that's not evidence. So I have no reason to accept your claim your opinion. Therefore the best evidence I have is that consciousness is produced by brains there is no consciousness in the universe. Therefore it's unreasonable to conclude the universe is conscious. And so I'm still trying to like understand your main point here like what you are you arguing that what what is it what does divine mean by your definition. Perfect eternal, the best. I suppose you could think of a lot of words but they have to meet a certain criterion of essentially undisturbed perfection, and then you can go into well what's perfection. Beauty symmetry these things all sort of allude to it, but it's all it's an essentially it's an argument about how human emotion works. It's like you seem ultra skeptical but how skeptical have you been about your assumptions for example, from your worldview plants aren't conscious. It seems a bit absurd to me. Well it's not an assumption it's just based off the fact that they don't have brains it's based on induction so it's how they grow then. Biology, like not all biological things are conscious. Aren't they. No. I would say that that's a perfectly acceptable definition of consciousness is the difference between life and non life. Perhaps you're just a brain having supremacist and you just got no respect for the non brain possessors of consciousness. Or I understand how brains work and how people can still have biological functions with no brains until they don't have any conscious experience of being alive yet they're still living. So there's some difference between brain function which is consciousness thingy and biology function which is which is not but again so so you said divine is perfection and perfection is something to do with human emotions. And because of this we should call the universe. God or something like I'm still our emotions are sort of a guide. It's a powerhouse because your cognition what you're calling consciousness is really just self consciousness. That's a subset of the total consciousness right because consciousness does it all. No, you can be. No your conscious doesn't do any of those things but it says you right but it's like we just let me finish for a minute when it so so you can be conscious and not be self conscious like there are things that can have conscious experience and not be self conscious or not specifically self conscious here but I still want to go down that route of so divine equals perfect equals human emotion which is a guide to what what is it guided us how is it guided us what is I'm making it I'm not saying that there's a link between perfection and human emotions I was saying that for religion to work it has to jive with your own emotions. And so you should let your emotions guide your own understanding of divinity you really don't have any guides your understanding of divinity what is so that means whatever is the most powerful thing in your emotions is what we should call divine is that right well it when you're using your rational mind to understand divinity you shouldn't go against what your emotions are telling you that said there's a limit to the amount of information that's valuable that can be derived from your emotions so you have to use discernment to know when it's vestigial versus when it's a kind of a core thing some beliefs are just untenable is basically what I'm arguing. Okay that I would I do want to some beliefs. I would like to talk about that too but so I just going down this first path. That when using our rational mind to understand divinity we should not override or ignore our emotional parts or something like that. Like, I'll give you an example okay let me give you an example you go to an art display and there's a pile of feces on the ground. And everyone saying it looks really beautiful and then they turn to you and you think well what do you think what do you think and then do you go along with what they're saying is saying yeah it's beautiful or do you say actually I think it's kind of gross and smells terrible. Yeah I think it's a modern art museum and it's garbage. But the question is do you go with your heart or should you go with a crowd right. You should be going with your heart no matter what the crowd is saying is my point. Well I wouldn't go with my heart or the crowd I would just look at the evidence and follow the evidence. So I would say that I could imagine having a feeling that I thought the crap was very beautiful and then I'd say that you know this is probably just crap. And so I would go against my feelings I would say my feelings are probably wrong because we know of thousands upon thousands of fallacies biases illusions delusions hallucinations, where our feelings do a lot of work and make us feel one way. But we know that they're wrong so like, I like your analogy is very good. It's like if there's these similar analogies in psychology all the time where you have sticks of different lengths and they have a V shape at the top one V shape going up and one V shape going down. And they ask well which line looks longer and the V shape going up seems like that line is going longer emotionally you feel like that line is going longer. But then when you actually measure them they're the exact same length. It's just an optical illusion. So emotions have the exact same kinds of optical illusions they're called biases. So it's usually better to ignore your emotion because it doesn't tell you anything about reality and usually better to go with the rational side. So I would disagree with your premise that we should not eliminate our emotions or ignore our emotions when rationally assessing things. Everything we know we know through our consciousness and the consciousness pervades our body it includes our emotions and our thoughts. They should be integral but the rational should trump the emotional because the emotional is basically headerless information. I don't think they're necessarily at odds the sort of what I'm getting at like a lot of people think that being rational means suppressing your emotions. Well, are there cases where they are at odds are there cases where you have an emotion towards something and that emotion gives you a false belief. Of course like the most common one is when somebody does something that offends you and your feelings get hurt and you think they did it on purpose when 99.99% of the time it wasn't even on their radar. There's absolutely no intentionality to harm. Sure. I see that all the time basically daily. Definitely I totally agree so there are a lot of cases where your emotions lead you down the wrong path so you need some additional criteria on that's more important than the emotions to assess whether these emotions are correspond to reality or don't correspond to reality because we know that emotions can do either. There's lots of examples of both. And so we need some other criteria on independent of the emotions to assess do these correspond reality or don't they right. You need axioms. So that's what I was going to ask you also at some point was like, what are your axioms and how do you square them with the fact that the starting point for everything you know is your own consciousness. What do you mean by axioms here. I can have an axiom like there is a married bachelor in my garage that could be an axiom. So most most people who are rational and or scientific their de facto axiom is causality. So causes are separate from effects causes lead to effects and then basically science is speculation as to what those causes are models to then predict the effects. So I would say most people when pressed would agree at least on the surface with the causal axiom. So just like starting propositions, you can have anything be an axiom you want causality is actually rejected in many cases like Hume showed you don't actually need causality but irrelevant to the topic. So, I would just reject him on if anyone didn't accept causality I'd say well I'm not going to care what you say that that's fine but it doesn't matter to the topic so I'm not sure what you mean. And you brought up axioms here like it depends on what your axioms are like I don't understand how that was relevant to my point. Well, you're asking about how do you disentangle emotional muck from your own understanding of reality and it's through axioms. Yes, but I'm asking like so. We know that emotions can give us true true ideas and false ideas and so we need some other criteria, not not just axioms axioms are just starting principles you need something else. Some other methodology like you'd have to tell me what what the axioms are that differentiate which of these emotional feelings are the corresponding reality and which ones don't. So what are the axioms you are using in addition or in in taking your emotions what axioms are you using to filter through those emotions to determine the real ones from the fake ones. Um, well they're all identified I don't want to say they're all identified as fake, but the method is to be in a state which is neither attachment nor a version. It's like a heightened awareness or to state. So there's a neutrality. So the information you glean from having emotions is that thing gave me an emotional reaction. And that's your starting point. So we have emotions and those emotions, by definition, make us not neutral. We are feeling something towards something else. And so then you're saying that the way we should assess whether this belief is true is just by being neutral towards a belief that we're not neutral about. Well you need to have your starting point of beliefs right and I'm saying if you really don't want to believe anything and you don't want to take anything on faith. If you just accept causality you can still derive all the rest of this other stuff as long as you explicitly state a sort of Occam's razor type of approach to science where you're saying, I will only accept the smallest, the shortest definition basically, the least, the lowest number of basis vectors, if you will. Sure, I'm happy to grant a complex answer. Well I'm happy to grant all that but I'm a few steps further. So we've accepted causality. We're now on to we have a feeling towards something and we want and we know we've both agreed that our feelings can give us false beliefs that don't correspond to reality. And so, in addition to these feelings we have a feeling that belief X is true. Then, in order to know if belief X is true we can't just use our feelings we need something else because we know that feelings could be both true or false. So we need an additional- All the beliefs just come from the axioms. Beliefs come from axioms. Yeah you can deduce beliefs from axioms as long as you state you're imposed sort of architectural requisites like Occam's razor for example. Because multiple unified field models could predict everything but only one of those unified field models is going to have this simplest form formalism. There's a situation of like infinity right answers when you don't when you just have axioms but if you have axioms plus optimization criterion yeah you can get more or less you can recover everything. I have no idea what you just said so which axiom like to tell me which axiom I can use to determine when I go into the Louvre and look at the Mona Lisa of what I'm going to feel. You want to predict how you're going to feel when you look at the Mona Lisa. Yeah you said your axioms can like differentiate or tell you what you're going to what your emotions are going to be like that's what you said you said the belief I didn't say that no no no that's that's not what I'm saying. The model does make predictions but the approach is not about predicting your own emotions necessarily is about understanding them. So it's about understanding you have this huge bias recognizing the bias transcending the bias and then cogitating without this bias sort of constantly overwhelming your reasoning faculties. Yes and I'm asking what is the methodology to do this so we have a bias we feel we see the Mona Lisa we feel something we have it we form a belief because of our emotions. But that's where you lost me there that's not how beliefs work. You don't form a belief because of emotions you have beliefs and your emotions are in some way influenced by them. So when I was a baby and I ate pizza for the first time I formed a belief because of my experience I did not have a belief about that's not a belief that's an opinion. Opinions are also beliefs. I don't. I don't understand the words you're using so. You don't see the difference between an opinion and a belief a belief is a thing that colors all of your thoughts and opinion is something that is just an anecdote in your life. It's like an opinion or synonyms that's not really synonyms like like if if that is a belief like I have a I have a belief that I enjoy. You don't think beliefs are maybe more fundamental than opinions. No, don't even know what that means. Do you think logic is sort of you're you're claiming that logic underpins your opinion. No. No. Okay. What are you claiming then. I'm claiming I have no idea the way you're using belief here so so again I'm my argument is we have an emotion like the emotion gives us a belief. You disagree so far. I don't agree that emotions give us beliefs. I think the beliefs are more fundamental than emotion leaves are more fundamental than emotions. So the biases and fallacies I mentioned before where we see two lines and they have big arrows on the top and we have a feeling that this one's longer than that one. That's an impression not a feeling I think I realized where we're having a failure to communicate. Okay, so have the impression that version bias loss aversion bias is if I'm bet $10 and I don't want to lose the $10 I'm more likely to invest more rather than not investing in the first place. That's a feeling so I have a feeling that when my money is already invested I want to invest more to save it. Whereas if my money isn't invested I'm less likely to invest it in the first place. That's a feeling and it causes me to have a belief I don't want to invest my money. There's no belief there's fun. I'll give you a chance to respond Jennifer but just to tie this back to the original topic. I don't doubt that there is a way or a chain of reasoning that can explain how what we're discussing right now like leads back to the original topic. I don't want to give you a chance to share that because for those who have just arrived especially they are curious. We're talking about whether we're just sort of interrogating each other's worldviews I think I'm representing pantheism tea jumps representing atheism, but we got off on a bit of a tangent where he's inquiring into my approach to understanding Okay yeah we can just go back so are all beliefs true? Well obviously not but there's a way you could frame that question where the answer would be yes because it depends on axioms right so if you define a belief to be a thing that is intrinsic to a person's mind that has an energetic value well yeah they're all true in the sense that they all exist in people's minds in the sense that they espouse them but do they accord with reality? Most of the time no and religion is what helps us bring our beliefs into line with reality which prevents us from getting cognitive dissonance down the line because our expectations become realistic which instills us with a sense of peace. So that all seems backwards to me in philosophy, truth, reality isn't truth so truth defined in philosophy you can google the Stanford encyclopedia is truth is a property of sentences whether or not the sentence corresponds to reality. So if you have a sentence that says the sky is blue that sentence is true is because it describes reality there's no truth in the sky the truth is just in the sentence whether the sentence describes reality or not. So whether or not a belief is true is the second thing you mentioned like I have a belief this guy is blue if it's true if that belief corresponds to reality. So if beliefs can be both true and false we need some way to differentiate the true beliefs from the false beliefs right. Obviously and that's what I'm what I'm arguing that I have and you don't. What is it what is this magical method that you have that can differentiate true beliefs and false beliefs. I'm not sure what the word for it is exactly but it's an ancient technique of science, which involves several steps. And all ultimately comes down to the idea that calibrating your own consciousness is the best thing you can do to understand both yourself and the greater world. Okay that's a description of it could you give me the steps I want to know what is what is the method that I need to use to accurately differentiate true beliefs from false beliefs. It depends on the person because the method is sort of universal and the way that it can be universal is that it's specific to the person. So I would need to do an inventory with your beliefs and figure out where you're stumbling to get you to the next stage realization but where people are in their stages of realization varies drastically from one person to another so there's no one cookie cutter approach and that's why it can be universal. So not to sort of blow you off or anything I do want to answer your question I just. So that's what just that seems like a contradiction to say it's universal but then to say it's contingent on every single individual those are the opposite of one another. Well are you familiar with archetypes. Are you familiar with Hippocrates humorism. Not not well no. Are you familiar with. What do they call it the. Myers Briggs. Sure. Do you agree with it. No. I think it's kind of goofy right but hypothetically. If there were a system that actually did classify people. And it was predictive to the issue with Myers Briggs and ultimately where why humorism fell apart was because it's not predictive. The way that it's classifying people at archetypes is not predictive of their actual behavior so it's not scientific. But there is one that is actually scientific where if you canize people as way further into their archetype it will make a degree of predictions about the overall. Their body and their mind and their life and the reason it works is because there's multiple archetypes and so people are going to fit somewhere in that continuum. And so it's something is universalizable when their archetype basis spans the real basis of humanity. So it's it's not things aren't always universalizable but they could hypothetically be universalizable if they could account for human uniqueness. Okay. I still need to know what it is. So like my method if you ask me how do you differentiate imagination from reality I'm going to say novel testable predictions. Make a model use the model to predict the future. You can do that accurately consistently reliably testably then you can differentiate imagination from reality. So mine is pretty universal doesn't matter no subject makes a difference whatsoever. Now what is can you give me like just pick any random person doesn't need to be me or any individual. What is the method that a generic average person should use to differentiate true beliefs from false beliefs. There's no such thing as a generic average person. Any random just the simplest one that is easy to explain. For most people would be to find a good role model and ask them to tell them what they did to get to their results. That would be for most people. Because to find a role model you're already starting on the path that you need to be on which is salt study which is like OK what kind of role model do I want. What kind of person am I going to trust to bring me to a higher level of function. You mentioned find a role model and understand your motivations something like that. And I'm not seeing how that gets us to true beliefs like for example let's say I have no role model. Does that make me incapable of finding true beliefs or if I have no motivations or just my motivation is just to find truth or something like. I don't see how that either of these are relevant to finding truth or how they can help me to find truth. Well what the person who'll be a role model does is give you a basis of beliefs that are a starting point. Then you're basically saying you can deduce your own beliefs. You don't need anyone to tell you you can just look at what's there and figure it out. Well I'm seeing how is the role model himself relevant to the finding truth thing because it seems like that's irrelevant like. The truth and in all of history that's how it was done. The truth is that people found knowledge through the tradition of Guru Shishio which is sort of like a role model IE being directly indoctrinated by someone who's already a master. And so there's not really any other way to do it other than revelation. So you can find a role model who's a bad role model right there are bad role models. You should find a new one. You got to take the onus on yourself to get the result. You guys I'm only going to accept the best and you don't want to necessarily marry yourself to this person's beliefs and say I'm going to just be a carbon copy of them. No they're the point of that person is to give you a basis of understanding from which you further refine your own understanding. Sure so but the question here is if we want to know what truth is and it's possible to find both good role models and bad role models. Then just finding a role model doesn't help us find truth we need we need something else right because the role model we could find a role model who's bad and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless we have some other. Wait till you find the one that you are reasonably sure has the truth. Well that's that's the thing we're asking for is that reasonably sure has the truth. How do you assess which one has the truth. Is it just find a role model and find your motivations. No it's got to be something else we got to use some results is the most important thing. Reputation is part of it and what they've written I guess. So Donald Trump has some pretty good results present in the United States. He's definitely written a lot there are lots of people who think he's very successful and probably he's more well educated than many of his followers so he's their role model. Where is Donald Trump is your guru you probably have pretty bad karma and hopefully you learn the lesson that he's not really fit for that role. Sure may have some successes but he's hardly a role model. Well that's the question here we want to understand how do we differentiate true beliefs from false beliefs you said find a role model we can find role models who are not very good. People can use all of them methods you just mentioned and still lead to false beliefs pretty regularly. So those don't seem like very good methods. Or this is just to be human we're sort of stuck under the boot of God we can never have what you're alluding to just an objective understanding. My method seems to work pretty good at that but you don't know what consciousness is you deny that it's an entangled photon waveform which would appear to be self evident through process of elimination from Occidental science. So if it's self evident then why did no one 2000 years come up with it that would kind of believe that they axiomatize quantum mind and Vedanta so it's it's only the post Christians who don't. So I'm just wondering like when are they going to catch up to what's ever to me forever. So again again that seems like by definition not self evidence but you can take that. It's like I'm looking at you and you're this like totally symmetric animated figure and you're composed of carbon and all bunch of other random stuff. The most carbon I look at doesn't look anything like you. So the difference between that carbon and you has to be something that is organizing you to look the way that you do. The only thing in physics that fits that bill is a photon waveform. So much they're not not not correct about physics but different topic. I have a degree in physics and I worked in applied physics for several years. I may want to get a refund but so it has nothing to do with applied electron waveforms is not correct. Wave forms aren't electron waveforms. There's lots of different kinds of things I said photon waveform photon not electron. So again photon waveforms. No, it's not. No, but doesn't get you're saying no and you have no idea if I'm right so I do I know for a lot is they want to say no. It's going to be like you need to be more skeptical skeptical about your skepticism. You're just like saying no off hop. Is that wise. Yeah, we know for a fact you're wrong so but I don't that's not the topic so the topic is, or the question I've been asking how we differentiate true beliefs from false beliefs, and you gave really bad provably false criteria of find a mentor and know your emotional biases or something like that. We don't work we can prove those do not work finding a mentor does not give you the truth, knowing your emotional biases and not give you the truth we can prove both of those very clearly. So you need some other criteria need something more than that and you said, Oh, well, it just sucks to be human because we can't come up with a better criteria than those two objectively terrible criteria and I'm like, No, we can come up with a much better criteria and which is objective independent of thoughts independent of subjectivity it's called science works really really well novel testable predictions work really really well. We've proven to be fallacies like finding a mentor feel to authority fallacy or trusting your emotions appeal to emotion fallacy. We know those don't work, but we know what does work which is science. So my method seems objectively significantly better appeals to science authority are okay, but appeals to establish authority through thousands of years of tradition are crazy and couldn't possibly be right. Yes, because one has a basis in a methodology which can be demonstrated to work one has a met basis in a methodology which can be demonstrated to not work. Science doesn't have any way of telling us whether a theory is true. Yes, it does. No, it doesn't it can only falsify a theory. There's no such thing as proving a science theory there's only a failure to disprove. And if you require 100% certainty for knowledge which is not the case it's called fallibilism you do not require certainty for knowledge so you can have knowledge without certainty, in which case we can demonstrate that evolution is true. Do we need to prove with 100% certainty. No. But again, that is that method that we have for science is infinitely better than the one you just provided. Even though all your answers are wrong big bangs wrong evolutions wrong the periodic tables not two dimensions it's three you don't understand consciousness you can't prove reincarnation you don't understand quantum mechanics you've invented an infinity fake particles that don't really exist to build a gigantic on anistic CERN machine to convince yourself how smart you are what results do you actually have to show for this quote unquote wonderful science. Computers, airplanes, vaccines the improved life expectancy the improved quality of life, everything we've ever designed and built all science. What is yours done. Given a unified field model of physics is proves a good Ellen complete a serum proven reincarnation proven the nature of consciousness given a unified field model for consciousness. I could go on for a while but I don't think you accept the premise of what I'm saying. premise with premise that you have some Frank, who just wants to use big words to sound smart. Do you have any idea how hard that would be about easier just to know something. No, no, there's a lot more cranks who pretend to know things than people who actually know things Donnie Krueger, but where did you prove any of these things like have these been proven in any scientific papers that I can I can reference. Sure entanglements been demonstrated at a macro scale. Entangled photons are being used for new quantum computers by science. There was a forum article recently that was fairly good. Well, these things are consistent with my findings I haven't published anything because it's not how I work I'd rather have one conversation. I just want to clarify so those things were all discovered by science the methodology of science not the methodology you're using so I want to know using your methodology what has your methodology produced not what has science produced so like the reincarnation thing would be great science has not done that so if you can give me some evidence of that that would be great. Sure, well you have to accept the position that the mind is a quantum computer namely a entangled photon waveform which you already said couldn't possibly be true, even though there's evidence that the body generates a mag electromagnetic field and electromagnetic fields are mediated by photons. Okay, let's go back to resurrection how does this show resurrection doesn't show resurrection you're talking about Christianity. There's no resurrection there's no zombie god reincarnation dyslexic so the RS reincarnation. Oh that's fine. Okay, so yeah it's a well does your consciousness contain energy. It is energy. Sure. So it contains energy or it is energy is energy conserved. What is told us that. So therefore reincarnation is the answer that is predicted through conservation of energy. It's just a question of what aspect of consciousness is actually reincarnated because most of us don't remember anything. But you can explain why that is. Again, you can explain why the memories are purged because our primary imperative is survival and remembering a bunch of previous lives would be more information than we would know how to deal with, because we need all of our focus on surviving in the now, or at least that's what our biology believes. Well we definitely don't we have lots of memories of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings and things so we can definitely have alternate lives in there that's perfectly fine, but I'm not getting this so this cup is made of electrons it has energy. It gets recycled into a metal beam has it reincarnated. Well I mean if you want to look at it that way. I would but I don't know why you would. You do realize your own consciousness is centralized in a way that the consciousness of the cup if we can call it that is not centralized. Your consciousness appears to emanate from this point. Correct. Sure. So it has a quality of centralization that the cup really doesn't have. Okay, so just the centralization thing reincarnate. Part of it does. So the way I explain it is you have a personality. And your thoughts are derivative of your personality your emotions are derivative of your personality and your sensations are derivative of your personality in the sense that you're the one who experiences the things that you feel it's all centralized around your personality. Okay, so let's say my. Go ahead. The first way that I would sort of tease you to kind of look at it is like, where'd your personality come from. So what materialist science wants to say is that you're like a mashup of your parents. But I think you seem to have a developed enough personality that you would essentially disagree with that position. Are you the oldest child. Yes, so our personality combination of neurology and so nature and nurture science psychology and neurology. So you're of the belief that you're basically a blank slate that your experience painted onto you. No, so neurology is determined by biology and so many of your beliefs and things are determined prior to any psychology there's no blank slate. Okay, so there's a biological pre existing imperative. And where does that come from. Biology, just your parents. So you're basically saying you're, you feel like you're a combination of your parents to mash up a random mashup of your parents you don't feel like a distinct entity from either of your parents. Sure, my consciousness is an emergent property of my brain and the biology in my brain is a result of the genes which were came from my parents and some mutation. Are you sure you believe that. So what do you how do you predict the differences between you and your siblings personalities what explains that just randomness. It's not very satisfying is it. No, it's not randomness is for deterministic factors of the genes, which can change different things in your brain Robert Sapolsky Stanford professor has gone through and showed that if you change these specific genes it has this specific effect on your personality. One of the ones I like the best is the one that causes a significantly negative impact to stress so if you have stress one time, it has a like a 10 factor of 10. And then it starts to go up exponentially for people who have this gene and so stress for them is overwhelming that caused them PTSD even if there is a child. So whereas most people it's a steady steady rate it's not exponential. So yes we do know these genes do have a very profound effect on personality in combination to the effects are the things that happen to them while their children. And what explains the distinction between the personalities of siblings. Differences in their genes can cause different effects in their brain. Differences in their genes are the same parents. Mutation. So that's what I'm saying you're back to an appeal to randomness mutation isn't any type of answer that's not how it works. The genetic record does not support a slow process and evolution it supports what's called punctuated equilibrium, which is not predicted by evolution by natural selection through mutation punctuated equilibrium and invented by what's his name forgot the guy he recently died, but yeah that's still takes a long time punctuated equilibrium takes the exact same amount of time as natural selection and random mutation. It just changes on different scales so it is there the same thing there's not like a different time scales punctuated equilibrium just means that there's a large collapse in a population so a very small subset of the population continues to reproduce and then is affected by random mutation. So, those are both parts of evolution like those. I don't, I don't know what you're saying here and so yes, those would still explain personality. I still don't understand how this is relevant to my question of how your criteria actually show us true beliefs and false beliefs or. I'm explaining to you your belief about genetic determinism is wrong and should have been self evidently wrong due to the fact that there's absolutely no insight provided by these details. Alleged revelations that have to be you have to appeal to mutation and genetic randomness. What do you mean, what do you mean that's not any type of answer like I'm not getting this so we know that this gene affects this thing in the brain which causes this personality trait, which is not how it works. What do you mean is not how I literally gave you a published academic resource that has proven this doesn't prove anything I'm afraid. You still don't have an answer as to what consciousness even is neither the disease people but you're assuming their interpretations of consciousness studies are right. I don't. That's a different question so can I use changes in genetics to tell us what personalities are going to happen. Yes. You can possibly alter aspects of the body through genetics which has to do with the mind and some to some extent but you can't fundamentally change the personality through genetic manipulation. So radiation causes genetic mutation that kills people and it causes all kinds of personality changes. Phineas Gage got a rod shoved up his brain and it completely changed its personality which was due to a specific part of the brain which you can damage through genetics and we can know for example that yes the genetics will damage this part of the brain and cause this personality trait difference. I don't understand what you're saying like just basic science would help a lot here. Okay so the basic science is that your approach is completely wrong. The mind comes first and it's an entangled photon waveform and it synchronizes to the fetus at five weeks which is what starts the heartbeat. And then the body starts to feed the mind and the mind starts to deform the body and the reason you're reincarnated to your parents is because they between the two of them shared the maximum amount of possible attributes with you which is why there's similarities between children and their parents. And this field that started you at five weeks is still something that if we had the right tools we could actually identify this field inside you right now. That would be great once you have those let me know that'll be good evidence. Well you don't really need evidence do you why does life look so radically different from non-life there's only possible one explanation which is a photon field to organize it all. It doesn't it doesn't look radically different there's no actual definition of life because when you look at biological forms and chemical reactions they look identical you can't tell the difference between them and you go to small levels so they don't look different. This pencil is very different from a turtle. Sure. There's clearly a difference between life and non-life and I'm saying it's an entangled photon waveform and that makes the predictions and it's been demonstrated that photosynthesis function on a basis of quantum mechanics. You have no reason to deny it but for some reason you want to because of this genetic determinism thing what I'm telling you is it's extremely depressive belief system. Why would you want to believe something is so totally depressing. So those are three completely unrelated facts one the biology and photosynthesis. Yes quantum mechanics has an effect on everything that's irrelevant to the points about how there's a difference between life and non-life which has nothing to do with pencils and turtles that has to do with chemical interacting systems and biological interacting systems like we can't define life there is no definition of life. I just gave you a definition you can make up one I can make up life as a potato that'll make the predictions all life will have an entangled photon waveform. You can find it even the simplest life and indeed it's this way form that distinguishes life from non-life life because I understand that the pencil has a trivial photonic way it has a trivial way form I get it. I don't know if you want to say it's photonic but it's it has some type of trivial way form. I'm not talking about that though for it to be alive it has to have a non-trivial photonic way form and the function is way form to centralize information. Okay so demonstrate this way form like show me where where can we find this what test can we do to prove this do you have any testable papers. You can look up bio bio electric field. They've definitely established that it exists. I'm just going a step further and saying it's there. It's the thing that's it that animates your body. It's the reason you don't collapse. It's the reason why you're puffed out and you know, not so biological electrical fields exist. Yes, what does this have to do with life. I'm going a step further and saying that a subset of this field is your subjective consciousness and all life will have some type of an entangled photonic field. Okay, and I can say that there's a magical leprechaun somewhere hiding in my you could say you could say that but the question is what's the difference. That's because your seems to be equally as coherent as magical leprechaun pixies. How does knowing when you reincarnate at five weeks. How does knowing where your personality comes from and why you have your parents house that was somehow linearly equivalent to my purple ponies like give me a break here purple pony. Exactly. So it's like it seems like you've made up a bunch of stuff with no evidence. Like any of this stuff. I mean what's made up trying to answer your question here so it seems like you've made up a bunch of stuff about this reincarnation at five weeks with has no evidence this biological field which has no evidence. There's nothing in science that supports any of this you just have an opinion as far as I can tell. Like what you mentioned was as you said this is all all of the science is consistent with your worldview so that's post hoc reasoning. All of science is consistent with every worldview. You can say we were created five minutes ago by leprechauns you could say the world was created 6000 years ago by Yahweh and he just made everything look like it was 13.8 billion years old or whatever. All of the past data can be explained by any worldview. We need is some novel predictions to show that your worldview has something more and just explaining all the past stuff doesn't get us anywhere we can all make up explanations purple ponies can they make up all the explanations just as well as yours can. Why should we think yours is better than purple ponies mine actually makes predictions. What are the predictions predicts that when you're sleeping the energetic center of your mind moves outside of your brain. How do you measure that. Sorry. How we measure that our energetic center moves outside our brain. What does that what does that mean how do you measure it. We have tons of studies on people sleeping where they have established the various some what do they call it REM sleep and all the different waves. Well that's on the brain you said this goes like outside of the body or something. Well the body is inside the consciousness. It's a subset. Okay I'm not understanding your prediction here so you made a prediction that the center of our energy moves somewhere to somewhere else. So you have a body right we can agree on that and then your mind encompasses your body but it has an energetic center right here and that's why it feels like our thoughts are emanating from somewhere around here right. Okay. We can all pretty much agree with that that doesn't mean consciousness comes from the brain that means that it has an energetic center in the brain that's the point of the brain is to facilitate the centralization in the mind. Okay. When you're sleeping when you're sleeping. The purpose of sleeping is to not basically electrocute your brain to uselessness because there's a lot of energy being discharged into your brain through the quantum mechanics of your mind. It's photons right photons light energy. So you get tired go to sleep and the prediction the model is that the energetic maximum should move outside of the brain. While you're sleeping outside of the brain so outside of like scientific physical brain you had to go somewhere else. Where does it go. What's the geodesic so it's the place that would take the least energy. So you're you understand the idea that your consciousness is sort of burning at your brain and your brain needs a periodic rest. Well if if your consciousness is the biological electrical signals in your brain and yes, like in materialism in the materialistic worldview then yes we need to shut down the brain so that it can heal and cool off and not overload. It's the same thing if it's a photon waveform to because both the electric and the photonic have energy in them. Either way, either way, whichever model ends up being right. You need to sleep at some point, but the idea is that when you're awake, you have an imperative to project your personality and that imperative is inhibited when you're sleeping. So your consciousness has to do some work to inhibit its subjectivity, which is why you so immediately in. So here's here's how it predicts things when when you go to sleep you fall immediately into the deepest part of sleep. And then you're slowly coming out of it. And that's consistent with the idea of a system that is like okay we've got to fix it goes in takes you to the maximum of inhibition lowest. I'm not following not following sorry to interrupt but so you know how it works when you sleep the different way for it's not way for this frequencies of sleep or yeah I don't know how they say it delta yes but I don't understand your. What you said was is that you make a prediction that the center of energy of your body or something changes. The center of energy of your mind should move out of your brain moves out of your brain so and then you said something about geodesics which is the shortest distance between two points on the curve surface I have no idea what that. No geodesic is just the shortest distance between two points so it's like your body's going to expend minimum energy to do this. So exactly what I said but where so you said the center of energy thing moves so it starts in location a moves to location be not location a is here. Where is location be can you point to it please. The prediction of my model would be that it's a donut around your eyes. Okay, so so that's the geodesic right goes here. That's that would be the geodesic. Because if it can't be here and it has to fulfill the minimum energy solution it's going to go right beside it but it's going to maintain that circular tubular shape. How can we demonstrate that there is this new energy thingy over here. How do we do that because I've never seen this donut that would be on that would be unethical wouldn't it. Well, you can infer it from the measurements of people's brainwaves when they're sleeping because if they have longer freak or longer wavelength. That means there's less energy because wavelength is inverse to frequency and frequency determines energy. What do you think those wavelengths are measuring the mind what in the mind the brain what in the brain. Well, it's a waveform and waveforms have more than one frequency but at least one frequency right so it's measuring one of those frequencies. So it's a measuring an electrical signal that goes up and down. It's photons. The eegs are measuring. It's a photon field. So a photon field can then excite an electric field, but a photon field on its own has no charge. Okay, so eegs what they're measuring in the brain is an electrical signal in the brain. There's nothing outside of the brain they're measuring they don't. That's why they put the little stickers on your head and not outside of your head. Are you saying that if they put the stickers above your head they're going to get a stronger reading because it's closer to this but donut thingy. I don't know how they would be measuring the light form because they may only be able to measure the electrical correlates of the light form. Okay, so that how would you measure because it's unethical because it would be interfering with someone's consciousness and that would be unethical. Well, we can measure it while it's in the brain, can't we? You can measure correlates of consciousness. You can measure my guess what it is is that the brain is generating the consciousness and that waveform is something to do with the energy going into the mind from the brain. Because that's what the purpose of the body is, right? Okay, so energy into the mind. Sure, so my question was how do you measure the donut thingy? You're saying that you make a prediction that it starts here and the moves here. And that's I want to see the here thingy. So I grant it's here. I'm telling you it's unethical. That's fine. So you can't do it. You make a prediction that you cannot verify. You can verify it by looking at the EKG or electrocardiograms and saying or whatever they are the brain grams. You can look at those and say there's a longer wavelength, which means a lower frequency, which means less energy. Yeah, so I'm saying how do you show that that measurement from the EEG shows that there's something outside of your brain that has moved outside of your brain isn't just in your brain. I suppose it wouldn't directly show that but that the existence of that field is what allows for the rest of the thing to make sense. So I could say the existence of magical leprechauns controlling my brain is what causes the measurement. The brain model has no centralization potential function. You cannot tell me how the brain centralizes consciousness. Centralization potential function. That is not a those are all adverbs. That doesn't form a sentence. You need a centralization. What is it that holds it all together? It's not an electric field. It is. It's literally the centralization the consciousness itself is a system of electric signals in your brain that the collection of all those signals. That's the centralization. It's not in the neurons. It's not in the the thalamus. It's not in the spinal cortex. It is literally the combination of all the electrical things happening at the same time that is it. So it is centralized. But I'm ready to go to the community. I'm burned out like this is so much so much. Well, thank you for. Thank you for showing up and for. I appreciate hearing what what your points are and I hope you'll give what I'm saying a chance and I'll say to the people in the audience. Hopefully they got some good out of this conversation. Yeah, you're pleasant to talk to you're not mean or anything. So I do appreciate you being kind into locker and I enjoy talking with you. You seem cool too. And like I definitely am not trying to push you to change your beliefs. I just thought that maybe I could convince you of the validity of my God and maybe one day you'll try it on and see how it fits. I'm going to need a much more thorough definition first. Super, super, super juicy and want to say folks, we are thrilled to have you here. What reminds you that modern day debate is a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from Christian, atheist, pantheist. You name it folks, we're glad you're here and we're going to jump into these juicy questions from you. So thanks so much for your questions folks. And boy, I am so excited first because Tom and Jennifer, I have to tell you so much positive feedback. People have really enjoyed this conversation and they're going to, I think they're going to continue to enjoy it. A lot of juicy questions, many, many to come, but a lot of big juicy things coming up. So bubblegumgon says first, calculators require a mind to exist. Awful argument. I think that's for you, Jennifer. I was trying to point to the fact that Cogito ergo sum is actually a fallacy. So the fact that you think it's not proof that you exist. It's actually the other way around. So I just wanted to bring attention to that, but perhaps my example could have been better. I'll think about it for next time. Thanks. Jason Hancock. Thanks for your question says, but why don't you believe in God, Tom? Maybe they're new. I do believe in God. The chair is the God. Juicy and Alex Rose. Thanks for your question says, if God is real, then why did he give me man boobies? Thanks for that, Alex. We definitely appreciate that. Duane Burke, thank you very much for your, says Tom's chair killed Carol Baskin's ex-husband. Could be. And this one coming in from Hydrox says, intellectuals don't have much common sense unless they get it from a book. I don't know who that's supposed to insult because you're both intellectual types. So maybe both of you. The next one, the cry daddy zero two nine. If you want to respond, you can, but to that last one, otherwise I'll jump to the next one. I don't know if you care to. Next one. The cry daddy zero two nine says, pantheism just saw Thor and said, quote, he can hammer me. Oh my gosh. Okay, Alan Bipri. Thanks for your question. Jennifer, that was a delicious word salad, giving you some heat from the chat. Jennifer, what is your answer to these people who claim that you're creating word salad? I don't really know what to say because I've spent years trying to make this stuff as simple as possible. Like I absolutely love religion and really gives me a lot of benefits. And I've tried to present it in a way that atheists really can't disagree with because I know a lot of people are atheists. And so I've done a lot of work in science and I think it speaks for itself, but we don't really get a chance to go into exactly how the model makes the predictions that it does and strength of it. But perhaps we could do that at a later time and it'll become more self evident because T jump still seems to be a little uncomfortable with some of the suppositions or possibly all of them. Gotcha, and also want to remind you folks, just a friendly reminder 99.9% of you thank you you do a fantastic job naturally of attacking the arguments instead of the person. I appreciate that for the other 1% want to remind you we do want to obviously encourage you to attack the arguments instead of the person and this one coming in from Farron Salas. Thanks so much says sounds like Jen's argument are. The epitodes basically soft history combined with Deepak Chopra isms in an attempt to conflate God with or as the universe Jennifer is this true that are you borrowing anything from Deepak. No, I am not. I am just trying to share my understanding through concepts that you're already familiar with like photons and all the things from science but it's bit of an uphill battle because not everyone has the same ideas about what science is and so I appreciate people continuing to come with questions and hopefully I'll wipe away all your doubts before long. Gotcha, and thank you very much for this question coming from Amy Newman says after show after the debate at my channel and that is linked in the description folks and Amy will be here tomorrow tomorrow we're going to have a juicy one folks in the future whether or not crayons children should be able to take puberty blockers. So it's going to be a juicy political type debate tomorrow that you don't want to miss folks. And Amy also says is Amy will be in that debate that's why I mentioned that. So Amy says hi T jump question for Jennifer what would it take to convince you that the concept of a God is not real. Well the concept you can argue against whether a concept is real, you can argue about whether it's literally real, and I'm identifying God is the universe so that's real. Pretty demonstrably real. And you're not really coming back with a counter thesis so what it would take for me to change my mind would be somebody who had a better scientific theory than me I one that made more predictions. Gotcha and jumping into this next question. Thanks so much Robert summer says Jennifer how many gods do you believe in. I have ideas about God out there, some of them are worth studying for moral lessons. How many really exist as a matter of axioms, but my in my own understanding I identify one God, and that's the universe. You got it and thank you very much for this question coming in from raw nakedness says you can avoid subjectivity via epistemic criticism of a conceptual system as a whole from the standpoint of another conceptual system. Think that's for you Jennifer. I'm not sure if that's a question. So yeah, super chat we let people if they want to ask a question or raise a quick objection, either or. Just comment that you can't. I don't think you can effectively disprove someone else's position without offering a counter thesis. So, in order to do that in order to disprove someone's position. Yes, it may be true that you do need a counter thesis and that just saying no no no no no. What will only go so far and actually convincing people. And thank you very much for this question coming in from high derp acts says where does he jump get his morals from the chair. Next up writer john buck boy you do believe in objective morality though so let's humor them. I'm sure so I think I use the evidence of moral interest more progress to create a principle that describes the pattern in those things then I use the principle to infer what the maximization of this principle would be and then from that I tried to conclude what the ontology of morality would be and I think it's a higher order emergent property in nature. And then in from writer john buck says what gives I thought Tom was already a naturalistic pantheist. Why is he arguing for atheism. Naturalistic pantheism is not the same thing as pantheism. And yes, I am. I will technically take the position of naturalistic pantheism for the sake of the argument. But yeah, it's just that it's just science naturalist pantheism is just science. Wellington thanks says unrelated to the debate so feel free not to read just wanted to support the channel and put in a request for a Bitcoin debate. Thank you very much for your support of the channel seriously and we are actually open to a Bitcoin debate. I've like pondered potential people that we might invite so it might actually happen. And Robert Summers and we're shooting for the stars or somebody that if we got him on I'd be like I can't believe it. But anyway, Robert Summers thanks for your question says what is your worldview is answer to biodiversity. I think that's for Jennifer but I'm not sure. Oh maybe we can both answer it. Well biodiversity is not a question. It's a word so the way to look at it is through the lens of minimizing suffering and understanding that there's more than one way to minimize suffering. And all of life is conscious. And so the best outcome will be taking into account the most widest array of consciousness and understanding how other people are happy we're all so happy. Same with animals and everything else and so biodiversity would be considered a good thing and something that you'd want to promote as much as possible, without impeding the progress of civilization because you kind of have to negotiate between the needs of civilization and the needs of the greater natural sphere in which we exist so it's an important question, but it would take quite a long time to give you a full answer so I hope that's a good introduction. Gotcha and this one coming in from do appreciate it. Robert Summers says this debate can be summed up by Hitchens razor Jennifer you can redefine science as we know it and you want to hold that in why prove any of this. I would have to say, what are your conditions for proof, because a lot of people think seem to think you can prove things scientifically can only disprove things scientifically. And then when it comes to accepting a proof, you have to have what are called axiom so it's like. These are my conditions for which I would accept a proof and stick to those, and then someone can rise to that standard but if you're just obstinately saying you want proof you're basically playing a game of perpetual goal post shifting, where you can always just retreat to well it's just as plausible as the purple pony or it's like you've not in a position to us to assert the likelihood of the truth of my statements if you don't really understand them are you. Gotcha and this one coming in from the Batman also throwing some heat says Tom getting beat worse than usual so next logical plausible probable by the way I have not mentioned folks both Tom and Jennifer are linked in the description so you want to hear more in terms of their content in terms of their ideas. What are you waiting for you can click on their links right now and we really do appreciate our debaters they are the lifeblood of the channel folks and so logical plausible probable Tom's twin brother John Maddox says so James doesn't have a blazer on I took it off earlier. I get really sweaty when we ever tech problems says this isn't normal. Was he getting action before the debate. Nasty guy says inquiring minds James and inquiring mind nasty guy we you know we keep him around though. Next up Robert summer says. Oh, can go to for a man says a question for Jennifer please show the photonic wave field in a virus are viruses alive. The way I understand it is that they're kind of like not alive, per se, their crumbs, lop top of life that are part of the life cycle, but can't self replicate without a DNA based organism. I get a virus can't replicate just other viruses and that's kind of your condition for for life so whether it has or doesn't have a trivial photonic wave form would be a matter of whether it's in proximity to a living form. So, I unfortunately don't have my normal demonstration here I would do one but it all sort of slides in together through the light field, but no I don't think it necessarily has one if it's just an inner virus and this is why you can crystallize viruses. Gotcha, and thank you very much for this one. Insect facet says Jennifer, can you point to a working useful device that you built using your discoveries mainstream science built my car and my computer etc. This is not a regressive Luddite appeal to modern technology being bad I'm simply trying to elicited the fact that a lot of people don't have a particularly fulfilled spiritual life, and that maybe having a car and an iPhone and a soy drink anytime you want me there's a little more than that than actually leading what you would consider in retrospect be a good life. I'm not anti technology. To the point where you know I just don't want people to be unnecessarily suffering and yes want in use of technology with no consideration for the results will lead to a lot of suffering through environmental degradation. I love Luddite love technology but that cannot be the supreme goodness that we're all aspiring to so it's just going to lead to idiocracy with a bunch of trash piles everywhere. Gotcha and this one from raw nakedness says tried googling quote entangled photon waveform unquote, all I got was some weird blog about monad monadic physics and a. A look up photon quantum computers there's been some research that has come out of that recently I don't have any like links on me right now but this is a cutting edge research that's happening that they have had success in using using entangled photons to start to build quantum computers so stay tuned because will definitely be seeing interesting things coming out of that in the near future. Laura says question for Jennifer are you familiar with active MRI. I think active MRI has already shown a lot of your ideas are very, very incorrect. Well, you'd have to tell me what exactly MRI just electromagnetism interfering with the body, which functions on an electromagnetic basis is somehow contradiction of my theory so it's not clear what the contradiction is. And thank you very much for your question coming in from bubblegum guns as lol the calculator chat was for Tom. Oh Tom will give you a chance to respond to that pulling it up. What was the question. This is from it was like the first one they said calculators require a mind to exist. Awful argument. So I think he's saying that you made the assertion that calculators require a mind to exist. She mentioned that in order to do calculations you acquire my and I said calculators can do calculations without a mind. Gotcha. And this one coming in from insect facet says, Ah, Tom, but how do you know your chair isn't the devil checkmate. I have a divine revelation that gives me the ultimate grounds of supremely important knowledge and without it you just can't ground knowledge. It's logically impossible that any other world you can ground knowledge without the chair. Got you on this one coming in from captain IV appreciate it says James looking dapper. Thank you. Says billions of neurons. I didn't just make that up and edited, but sounded like I did billions of neurons, not photons conduct the electrical signals Jennifer. Look up split brain patient studies for emergent consciousness hypotheses. Take a basic intro. Let's see. They say this is like basic intro to psych stuff. And what's been the result of the implementation of this belief system. Oh, right. A bunch of unhealthy people falling apart and who want to die and who don't believe in anything. I think maybe I'll stick with what I know works rather than speculation that I know it's just going to run people into the ground. Juicy. S I P says. Good job, James. I appreciate that friend. And I will pass on that good job to our speakers as we do appreciate that they have done a phenomenal job debating tonight. And also you have a couple more questions. Hang in there. Kathy, let's see. I might have missed one or two. Sorry, folks, the Chow's moving fast on me, but Kathy says for Jennifer, why do you choose the pantheism label over the position of pantheism? And do you find any distinction between the two terms? I think pantheism is the idea that God exists outside of space and time, but it's sometimes conflated with the idea of an extra universal God. And those two things aren't the same. So I don't want to leave the door open to erroneous misconstructions of my position. So I really do want to just stick with pantheism. It's simple. It's not like pantheism, the burden of proof shifts away from you because you're positing something that may not be so easy to prove exists versus the universe. Who's going to argue with that? No one other than the brain and the jar guys and no one really cares what they think anyway. Juicy. And I want to remind you, folks, whether you're watching on Twitch or YouTube is we're live on both right now. Don't forget to hit that subscribe or on Twitch, that follow button as we are pumped for this Wednesday's upcoming debate between Dr. Michael Brown and a postate prophet on whether or not there is a God. That's going to be a juicy one. But apricot sloth has a question saying do viruses which meet some criteria for life, but not all criteria have an entangled photon wave form and a consciousness. I think we might have asked this one before and at this point it would appear like that they don't but that they are part of the cycle of life and that they are what allow for recombinance of DNA within the animal to happen. It's refreshing up your DNA. It's the what it's the mechanism for changing attributes of DNA through sort of sort of like getting stronger through fighting. Gotcha. I'm sorry. Sorry if that's a bad explanation there. Thank you for the question though. This one from bubble gum gun says you can't use something made by a mind in order to deny a mind. Are you Tom. That's stupid like we can use things made by human minds to deny other things are made by other minds just fine. Gotcha. This one coming in from Kangaroo for just now asked Jennifer do you choose to believe your pseudoscience is that the abbreviation for pseudo is just it's just miss it's misspelled it's supposed to be PSE you deal. Gotcha. Do you believe in your pseudoscience because you believe the current scientific research has led to current societal problems. I don't think current scientific research has led to current societal problems. That's a much deeper question that is more largely informed by religion and science. Science has largely helped us to recover a more sane worldview but there are issues with it and I would say that some of it is obviously quite good entropy. A lot of the work done with for you transforms tons of math stuff is awesome. Some of it's doesn't stand up to scrutiny. So the fact that some of it was right in the first place is the only reason I was able to turn it into something that was 100% right. So definitely don't believe that the current scientific research is the cause of current social problems as more of a almost tangential to it. Thanks for the question. Gotcha. And so folks do want to remind you that our guests are linked in the description. We really do appreciate both Jennifer and Tom. It's been a really good time tonight. And by the way, folks, the fun doesn't end because tomorrow night as I mentioned we're going to have a very juicy topic coming up but want to say one last thank you to Tom and Jennifer. It's been a true pleasure hosting you tonight. Thank you so much for having me. It was awesome to talk to you, Tom and James. Thanks for hosting. There's an after show of my channel Church of Entropy. If anyone wants to check it out, that would be great. Dubud will be there and really appreciate the opportunity. Hopefully you can come back again. Thanks. 100%. And Jennifer's after show basically channel. Is it on your channel, Jennifer? The after show? Yes, it is. We'll be going live in a few minutes. You betcha. So that's linked in the description folks. And then Amy is also hosting an after show as well. And with that, folks, you can have two tabs open. You can be at both after shows. So I'll be back in just a moment to let you know about upcoming sweet stuff as we are pumped about the future folks. Be right back in just a moment. Ladies and gentlemen, really fun one tonight. I'm so glad. So much support in the channel. Like so much people in the live chat. Just so much positivity. And I cannot thank our guests enough. Like I said, the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel. We appreciate them. And so huge thanks again to Jennifer and Tom who are linked in the description. And also folks, oh my gosh, tons of stuff. So we've got about a debate every single day this week. And a lot of you because it seems like I told Jennifer and Tom before we started as like it seems like it's been ages since I streamed as I was setting everything up because the last stream we had was on Friday. And so Saturday you obviously know that the debate that we are still excited to host and we still I have no I have very little doubt that it's going to happen this month. Namely the debate that you're seeing at the bottom right of your screen. We are pumped to host this bad boy. It's going to be epic and want to say thanks everybody for throwing in to the crowd fund to help make this happen. And we also amazingly met our stretch goal. You guys, we are excited about the future. Believe me, things are just going to keep getting bigger and better. And we want to say thank you for making that possible like for real it is a total community effort like I'm just a guy sending out emails like for real you guys seriously make this a blast just by being here being a fun chat being a lively bunch. I do appreciate it so much. You guys have no idea. I am pumped about the future. We have big things in store and so want to let you know what some of them right now. But before I let you know about any of the ones that I had not yet mentioned I'll let you know though that basically one of the speakers was ill on Saturday. Woke up and I think they had mentioned that they woke up feeling things were bad and basically even went to the emergency room I don't want to share like too much information but long story short. I have not approached them for like a new date because I don't not yet but I plan on in the next day or two I will. The reason though is I'm like I just want them to get better and to be able to rest and not feel like I'm bugging them about a new date for the debate. So I do like I said think that it's going to happen this month theoretically within the next two weeks maybe I don't know but I'll keep you updated on that. And so thank you so much though for understanding as you know sometimes life happens and we just hope that the debaters are OK. And in this case that's like why I said we just told the debater we're like absolutely let's just reschedule like we want you to get plenty of rest. So we are excited about or excited about other exciting debates. Let me tell you about those in just a moment. But first want to say hi to you in the old chat get to say hello it's fun media hits. Thanks for coming by as well as Dee Weezy glad you're here. Hannah Anderson thanks for all you do as a moderator and all of your support. Perfect one thanks for dropping in bubblegum guns has amazing and you are right about that. Henry Hanson glad you made it as well as in hacks. Good to see you and Dave Gar pumped. Thanks for dropping in King 101. We're glad you're here as well as Lily Aga thanks for all of your support seriously all of your moderating everything else and then the old twitch chat. Pardon my delay but Ozzie and thanks for gifting subs tonight that really is encouraging and I'm pumped you guys as believe me we are excited that the twitch is growing. So yeah like I said hit that follow button if you're partying in the old twitch chat right now as we're exciting that we are growing there. And also if you're watching on twitch and maybe you're like you know I like twitch but I like YouTube better. Well want to let you know we are streaming on YouTube at the same time. So I'll throw the YouTube link into the old twitch chat as you might be wondering like I was like how do I get over there to the YouTube stream of this debate. I just put it in the twitch chat but knife in thanks for coming by am I saying it right as well as Amy Newman good to see you and second horizon and end of SD. Thanks for dropping in as well as H Jasper eager to see you again. Matt man prime thanks for coming by as well as Apophis Rex. Thanks for dropping in Jeremy love glad to have you here and Church of entropy Jennifer thanks for coming by see there in the old chat. Third finger from the right thanks for coming by as your epidermis is showing of course I know that Simpsons reference. I am a huge Simpsons fan nobody's a bigger Simpsons fan than me so yeah we could we should do some Simpsons quotes but general balls at good to see you since those lights reflecting on modern database glasses are wild. Did you notice folks new lighting and I'm still perfecting the lighting this I'm far from knowing anything about lighting in terms of like a good quality picture and all that good stuff. So we are using for the first night the ring light and let me show you if you've never seen this type of light before really cool you guys so. Huge thank you to David as a gift to the channel had sent this and so we are excited to improve you could say our tech and I'm fixing this right now to where now it maybe is better. Let me know if you're like James I'm like learning how these work does that look a little better let me know new to this. I'm a work in progress folks but stripper liquor good to see you and said yes that's right I am going to pin Jennifer's after show as well and there's always or not always but often times more than one after show like I said. More than one tab open you can be at both parties at the same time so the Internet makes some things possible that you just couldn't do in real life and then human girl good to see you. Let something shine come we're glad you're here thanks for coming by and then Riley asked good to see you thanks for all of your work you do as a model. I want to say huge thank you to the moderators Brooke Chavez heat shield sideshow nav Chris Gammon. Hannah Anderson like there are so many moderators that do a fantastic job and we are so thankful to have that many moderators and so we really do appreciate that. Then Jeremy loves as James you have to send in money for a question no actually tonight we actually read several questions that were just standard questions in the chat. If you tag me with at modern day debate that is the way to get your question in the list now like once in a while I miss them but I try to get them. Oftentimes though I got to be honest just to give you a heads up we do prioritize the super chats and sometimes if the debate goes long. I do want to respect the time the debaters so like sometimes I will we don't always get to standard questions in other words sometimes we just read the super chats and sometimes we don't even read all the super chats. In that case like I said folks if you've ever had your super chat missed. You can always email me at modern day debate at gmail.com I can Venmo or PayPal the money back because we really do we know that you you want it to be read on air and like that's. That makes sense so that's why it's like well hey like if you do email me and let me know if I missed it then I want to send it back because I don't want to leave you out to dry like that but we do yeah the reason though is like. We're thankful for our guests and so long story short we always want to make sure that we get him out of here at a decent time because sometimes it's amazing. We'll have like these like a three hour debate and like an hour and a half almost or maybe an hour is like questions and so I'm like I got to let him out of here sometime. But anyway Amanda thanks for all that you do as a moderator as well. And also Steve Coat good to see you as. Ratha Ratha Ratha yeah let me try that again. As Ratha Ratha Zala thank you for coming by we are glad that you're with us and so want to let you know now folks. Yeah and he said I hope Matt and Kenny are OK you think that the debate will happen I definitely think it'll happen and so we do really appreciate Matt and Kenny. And being like I don't have any doubts about their them wanting to do the debate I think it's going to be a great discussion. It's technically I got to be I got to level with you it's it's a debate but more so like because there are still openings like that makes it a little bit less. More toward the debate than discussion but there is substantial discussion where it's like arguably more discussion than debate and so I'm pumped for it though not to try to be pedantic and correct you. I'm the only reason I'm saying that is just because I think it's going to be a really friendly easy going dialogue which is really cool because we want the speakers like tonight was a friendly easy going dialogue. There's a little bit of teasing and stuff but you know it's like not bad and then Farron Salas says thanks James the debaters thank you Farron for all of your support we're glad you're here and then. I'm catching up with chat two seconds I'm almost there folks it's moving fast. Thank you Brooke for saying thank you I mean it's my pleasure it's always fun for me just to be here. And so YouTube Surgeon General says what show was the Simpsons first on before it's first season aired Wow that's a good question I honestly. Let's see what show was the Simpsons first on before it's first season aired I actually don't know that I'll admit that that's pretty juicy question I can't wait to hear the answer. Brooke Chavez says smash that like button that's true folks if you enjoy this debate if you're like yeah all right you know go ahead and hit that like button as we do appreciate it that encourages me it makes me more motivated when I see that people are like engaged and they're enjoying the channel that motivates me more to put more debates on and also higher quality debates so feel free to hit that good old like button. And Louis Braille Giles says it's bright it is a bright light you're right about that and we're still perfecting it I'm going to try to build a what are those called like the box lights you know like I'm going to try to build one. No joke and I'm going to try to build it out of my like little like desk lamp it's going to be cool I'll show you guys it's like a fun little craft project wonder crab good to see you thanks for your kind words as thank you James thank you I appreciate that my friend that means a lot. And he she'll says when you moved around to show the ring light your audio fell away off if you ever have to move around just know that your current Mike will lose you that's good to know. And then Captain Ivy says hope you're doing better James keep up the great work thank you I appreciate that man I was pretty exhausted last week. And I'm surprised that I feel like pretty energized right now it's weird because before I got before I started to be honest like a half hour before the debate I was like shot. Must be dinner I had dinner right before but pancake of destiny says you lost the face expression battle to jump tonight how do you feel. That's right Tom has a lot of different expressions and the one and only row says definitely not glad with him James I will be sending a heated letter to pasta Mike I don't know who you're talking about definitely not glad you're not with who I don't know but. Let's see. Let's farm good to see you Mr. P. Are you here I hope you're doing well buddy. And then Ron nakedness says I like smacking the dislike button as long as you smack it twice in a row. And then YouTube Surgeon General says the Tracy Almond show on HBO actually you know what folks you may have noticed I mean if you're looking at the dislikes you're like well we got five dislikes. Oh it's brutal. It's because we have five viewers from Australia. Okay. That's why now also a street cred to Timmy oh I think it was Timmy over that joke but Ron nakedness says Bart's voice actor is a Mormon. I had no idea you serious and Amanda says favorite Simpsons character. Oh that's a good question man probably I mean probably Homer Homer is like the I get a kick out of stupid selfish. Characters like Michael Scott and Homer have a lot in common if you think about it Jeremy loves James you're awesome. Thanks for all the debates. Thank you Jeremy love your kind words seriously that means a lot and this is fun. I really do appreciate it. It is a blast and we appreciate the guests. It's hard to emphasize that enough and then Surgeon General says the Tracy Almond show on HBO you serious. I didn't know that that's pretty interesting Bruce Wayne says I couldn't hit or smash the button but I did click it. Thank you for clicking it. I hope you clicked it good and hard and Wesley Curry says Wesley Curry the second. Is that how it said we're glad you came by as well as Irish man good to see you says LOL much love from Australia. Thanks for your support with those likes and then let's see AP. Thanks for dropping in as well as Thomas MacArthur. We're glad to have you here. That's funny says put the light behind your head. You will be a Saint James. That's so funny. I wonder if it'll actually look like that. I can't help but be curious. I mean my petty curiosity. Oh it's like I don't look to me it looks like blurry. I want to see if it actually like look you know but anyway I'm reading the comments and I always love it. I always like to get to just see what you guys are saying. But let me know if you have thoughts if you have things that you want to say and you're like hey let me know. Oh the one and only row says dude you totally misrepresented me. I was totally saying that I'm the lame one not you are you talking to me. I don't know if you're talking to me or somebody else but believe me if you're hanging out here you're not lame and I gotta tell you believe me folks. We Brian Griffin says do you like family guy. I've like some family guy stuff but it's like the Simpsons and the office are by far my favorite shows of all time. And then let's see here. I think King 101 is right. He says something tells me the number of dislikes come from non audiences or trolls. I think that yeah probably non audiences namely we do have some haters folks believe me like there really are and they're a small percent. So like don't feel discouraged like when I bring up that we have haters. I'm not saying it as a means of like being like oh this is bad. I in a way I mean folks we're doing something big here. We're doing something epic here we're providing a platform a neutral one fully neutral. So there are no videos. It's not like later tonight you're going to see a video come out at 11 o'clock where that's like five minutes for most of you because you're in the East Coast. But you're not going to see a video come out where it's like hey here's why so and so in tonight's debate was really correct and the other person was wrong. You'll never see that and you'll never see you know any of that it's pure debates here baby. You can let your mind rest easily with the fact that modern day debate only has maybe one or two like kind of ideas that were like hey we'll openly push this one debate is valuable. People can learn a lot through debate because you have the two speakers trying to bring their trying to bring their best arguments forth. And so there's kind of like an efficiency to it in terms of your learning because they're going to bring their what they think is their best at least. Nobody's perfect at recognizing that but nonetheless the other thing is we want to give everybody a fair shot like we do believe in that. And so that's why we're like when I see some people who are like why do you platform so and so I'm going to go cry in my cornflakes and I'm like wow very sad. The reason I think it's sad is it's like hey we'll give everybody a shot and I know it's controversial. But when we bring on somebody like when they're giving a view that some would consider out of this world like sometimes we get flack for hosting flat earthers. I would say hey if we are going to really walk the walk in terms of being tolerant we're going to have to do that. We're going to give everybody a fair shot and my thing is I'm like hey I'm going to take the heat and the funny thing is believe me folks when I see the haters. All of the losers and haters when I see it because once in a while on Twitter blah blah blah people go modern day debate. I get more motivated and I get excited because for me I'm like hey if we were doing something that was kind of like lame or non special you could say nobody would really care right. But it's natural I mean when we're doing something big when we have a broad gigantic vision namely to provide a level playing field for everybody to make their case on that neutral platform. Hey people are going to get upset but we're excited about it it's a big vision and so we're going to fill it we're going to carry it out and it's going to be epic. Insect facet says you've had debates on lots of weird stuff big foot that's another one how about narcissism or at least its successor the cathart the cathart religion maybe I don't know. The one thing is I'm like I don't know if people would know what it's about I'm not sure the truth is there is a there is a truth to the idea that. So yeah I don't know long story if you if you're serious about it you can email me and it lets you know there's usually an automatic sent email that it'll send to everybody that just lets people know like what the. Typical conditions are for what we look for in a debater as we are becoming a little bit more you could say stringent a little bit more strict in terms of what we want. One is we always kind of getting more strict we've grandfathered some people in like Nephilim free never has to use a camera. But nonetheless and there are a couple of others that we don't require you know if team skeptic does want to use a camera I'm okay with that because team and Nephilim free have helped us a lot. When we were small channels like they were willing to come on and that helped us a lot and we're thankful. But for new people it is yeah it's a little bit tougher now we're saying hey you know we need you to use a camera that kind of thing but Thomas MacArthur says have you done a debate on the Loch Ness Monster. No we haven't I would actually be open to it and frankly I'd actually like enjoy it I like juicy topics like that. Bellis Breckenridge says smash that like I agree smash it smash it good and hard and then I got to run in just a little bit because oh man this week's been really busy I don't know if I told you I'm still moving. So it's been like with work like I've got to do comprehensive exam prep so I've got this exam coming up at the end of the year it's going to be gigantic and I've got to prep for it like pretty much almost every day I try to. It's gigantic and the idea is that as well as trying to get research stuff in and then you know modern day debate. I have like so little time to where at the end of the day I like do a little bit of like my moving and stuff and like taking stuff out of the box and then. Usually in the morning I try to do a little bit but oh man it's been really busy I haven't gotten to play Zelda Ocarina of Time for like a week. That's how busy it is you guys Sunday worship good to see you and then Steve Coat thanks for coming by says measure and success in haters. It's true I get I get a lot of jollies from the haters so I am honestly I appreciate your guys is kind words when I bring up the haters I appreciate that you guys are super supportive. And I hope you don't think that I'm like trying to make it sound as if like I'm a victim I'm thinking like if we got haters we're doing something big. It's going it's inevitable that it's going to happen that we're going to have some haters and so I hope you know that I'm not trying to complain or make myself out to be a victim. You guys are super like supportive and frankly like 99% of people are actually very supportive of the channel. Whenever I tell people in real life like about modern day debate they're like hey that's a cool idea man like that's great you're doing that so I'm like super encouraged but. Insect Vest says well I'm an atheist anyway so I couldn't do it justice I just think Gnostic versus Christian might be a lot of fun that could be. I'm open to it I like that it's new that's for sure and then and hacks says good luck with your exam James I'm sure you'll ace it and get back to the important things like Zelda. That's funny I appreciate that how long good to see you as well as Brian Steven says you need to play some Zelda Breath of the Wild. It is life changing oh you know what guess who else is saying they're playing Zelda Breath of the Wild last time I think it was the last time we were streaming even. I think it was raw neck and this but yeah I'm a huge Zelda fan and then Riley S says Ocarina of Time I didn't know this about you James oh yeah I'm a huge Ocarina of Time person like I could probably play that game over and over. I liked Majora's Mask too and Steve Coat thinks you're kind of weird it's funny and then sorry guys I had to go in a minute but. Razor of Worst is fun to beat James would you would love a pro wrestling versus MMA debate would be cool if debaters could do a promo video WWF style before each debate. Keep it with a good word that would be cool and then Riley S says I was a Nintendo kid lol. I'm deaf you mean like the classic Nintendo and then thanks Silver Harlow for dropping in good to see you again Mike Durant says do you require the debaters to have a YouTube channel no we don't. There are other ways of like if you email like there's ways you can try to work it out there's like different like ways that we try to make something work and then. Nicholas Petrus good to see you and human girl and raw nakedness I'm convinced are the same person is anybody else convinced of this or am I the only person that's thought this this whole time you guys let me know because I'm like maybe I'm just totally wrong. In terms of like this but insect facet says Castlevania Symphony of the Night Man Castlevania trust me I played let me is Castlevania. Trying to remember which one that was because I did play the first Castlevania. It on Nintendo 64 I know that there are older ones that came up before that so I'm trying to remember Symphony of the Night OK so that was on PlayStation and it looks cool I don't deny that. Castlevania was a fun game like I did get really into Castlevania and I actually did beat. I think it was with I'm trying to remember which character I was but anyway I do like Castlevania and then Brian Griffins this can't lie I'm a beta that's right. I'm not saying I'm not agreeing that you're a beta I'm just like that you brought up the word beta so we could say Jesse Lee Peterson terms or phrases and then pancake of destiny says Ocarina of time best game ever I think you're right it honestly is so fun. Riley S says no just Nintendo games in general I got a replot replay the old Zelda's I never played the newer ones for some reason that's funny. I didn't know that Riley S and I'm thinking about this this is super interesting and then oh that's right the moon in Majora's Mask was scary. Brian Stevens says write a down write a down let me try to remember is that a tune from I'm trying to remember what write write a down because I know I play that like yeah OK write a down so that's definitely a song on the Ocarina I'm trying to remember what it was because I know I play that song a lot and it's one of the few I've got memorized. Is it the song of time or no maybe it's the song of the sun song. Anyway it's it's the one that I think you use to move the big blue boxes. And so yeah I am pumped though OK song of time thanks Brian but anyway I've got to go folks sorry it's a really busy week otherwise I'd honestly love to stay longer. It's like if I can get through this week of like all this moving stuff it's did I tell you I'm not trying to brag but I am really proud of myself. I didn't I was kind of like at first I was like I don't know if like if I could do that I purchased a used washer and dryer and I have so far installed the washer and it works great which is exciting. It's like a really old it's pretty old but hey that's how I like it. I'm very frugal if any of you knew in my real life like if you ask Tom you know when Tom and I used to travel for debates and stuff like I'm like Tom maybe wants to go to like I want to go to Panera and I'm like no no no McDonald's for the $1 McChicken that's where we're going Tom. So I am very frugal I don't know if Tom really likes Panera I can't remember. I remember did you guys ever see on Instagram there's a picture of Tom at Chick-fil-A when I took Tom to Chick-fil-A. Oh man but yeah and I got I got to go in a minute but anyway it's so hard to leave I just enjoy this you guys you guys it's it's fun. He chills as I'm wondering what a useful Bitcoin debate would cover. I mean it exists and it and is being used there's no debate about that is the question should it exist. Yeah he chills so this is what I would like to get. Don't get your hopes up because the odds of us getting him are like slim to none but you never know. I would hope to get I'm going to reach out to I'm going to try to reach out to Warren Buffett because Warren Buffett actually I don't fully understand it. I've only listened to a couple clips. Warren Buffett thinks that Bitcoin is going to at some point in time he thinks it's not going to end well and he means that with all what's the term e currencies or digital currencies. For some reason Warren Buffett surprisingly is kind of like I don't know about this he's pretty reluctant about it. So whether or not it's going to like whether you could say maybe a debate on whether or not the future of Bitcoin is optimistic or bright that would be a fun one. Whether or not I could actually get Warren Buffett. Don't get your hopes up but that's I'm you never know it's always worth asking. As a matter of course as James as a tech and character would be dope. That sounds pretty dank. And then let's see. Kathy says did you know that in Majora's mass no cream of time you if you let a butterfly land on the Deco stick it'll turn into a fairy. Oh that sounds familiar. I think someone told me that like a hundred years ago and I completely forgot. I have to try that because I see butterflies in the game and I remembered thinking when I saw butterflies. I was like I can't remember why but I think those are like usually I was thinking I was like I think they mark a fairy fountain. But I couldn't find the fairy fountain. And so what you're saying makes sense. So I'm going to have to try that. That would be cool. Capture it in a bottle and then night Brian Stevens. Thanks for coming by. I promise I'm going to I'm going to I'm also saying goodbye in a moment. You guys it's so hard not to chat. It's just fun. I enjoy this. She says stripper liquor says James uses his old tidy whiteies as handkerchiefs. So frugal. Now that would be fun. But yeah. Oh yeah. You guys are so funny. I just I love me. I love it. Reading your guys's chats and I said frugal equals cheap in this case. Lol. That's so funny. But yeah. You guys. Brides uses $10 because you 10 big chickens. I mean that's a good deal. It is a good deal. I also love I'm a big on Chipotle. It's more expensive. But I mean I can get it to fill me for like the whole day almost. And yeah. So I should go. I love you guys. Thank you for all of your support. I'm excited about the future of this channel. Seriously. We are just getting started. So thank you for everything Lord or everybody. And so. Lily I just says take care everyone. Thanks to those who kept. Or will think like I got to be right. I got to be real. Because you guys maybe you don't know. And I don't. So that was I think that would have been a Freudian slip right there. I do thank the Lord as well. So I you know you guys know that I'm maybe you don't know I'm a theist and a Christian in particular. But I saw I didn't want to say. So I'm thankful for you guys. I'm thankful to the Lord. I'm. Thankful for you guys being my friends and just in my life. You guys honestly you guys make it fun. You guys are enjoyable people. And so I do appreciate you guys. I appreciate your common love for Ocarina of time. And your common love for McChickens and all these things. But. But yeah. That's interesting. So Freudian slips though we should talk a little bit about Freud because there's some pretty interesting stuff about Freud. So. That was like an interesting. So if you ever like look at Freudian slips on the news and like sometimes it's like there's like a really like I don't know. I get a kick out of Freud. I'll be honest. I think there's more to Freud than people give credit for. There's a couple things in particular. Everybody believes. Okay. We should talk about Freud another night. There is some really interesting stuff though. Thanks for your kind words Brian Steven seriously. That means a lot. Thanks Steve Coat and human girl Riley S. Thanks for your kind words. So thank you guys. I hope you have a great night. We will talk about Freud. Ask me about Freud sometime. I think there's some legit stuff about. I think there is. Some spooky stuff in the brain. I've thought about some interesting stuff in terms of like. Dreams. I don't think they're random. I'll tell you that. I don't think that they're necessarily and frankly I think they're. Like I'm not saying that I think they're like I'm not trying to argue that they're premonitions or something. But I also the idea that which is a common and it's popular idea among psychologists and it's probably the most popular. I don't buy it that dreams are. They're certainly not fully random. I mean that just doesn't make sense. Let me just stay around for a few minutes to talk about this. Well here's a couple of things to think about. You think dreams are random. Well I mean there's certainly not completely random right. Because completely random would maybe be like. Words that maybe don't even have a meaning or words that are like completely scrambled such that they don't even make coherent sentences like to me that's fully random. So the fact that there are like words with meanings or even like stories and dreams like that is like well it's like what are the odds that that's just randomly generated. There's something to it. I would probably concede there's like elements of dreams have randomness. I don't deny that. But certain parts for sure I'm like I'm like I highly doubt that's random. And here's another thing to consider. If dreams are random there is something really spooky about recurring dreams. If they're random you'd think that it would just be like you know just random dreams like a recurring dream whatever the content of that dream is like maybe it's somebody you know chasing you or whatever it is. It would have an equal shot according to random chance of being your dream on a given night. And yet there are a lot of dreams like recurring dreams that people will have many many times where it's like well geez that's weird that it would just randomly you'd keep having that. I think there's something to dreams. I wouldn't go as far as Freud but I do think there's like there's got to there's some truth to it. I think some of that stuff. So that's one thing to think about. There are other reasons though. I mean we'll talk about that next time more. But Resolute of course is self-modernated debate underwear. Call them why? Call them why? Why France? I don't know what that means. And then in Hacks says is Chewbacca if Chewbacca is a wiki he must have quit. I know that's from South Park. It's been like too long for me to know the context. Riley S. says James is a Bible boy and YouTube Surgeon General says thank you and we enjoy you as well. Thank you YouTube Surgeon General and let's see and Riley S. says lovingly I say that. I appreciate that. I know that you didn't mean any malicious thing by it. And then let's see. Ron Nakedness says sell modern-day debate bathwater. Next time I take a bath I will totally bottle it. And you guys will like who would want that. And then Brian Stevens says dreams equal 4D reality. That's juicy. There's so many interesting things about dreams. There's other phenomena that are interesting. There's some interesting stuff in terms of your... I'd have to go back to it. There's a lecture I've taught on dreams that I was like now that's pretty interesting. I'm not as far as... Yeah anyway. I like getting to read about or I'm reading your guys stuff. Human Girl says I love learning about dreams. And then let's see. Insect Fassett says aren't dreams just far out extrapolations of your daily experience induced by your brain when it's running on low power. That's another theory of dreams. So here's what's interesting. It's like well far out extrapolations of your daily experience. It's like well I mean maybe... I mean that's the... So one of the theories of dreams too is that like well maybe dreams are like stuff from your day. It's like well but I don't know. Think about all the weird dreams that we have where it's like an alien invasion or some sort of demonic possession you know whatever kind of spooky dreams people have and it might be good dreams too. It doesn't have to be bad. But so for me I'm like well... It's like to say it's a... So it's like it's certainly not... Insect Fassett I'm not trying to straw man you so I'm gonna address what you're saying. But when people say like isn't it... Aren't dreams... It's just your brain is like organizing the information from your day. It's trying to like process it and make sense of it. It's like well some of it that seems plausible but some of it is like you're dreaming of things that are just like absolutely insane and you know you're like maybe like flying around and you know you've got alien invasions and all that things and it's like well jeez it's hard to think of like how... You didn't experience that in your day and even anything close to it. Now maybe you're like people are like well maybe it's symbolic because maybe it's like you flew on a plane that day and like that's the closest you could get to it but I highly doubt that all people's flying dreams are when they're you know flew on a plane that day. But Riley S. says dreams are actually the real world. Stripper liquor says dreams are your brain taking a shower while you sleep. Yeah there's certainly truth to the idea of like your brain is cleaning stuff out while you're asleep. So yeah it's so important to get sleep that the research we could talk about all the benefits. Now it's fascinating. I don't know what percent would you guys guess what percent of dreams would you guess are negative because the research has been done on this. I'm kind of curious what you'd say and I'm gonna read the chat in the meantime and then I'll let you guys know the answer. Steve Coates says check out seizures if you're curious about causality and dreams. That sounds interesting and then Riley S. says dream cheated in his Minecraft speedrun. That's funny. I don't know who your friend dream is but I hope he gets what he deserves. Hannah Anderson says Freud was a wacko. Jeremy loves his James. Thank you get some rest. Thank you. I promise I will in a second. Reservoir of Gores says James is a nightmare in which he's hosting a debate naked or is it a fantasy. Reservoir of Gores only you and then Kathy that's true. Lucid dreams you can control which is interesting. Manic Panda says if you ever had lucid dreams they're fun and different. I have to a small degree. Pancake of Destiny says have you ever tried a lucid dreaming? Wow you guys all thought of it at the exact same time there must have been a trigger that was interesting but Michael Kaufman says I have reoccurring dreams and then yeah debate on dreams actually would be pretty interesting. That's something that I might get a kick out of jumping into because it's not very controversial. I feel like I can get away with that. Silver Harlow says your brain tries to organize input into thoughts using memories like a picture of your room makes thoughts of your room when asleep your inputs are random but the memories that's pretty interesting Silver and then Justin Matthews says yes lucid is conscious but your manifestation is dictated by your subconscious so is your daily life. That's pretty fascinating and then and Hacks says sorry that was a bit random. I didn't even see what was it did you tag me in the first one in Hacks and then King101 says you should do aliens.ufos considering the reason controversy. I'm open to that and then and Hacks says I don't remember having any replicated dreams since I was 8 or 9. Yeah I mean I haven't had as many either now let me see if you guys have guessed what percent so here's what's crazy a whopping 80% of your dreams are negative like by negative I mean like they have a negative emotional valence such that for example like it's an experience in the dream that you find unpleasant such that you have negative affect maybe you're being chased by something maybe you failed an exam you show up to work late whatever it is a huge percent are negative which is crazy it's 75 to 80% so pretty crazy and I can get if you guys ever want the source I've got the textbook that I used to from that I can look it up if you want to like learn more but also what's interesting on kind of like almost the opposite side of that is that guess what percent of dreams are sexual all you perverts insect fascist they don't think it's your brain organizing info necessarily just to amplify noise that your conscious mind normally keeps down that's interesting and then Brooke says I have crazy dreams I believe it like not because it's you Brooke but because it's just I I sometimes still have crazy dreams I haven't remembered a dream for like trying to remember the last one I can remember like lately I just haven't really remembered my dreams the trick is you got to rehearse it right away when you wake up that helps a lot and Brian Katarin says good evening everyone thanks for coming by Brian we're glad you're here and then oh hold on a second I gotta refresh my zoom oh you guys you guys couldn't see me my zoom had timed out apparently sometime in the past and then so amazingly you all of you perverts yeah according to Freud a hundred percent yeah Freud would probably overshoot it big time because he was always talking about these repressed sexual urges you'd have for somebody or whatever like maybe somebody you're not supposed to have but it's actually like I'm serious because you're gonna find it hard to believe me it's actually twenty percent of your dreams are sexual that's the typical now some of you out there I don't know maybe you're an outlier because I mean stripper liquor says a hundred percent Michael Kaufman says ninety percent now we know a lot more about you guys Steve Coates is a hundred and ten percent William Light says a hundred percent you guys are seriously funny but yeah and then Silver Harlow says what are your brain jobs to make your inputs into a coherent story now that's pretty interesting we should definitely talk more about that as well and then but yeah I want to say thank you guys so much for all of your support all of your love and I hope you guys have a great rest of your night keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable we'll be back tomorrow night it's going to be awesome you guys seriously I'm excited for it and so thanks all for your support your love I enjoy you guys I hope you have a great night