 Robert? Yeah, I was wondering, I'm curious if you've heard the latest Sam Harris. He's back on Free Will with Robert Sapolsky. It was an interesting episode because toward the end, they raised some of their own challenge. In the end, they spent 45 minutes an hour talking about there is no free will. And then toward the end, he said, well, raising children, for example, leads to some problems. Because you know, merit is out. Nobody deserves anything. You're born with all your attributes or circumstances. It's forced you into your situations. Pride is out, but you know, if you're going to raise kids, how do you get them to be ambitious and capitalize on their so-called gifts without telling them? Is an ambition out? Well, they don't want ambition. It's funny, even the idea of wanting something is ridiculous if you don't believe in free will. But I'm curious if you've heard that latest episode because it's interesting. They were willing to get into some of their kind of issues. And also, and I guess my bigger question for you is, Sam Harris has been so good on so many things. He's downright courageous in regard to October 7th in Israel. How do you judge somebody like that? Hi. So I haven't heard the episode. I'm not really surprised that they would go there. My sense of Sam Harris is he has so rationalized his position of free will that he is willing to challenge it in his own mind because it's so solidly in some kind of loop that he can find excuses and find his way out of it no matter what. But I'm curious to listen. I don't know if I can tolerate the first 45 minutes, but I might skip ahead to the other part. So there's a sudden, it's not honesty exactly because he won't completely question his premises. But there's something there that I don't think, I don't think Sam Harris would consciously say to himself, no, no, I'm not going to ask the tough questions because that might change my mind. I mean, I think he is willing to ask the tough questions. He's just got the answers to all of them because the whole thing is just so rationalized and it's so divorced from reality. How do you judge him? God, I mean, you have to judge him as this deeply mixed case. First of all, you have to judge him as courageous. The guy is incredibly brave, is incredibly courageous. And it's not only, I mean, what he did after 9-11 and what he did with the new atheists and the way he went after Islam and then the way he went after religion was just spectacular. And it was well done and it was brave. And it was brave in the face of real physical threats, not just hypotheticals, but real physical threats. And he took the right position on Islam and it was just admirable. And then I grew with you after October 7th to this day, his position on Israel, his position on the moral difference between the two. I don't know how there's morality if there's no free will. So I don't know how he talks about that. And he even has a talk on Ted, like he has a Ted talk which is bridging the his odd gap where he says you can derive morality from reality. Now it's flawed and it's got problems with it and it's kind of circular. But but he's trying, right? He's trying to derive morality even though he doesn't believe in free will. So he loses it at some point. I wonder if they talked about that and the as one of the challenges they have. How can you have morality with no free will? Did they bring that up? No, no, they didn't go. I wish they would have. I swear, I want to I want to see you and on car locked in a room with supposed Harris until you iron that out. But yeah, I was curious because within the community, the objective is community. I get people when I will post what I found interesting about these conversations who say no, no, no, he's evil to the core because he's evading reality. And there's something wrong with you, Robert, for caring about this or for keeping that discussion going. I mean, if you if that were the case, you couldn't listen to anybody. You couldn't gain value from anybody. You can and not look. I wanted to emphasize some other things about Sam House. Sam has been courageous in other dimensions as well. He is incredibly consistently anti-Trump in in in a you know, in a rational kind of thoughtful way that I think. I mean, sometimes he gets irrational and unthoughtful, but mostly rational. He has a fantastic episode on guns, right, which pissed off the left, right, where he talks about the value of having gun ownership and so on. But he just the way he analyzes, he just does it so rationally, so clearly. And you know, so he'll take a topic often and just do the best presentation on that topic that I've heard anyway. So no, I have to say in many respects, I'm a fan. I think he's amazing and it drives me nuts that somebody could be that compartmentalized because as soon as he talks about psychedelics and about free will, he's completely lost the thread. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a complete idiot. And when he talks about capitalism, he's a complete idiot. But when he talks about things like guns and when he talks about things like Trump and when he talks about Islam and when he talks about Israel, he's amazingly good. And I consider him in those days. So how do I judge him? He's a mixed case. He's a mixed case of massive evasion and rationalization. And amazing capacity to reason through a problem and to think it through and exhibit all the things that he denies exist like free will, which is necessary for that reasoning capability. So what about your own the aspect from he evades objectivism? Everybody evades objectivism. I mean, you know, I mean, I'm going to do it. I'm going to write the entire human race off because they evade objectivism. No, but he's particularly able to look at it and choose to evaluate it. He has the brain to do it. He has the intellectual curiosity to do it. And he turns it off. So that's bad. He's an evader. He's an evader and a rationalist. Okay. But that goes with the free will. And that goes with the drugs. And he sees objectivism as a threat because he's he's he's built up in his own mind. This whole rationalistic view about free will and about life and about the world. I also don't know who he's had what his experiences with objectivism have been like. I mean, I sometimes worry about some of these guys meeting some noxious objectivists and they kind of write off the whole thing because they met some me when I was 18 or something. No, I mean, but somebody really obnoxious and and you know, and they for writing it off. So yeah, you know, so you have to judge him as really, really mixed. But I mean, everybody's smart in the world out there, all the scientists and there are a lot of philosophers that should understand objectivism better. Should if they when they read Iron Man get it and a lot of them do read Iron Man and they don't and it's just blank. So you can't just just rule them all out and say that. I appreciate that, Yaron, because he is a mixed case and some people will read an essay like the Cult of Oral Grainus. And when she gets to the end and talks about complex cases where you really need to pick out, well, what is the black? What is the white? I some some people still seem to take that as oh, well, you're giving him a sanction. And so, no, I know what I criticize Harrison for and what I don't. But yeah, that latest conversation is worth listening to. And it's good and not the only one he says. Yeah, he's he's good and he's bad, but he's good. No, and I enjoy listening to him on some issues and he drives me nuts on others. Yeah, and you know, I think he's better than Jordan Peterson. Right. So even though I don't know if you heard my announcement, but about Jordan Peterson.