Jordan Peterson loses his mind on stage, has meltdown

If you need Jordan Peterson to explain to you how to be a man, you're autistic. Period. And that's okay.

Otherwise, why the fuck would anyone watch this mediocrity ?
He's really out of his league near Sam Harris.

Attached: 1504578752259.jpg (541x633, 40K)

Sam Harris thinks you can know objective facts from brain waves, thats pretty autistic too

i think jordan is a deeper thinker, but sam harris is a better debater.

jews have high verbal scores so as to make quick sales and negotiations in the market place.

sam harris, christopher hitchens, lil ben shapiro - all good debaters

>Sam Harris thinks you can know objective facts from brain waves
what exactly did he say?

yeah, google that

hes a (((scientist))), hes one of those guys who thinks we can know objective truth through the scientific method

The information is there even if it's incalculable. It might never be physically possible, but it's a good thought experiment.

Peterson can't answer honestly because he's just using Christianity as window-dressing for his money making scheme. If he answers then he backs himself into a corner that he knows he'll have a tough time - once the money dries up - working his way out of.
I don't agree with much of anything Harris believes but I don't think he's being dishonest in his beliefs.
This is a great example of someone being exposed.

Science doesn't deal in any philosocuck concepts like ''objective truth''.

Attached: 1526924681286.jpg (1200x1000, 190K)

but you can't recall a single thing he's ever said. alright

>Juden Peterstein
Find another site to sully, you evil coward.

information is not objective truth

math is philosophy not science

harris shills pls go

Attached: 1527146308561.png (1280x720, 1.24M)

Yes, information actually exists unlike your retarded immaterial concepts.

>math is philosophy not science

?

>information is not objective truth

???

only through our understanding and belief do numericals even exist. Take 0 and 1 for example. We say these are "real" numbers.
But you can count up from 0 to 1 to infinity.
0.99
0.999
0.99999999999999
etc

Jordan makes sense in the jungian way of thinking

Sam isn't talking Jungs language when debating Jordan so they are always going to talk past each other, and one side will charicaturize the other. Their debates are just fruitless it's like a Christian and an Islamist talking about societal values. It's just two fundamentally different ways of thinking, both value different things and what's good for one side might not necessarily seem good for the other. Their debates are nonsensical

Science is validated by and depends upon philosophy, NPC.

You actually watched all this shit?

It makes it so much funnier how angry he got over that.

logic is philosophy
math is philosophy
definitions are philosophy
meaning deals with philosophy
all things science needs to even get off the ground are philosophy. And philosophy is meaningless without an underlying theology and anthropology of what it is to be human

Attached: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000fdafdsfa.jpg (332x428, 47K)

>e-celeb cancer
not politics

Why would this dumb kike upload this to his own YouTube channel? It's embarrassing.

information only exists in our perception of its existence. We say something exists scientifically only through the tools that we use to examine them.
For instance, when we test a reaction between chemicals we use tools like our senses to create information as to what is happening. These tools can be imperfect and we may have imperfect ideas about the information we get from these tests. Therefore the information can change with different tools and is not objective ad infinitum.

>Jordan makes sense in the jungian way of thinking
At the end of his life it appears to me that Jung had an actual belief in the divine. Peterson on the other hand has no belief. He could at least do something like compare himself to the wise men in the desert. He is alone and on a journey toward logos but still feels he has not arrived. He can't even think of something clever like that. He is not as bright as he pretends and it becomes more obvious every time he speaks.
Just one more stooge to preserve the status quo and defend the Jews.

Attached: 1537059569971.jpg (400x534, 62K)

Everyone can see he was a hack afterall.

jordan and his following is starting to reminisce a cult

>Therefore the information can change with different tools and is not objective ad infinitum.

Doesnt need to be.
It just needs to be consistent with repeated experiments.
Since the laws of physics are unitary (the same everywhere), that's more than enough.

Objective truth is physically impossible owed to the uncertainty of quantum oscillators. The world is fundamentally probabilistic.

That's the level of your understanding of number theory.

Infinitestimals exist ! Checkmate, scientists !
What is renormalizibility ?

Attached: 1507402863369.png (408x450, 34K)

He doesn't make sense in his debate with Sam Harris because he just argues that the stories of Judeo Christianity is useful therefore we shouldn't do away with them. However just the utility of the stories does not make them true, which is why Sam Harris says that you can be atheist/Agnostic and still have the utility from stories through the readings of marcus aurelius

As usual, evasion. Sam Harris basically asked if he thinks the bible was divinely inspired 8 different ways, and JBP just uses obfuscation and flowery language to sound like he is saying something without answering.

>yes I think it is indicative of a revelation of something fundamental
>does that mean you think it wasn't from humans
>I think it was from many many humans
>so it's not divinely inspired then
>w-well what do you call revealing fundamental truths?
>so you don't think it was made by a human mind
>I think that a human mind acted as a conduit
>so you think something inhuman made it?
>well it is filled with wisdom for humans...

He is afraid to sound like a religious nutjob that thinks the bible is real but he is afraid to not stay on his traditionalist Jungian archetype brand so he doesn't want to say the bible isn't super duper special, so you can see his opinion implicit in his evasion. He doesn't think its true, or doesn't think it is defensible to outright say it came from a heavenly being, so he avoids that discussion like the plague and just repeats that it is especially filled with wisdom since that is what is important to him to express.

just because you have repeated experiments doesn't mean that it is certain it will always remain true. What is objective is ALWAYS true.

As for the numerical argument I am using it in my defense that math is closer to philosophy than it is to science. Also renormalizibility does not do away with the philosophical dilemma of the infinity between numbers.

Thanks Jordan...keep kicking ass.

>At the end of his life
Who knows, maybe Jordan will say "I believe in Jesus" at the end of his life too. The way he talks is very reminiscent of the way Jung talked, that's why the opinions people had of Jung were mixed in his day as well. Just listen to his talks on youtube. He spoke the same way about religion as Jordan does now. Jordan perhaps tries taking it down a level with the Jungian terms and makes it easy to follow a bit, but it's the same "horseshit" according to whoever you talk to

The bible is a transcendent book given their definitions of God, and this definition of God is a more complicated definition than the average person, but it explains the average person's belief as well. It's a mode of thinking that allows for this, and Sam just isn't talking that language. Most people aren't. That's why it becomes a nonsensical thing. To debate a person who thinks like Jung you need to speak their language, otherwise the world already makes sense to them, and your worldview makes sense to them as well, so you're just shooting hallow bullet at somebody who's got a meditative way of thinking and you're not doing anything.

Not saying Jordan is right, he's just being more abstract

No, he's just realizing there's something important about how religious structures interact with humans and he doesn't know why it works. He's not claiming or not claiming a deity, maybe he believes it, doesn't matter, he's touching a subject none of us have any knowledge of yet, and it's probably related to how our internal manifestation of reality functions based on the biology of our brains.

This type of concept is involved:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

It does make them true in the Jungian definition of truth. That's why Jordan and Sam argued that word for 3 hours. Jordans shit makes sense to somebody who thinks like Jung and it doesn't makes sense to someone who doesn't. That's why debating shit when you don't even agree on the fundamentals is a waste of time.

Is it Jungian to believe that if something has utility that makes it true? Because thats pretty dumb.

Yeah man.
When I go to work tomorrow and run my Monte Carlo simulations of stellar formation, theology and anthropology will be at the forefront of my mind.

When I'm making hydrodynamic cell grids partitioned by Voronoi tesselation to map the hydrodinamic evolution of a Convective Zones I"M AKTCHUALLLLLY doing philosophy.

Suck my balls, you retarded plebs.

Attached: pau.png (720x812, 691K)

>Shitposts about the 'imaginary friend in the sky"
>Cain and Abel was THE greatest story ever told
>sweating profusely

Attached: 36355413_347023722495306_6417838161463869440_n.jpg (350x350, 8K)

He thinks deity is an abstract aspiration of people, and our cultures deity is the Christian deity, that's what we value. And with this he usually brings up Nietzsche's "death of God", which means when this deity becomes way too obscure to aspire to and your culture becomes confused and have no aspiration, ergo nihilism

God isn't necessarily literally Jesus's dad. That's just the story we've decided because that's our aspiration. We want to be like Jesus and aspire to be like his father. And this "God" was created over millennia. A deity isn't just shaped. It's created over millennia. And to say this is redundant and useless is unwise. That's his only point about religion. And so he acts in a way that validates it. Not that he believes everything literally, but he considers it valuable to the world

kek, the amount of times Jordan had his head in his hands was proof enough he lost.

Yes it is. If you wonder why there's a 3 hour long podcast which in my view Jordan loses but it gives you some insight into how these people think. It's not a productive way of thinking because I think it's a fucking waste of time, but it IS a way of thinking and it does make sense. It explains far more than somebody who doesn't think like that can explain, but it's a fucking time consuming way of thinking and won't change your life one bit, so you're just wasting time making things more difficult and gaining nothing

Sam Harris the Fraud

rhizzone.net/articles/sam-harris-fraud/

Already developing his trademark narcissistic and computer-like style of discussion, Sam was compelled to indulge himself in further study. According to the same interview, after re-enrolling and completing his diploma, Sam began writing at length about his philosophical views: “but nothing was published.” Whatever Sam was producing at this stage, it wasn’t of any interest to actual philosophers. The best way to get around this problem was to bypass them and publish for a lay audience, and thankfully for Sam this wasn’t an insurmountable problem: coming from a TV family he had already developed the ability to find an audience – rubes who will buy what you’re selling.

After spending his 20s in some kind of haze of middle class ennui searching for spiritual truth Sam finally found the more fundamental, bourgeois truth: New Age spiritualism has nothing on getting filthy rich and famous. The essays he had tried to send off to philosophy journals for publications were later amalgamated into material for “The End of Faith”, and its publication opened up a whole new world of connections and media attention.

In 2004, after the success of “The End of Faith”, Harris was introduced to David Samuels, media heavyweight, who lauded him as the next Voltaire. The friend who introduced Harris to Samuels? A mysterious “writer for the Simpsons”. Atheists and libertarians began crawling out of the woodwork to latch onto this rising star. The connections begin to come thick and fast. In more recent years Harris has found equal success in enlisting the support of New Atheists like Dan Dennett & Richard Dawkins.

At this same juncture in his life Sam decided to dive into the world of neuroscience, and what a career move it turned out to be. For the broader middle class yokelry who fawn over Sam, it gives him some kind of insight into the “inner workings of the mind”, which neuroscience does not actually involve. A small aside, let me tell you what neuroscientists do: data entry. The neuroscientist title turns out to be a lie, a bit of performance art from an accomplished performer. It’s true that Harris completed a PhD in neuroscience, yet the story of how he got this qualification casts some doubt on his bona fides as a so called “neuroscientist”.
Harris’ desire to sleaze his way through a doctorate in neuroscience in particular was motivated by his instincts as an arch-careerist. “The End of Faith” was already on the shelves – he was already a Somebody in the public sphere, and he already had a topic that he knew would play. His PhD would investigate the differences in brain activity between Christians and non-Christian people when asked various factual or non-factual questions. The goal was to find some kind of neurological correlate of religiosity, showing how religious people think less rationally than atheists. He could then use this as a stick to beat religious people – presumably Muslims – with: “your brains work differently to ours”. These findings would tie everything up in a neat bow: Muslims are irrational and crazy, and here are the brain scans to prove it! Fortunately for Sam, and unfortunately for the credibility of neuroscientists generally, it’s pretty easy to produce whatever results you like with a little bit of methodological tilting of the scales.

They've actually already managed to re-create a vague video feed of what a cat is seeing just by measuring its brainwaves. They showed the cat some arbitrary film footage(so they could compare it side by side to their machine's output), then stuck a bunch of electrodes on the cat and used some kind of algorithm to calculate a video of what it was seeing. Obviously there was a lot of noise and the resulting video was pretty vague, but it's interesting that it's possible.

So based.

Two equally interesting questions arise from the tale of Sam’s PhD thesis. Firstly, where did he get the money? MRI machines are expensive pieces of equipment, and are often rented for short periods at great expense. By now we should be able to guess the answer: Sam naturally had this covered through personal wealth and connections. Right around the time he was beginning his thesis Harris founded “The Reason Project”, later to become “Project Reason”, a “charitable foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society”. The Reason Project was apparently feeling particularly charitable about Sam, and provided the funds for his PhD, including use of facilities and an MRI machine. Once again, mum to the rescue.
The second problem was potentially more difficult. Sam had no history in neuroscience and he had never conducted an experiment in his life. It’s hard to imagine the UCLA neuroscience department accepting his PhD proposal, until you remember that Sam was by this stage highly connected, filthy rich, and becoming famous. He was given the red carpet treatment by UCLA. Sam got to pretend to do science while the professionals got to work. The various research jobs were passed to his co-authors: conducting the experiments, recruiting participants and designing the entire study were taken off Little Lord Fauntleroy’s hands. Ultimately Sam’s sole responsibility was the final write-up, which is less the account of a scientific experiment and more a screed about his personal views on religion, and a narcissistic flexing of his intellectual cred.
The PhD predictably ended up a huge mess seeing how its lead author, Sam, was not a scientist but rather an anti-religious ideologue with no idea about how to design a study of this kind.

>Peterson can't answer honestly because he's just using Christianity as window-dressing for his money making scheme.
This, this and this. Jordan doesn't believe in god or the bible. I can always sniff out a fake christian, and Peterson's definitely one.

gaslighting Jewish rats.

Yes, and "God" in this sense is part of our mind, it's a consequence of how our brain interacts with itself. Some aspects of us are locked away unless unlocked, and they can seem like "divine inspiration" or getting informatin outside yourself. This is false. This is what religion really got right and wrong. Religion interpreted the internal communcation of our brains and claimed it was separate from us, and still implemented it to relative success compared to previous models of reality.

you didnt? are you a brainlett?

Plenty of scientists during this period were swept up by the excitement of probing the activity in people’s brains to locate the regions or areas responsible for different mental behaviours. The emerging field of fMRI seemed to give us a special insight into the mind, but the methods involved are often rudimentary or extremely questionable.
Participants are routinely asked to “do nothing” or “think about nothing” while their “baseline” brain activity is recorded by the MRI machine. This baseline is then compared against their results during the experimental task, often in a very crude way. Researchers will simply subtract the baseline activation from the task activation, assuming that this will leave them with only the task activation, removing all the background noise. Researchers also frequently use mathematical tweaking to produce results that look good on a “heat map” by removing data that are “noisy” and don’t cluster neatly on the hotspots of activation.
In one famous example of the flaws of fMRIs, researchers used a dead salmon as their fMRI subject. The salmon was shown a series of images of various human social situations, designed to evoke an emotional response. The researchers found that, using the standard methods employed by neuroscientists and psychologists, the dead salmon responded to the images, illustrating the insanely high false-positive rate of fMRI research.

On a deeper theoretical level, it is rarely assumed anymore that discrete brain regions “do” any particular task. More and more evidence is emerging that distributed networks, graphical and topological features of the whole brain, and other kinds of non-localizable processes are what actually drive our mental life.

I heard there's a part in this where he goes completely silent and still because they start talking about the jews. anyone have a time code?

Reminder that faith is the most dishonest position you can possibly hold about anything.

Harris’ research manages to hit every single note of bad neuroscience design, and reveals an ignorance of theoretical issues on the part of the scientists involved. The statistician William Briggs, having studied the thesis, points to numerous flaws in its design. The researchers recruited a hugely biased population sample that skewed their data, and did not record whether the non-Christian participants were Muslims, Atheists, Buddhist, or whatever else (I guess the folks round Stanford are white enough to rule other religions out). They also didn’t include the details of the questions asked, and we simply have to assume that the questions were valid. Harris’ team also discarded data that did not suit their desired results: 7 out of 40 participants were not included in the results “because their responses to our experimental stimuli indicated that they did not actually meet the criteria for inclusion in our study as either nonbelievers or committed Christians”. How was this decided? They never say. In addition, since some participants didn’t answer consistently enough according to Sam’s reckoning he excluded “subjects who could not consistently respond “true” or “false” with conviction.”

Briggs summarises:

“During the course of my investigation of scientism and bad science, I have read a great many bad, poorly reasoned papers. This one might not be the worst, but it deserves a prize for mangling the largest number of things simultaneously.”
Yet the thesis was accepted and Sam received his PhD anyway. Doubtless the connection to his thesis supervisor Mark S. Cohen, a pioneer in MRI scanning techniques, helped carry him over the line. And thus Sam, a man who knows virtually nothing about neuroscience, who has never conducted or designed an experiment, is the proud holder of a PhD.

You're a retard who can't comprehend the basic points he makes in a 2 hour long talk, or you're just retarded

How about this?
>1/3=0.3333333...
>3*(0.3333333...)=3/3=0.9999999...
>3/3=1
>1=0.9999999...

Attached: juden peterstein.jpg (1188x899, 541K)

Not what I got from this debate at all. Were you guys even listening?

SO FUCKING BASED YES.

Simulations or singularities are religions for ''''''''atheists'''''''.
If you think consciousness works computationally, you are a brainlet.

Attached: 1504226100845.jpg (306x306, 87K)

This guy is fucking nuts

Attached: ew.gif (380x285, 1.97M)

daily reminder

Attached: teddyboi.jpg (1080x846, 175K)

lmao listen to the crowd peterson destroyed harris

I don't buy that, since Sam Harris is implying that we can create new dogmas if we wanted too, and already have (e.g., Aurelius, the stories in Shakespeare etc.) and asking JBP if he thinks the bible is special and why. JBP suggested nobody could ever write the bible, since Sam Harris uses Shakespeare as a stand in for peak literary genius. He asks if JBP thinks a Shakespeare or Homer could have written Genesis, which is still trying to get at whether or not he thinks there is something fundamentally special or beyond human in the writing of the Bible. JBP continues to suggest that he doesn't think anybody could have written the story of Cane and Abel alone, let alone all of Genesis, which continues to imply he thinks there is something super duper special about the Bible but he won't say what.

Referring to biology is besides the point since the suggestion that no genius could have written Genesis is getting beyond biology. He is saying there is something beyond genius, beyond ability or breadth of knowledge and expertise in the Bible. They never had this discussion, but after he suggested that the Bible was the result of innumerable minds over millenia Harris could have asked why he didn't think Homer or Aurelius, or Shakespeare or any other writer wasn't also the product of millenia of wisdom. After all, at least Shakespeare was in the cultural tradition that carried on from the Bible. The Bible itself was an accumulated tradition, why are its writers more authentic than the revelations of Shakespeare? He won't answer that question because he wants something comprehensible and simple, like the Bible is just special. It's our MOST SPECIAL book with the best wisdom, deal with it

lmao, this highschooler talking about the uncountability of the unit interval. cringe.

>Juden Peterstein
>you don't know what you believe goyim
>here's what you believe according to me

Inaccurrate af

If you think cis non gender binary white male privilege feminism is a conformist worldview you're a fucking retarded retard. It was their radical rebellion in these ways that made the people vote for trump. what is this shit

Here’s a gif of what that cat saw as it died

Attached: C5F9A68E-CE82-482F-A277-A5E83B82F506.gif (320x240, 62K)

Master of philosophy AND real analysis AND theology. Checkmate, atheists.

Christ. Peterson is is a pseud, but Harris is fucking retarded.

Peterson is superstrange.

>reee I have to explain myself
>buy my two thousand dollar rug

/3=0.333333
true
*(0.3333333...)=3/3=0.9999999...
3*(0.3333333...)=0.9999999... , the = 3/3 is a leap of faith
/3=1
true, but you are assuming these are "real" numbers you can get to
=0.9999999...
no, 1=1, (0.999999...)=(0.999999...)

Peterson's a hack fraud.

youtube.com/watch?v=iIfLTQAKKfg

Also, Karl Marx did nothing wrong. You just haven't read him and believed all the shills that want to keep you obedient to your corporate overlords.

Attached: coalburner.jpg (360x433, 26K)

they don't actually do anything radical. it's just degenerate sex worship.
there's nothing fundamentally different about their views that actually changes anything; they still operate within the (((capitalist democracy))) model, and side with (((corporations))) to advance their agenda.

literally all of these people are not saying anything interesting
the english guy (who it sounds like is putting on a posh accent) is just namedropping kant
at least harris is reasonable
peterson is just trying to find something that 'works', like fascism and religion do work to create a powerful society
harris is interested in truth

those chairs look comfy af

ad hominem kek

same

>swedcuck calling anyone retarded
Go get raped by a refugee you fucking faggot.

you're clearly not aware of anything you're talking about, and it's readily available information.
Start here, I guess?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_diagonal_argument

reminder.

Attached: DF6Owc4WsAAw4YY-4.jpg (1200x800, 150K)

I think JBP is entirely right in his analysis of the mental processes that can make people escape frrm mental imprisonment, and some of these techniques seem to have been recorded by history in these religious texts. This does not rule out the ability of our conscious attention to program our current models or create new ones, but you NEED the mental tools to do so!

That's why language is so important, and that's why this shit storm of social media has pulled so many to asleep, they are actually not activating the processes which would make them able to alter themselves. I don't think he has any clue as to WHY it works, except he sees the importance of language, as evident by his stance of defense of free speech and the dangers of suppression of thought. There is no discrepency with biology and being able to change your mind, in fact, I hope you are doing that daily using non-memetic language.

The bible opened up information to humans about how to program our brains in a specific direction, JBP really likes this direction, therefore he likes the bible.

Funny how he starts looking at the audience when saying it.

I don't know why these two are still arguing.

I think it's pretty clear Jordan Peterson doesn't believe in a literal God, rather he chooses to attribute some degree of divinity to the "process of collectivelly building extragenerational ingelligence" aka memetics, such as happened with the Bible. The divinity part is irrelevant, it's just a poetic touch to amplify it's importance, the thing that matters is establishing the Bible (and other traditions) is a source of collective extragenerational intelligence, and I think Harris understands and agrees with this. There's nothing to argue here, Peterson calls it divine out of inclination and attracts religious people, Harris and others like Weinstein don't and attract non-religious people.

>read locke
the absolute state of mathematical debaters.

Bible is unironically a good book. Or at least many parts of it. Some of the stuff is just filler. It's obvious that many of the stories evolved for a very long time. They do contain wisdom of untold number of humans, selected and distilled by evolution driven by story telling and memory.

> link Cantor's Diagonal Argument
> Locke, a political philosopher
what, user?
You asked a cringy mathematical question, and I basically gave you the real answer.
If you can't understand it, that's your problem.

and thus the frail carpet salesman shows the world he is naked...

why do (((they))) shill against Lobster man so much?

how big of a faggot do you need to be to watch 2 hours of these hipster faggots talking

Im making the point that you can't even explain your own ideas to someone. If you can't explain them you probably don't have an understanding of what you believe.