YouTube文字起こし：
Deconstructing Rationality - Part 1

動画を最後まで見なくてOK。完全な文字起こしを取得し、キーワード検索やワンクリックコピーができます。

AutoDub

YouTube外国語動画を理解

没入型YouTube日本語吹き替え

言語の壁を越えて、世界の優良コンテンツを楽しもう

無料で使う

動画の文字起こし

動画の要約

Summary

Core Theme

This content is a deep dive into the limitations of rationality and "rationalism" as a worldview, arguing that an over-reliance on formal, logical, and objective frameworks (rationalism) can lead to self-deception and hinder true understanding of reality. It proposes moving beyond this paradigm towards "post-rationality" or "metarationality."

Mind Map

クリックして展開

クリックしてインタラクティブなマインドマップを確認

All right, let's deconstruct rationality.

rationality.

We did a thorough deconstruction of

science and materialism in my series,

Deconstructing the Myth of Science. This

is going to be an analog series where

we're going to be focusing on

rationality and its limits. This will be

a three-part series with the deepest

insights coming in part two and part

three. Make sure you stick around for

those remaining parts. Uh, you know, I

stress that because you know what the

average view time for one of my videos

is? It's about 20 to 30 minutes.

Uh if you're going to be only watching

for 20 or 30 minutes one of my videos,

you might as well not even be watching

at all because you're not going to learn

anything really. Uh maybe even it'll

it'll harm you more than it'll help you.

So really um

make sure you stick to the to the end

because there's a lot of juicy stuff

here. This is original intellectual

work. I've been working on this for a

long long time. Um you're not going to

find this kind of information anywhere

else. There's hundreds of critical

insights throughout this whole series.

It's very dense. Uh I've been preparing

it for months. There's enough

information here for a dense book or a

PhD thesis. I mean, this is really like

a philosophy PhD wrapped into three

episodes. So, it's going to take about

10 hours to explain this whole topic.

So, please be patient. Uh the only thing

I can promise you is that it's going to

be worth it because it's going to change

how you understand how the mind works,

how you understand science, how you

understand academia, a lot of stuff like this.

this.

Now, you've probably intuited that

there's something wrong with highly

rational people, but it's not so easy to

put your finger on exactly what's wrong

with them because usually such people

are pretty intelligent. They have a high

IQ and so on and they're well educated

in the formal sense of having gone to

university and having some credentials

and degrees and maybe even a PhD. But

still, these people don't understand

reality fundamentally. Why is that?

Well, this series is going to be a

complete technical explanation of how

and why rationalism limits your mind and

prevents you from making sense of

reality. And it explains why rationalism

cannot reach ultimate truth and ultimate understanding.

understanding.

Rationalism is a subtle paradigm. It's

an invisible paradigm. You're not

conscious of it even though you hold it.

And it grounds your sense of reality.

So this series is going to help you to

move from rationalism from rationality

into postrationality.

This is a conceptual framework for

advanced transhuman mystical cognition.

This is a critical topic for developing

higher stages of cognitive development

which is what I teach. It's particularly

important for people in the STEM fields

and in academia.

So this series is not for soft new age

people. Those people need to learn basic

rationality. This series is for people

who have learned

and gone deep into rationality, the

scientists and so forth, but have gotten

stuck in that and how to get them beyond

that into the postrational domain.

Now, a lot of credit here needs to be

given to David Chapman from a website

Very important website. It's like a

whole book basically. It's like an

online book. I encourage you to go to

metarationality.com and read the whole

thing. It's going to take you weeks to

read it all. There's a lot of important

information in there. I'm going to be

quoting and um citing a lot of things

that he said here, especially in the

first part. And then in part two and

part three, we're going to be expanding

and going even beyond what David

Chapman's work, excellent work um uh

he's done. So, um a lot of credit to him

and I'll be quoting him throughout this

episode over and over again. So, uh,

we're sort of starting with his

foundation and then we're building on

top of that to go even beyond. Now, a

few warnings here before we really get

into the meat of it. Warning number one

is that this is advanced philosophy

which nobody nobody really understands.

Academics, scientists do not understand

what I'm going to be talking about,

especially in part two and part three.

Um, it took me over 20 years of

philosophy work to understand what I'm

going to be sharing with you over this

series. This requires crazy levels of

open-mindedness. And this is not any

kind of belief system that I want you to

adopt. These are insights that I want

you to contemplate for yourself. And

only if you contemplate it deeply and

you see the truth of it, then

you should hold these ideas. Otherwise,

don't don't adopt this as a belief system.

system.

The other warning is that do not be

misled by the term deconstruction. You

might think deconstruction is something

that's coming from postmodernism.

Uh, and while postmodernism has valid

insights and some of these ideas that

I'm going to be sharing do overlap with

postmodernism, what I'm talking about

here goes way, way, way beyond postmodernism.

postmodernism.

So, this is not just a rehashing of

stuff from, you know, silly postmodern

philosophy. We're going way beyond that.

And the other warning is that spiritual

things will be mentioned here. So, be

careful. People who are in the

rationalist paradigm very deeply, uh,

they have a spiritual allergy. So, watch

out for that spiritual allergy. I might

be using the word God here and there. I

might be using other mystical terms here

and there. Um, just be careful that you

don't get turned off by that. Um,

remember, keep an open mind. Keep an

open mind.

And the other warning is that a key

mistake that many rationalists make is

that any critique of rationality is

interpreted as a promotion of

irrationality or woo.

After all, anything that isn't rational

must be irrational, right? Those are the

only two options. Or it's like uh the

only reason you would want to oppose

rationality is because you have some

irrational thing that you want to

promote. Some fantasy, some delusion,

some falsehood,

some cult ideology.

But notice that this is question

begging, right? We need to explore and

think about what is rationality really

and are there flaws within it? Are there

problems? You can't just assume that

there aren't any.

So, this brings us to the pre-trans

fallacy that Ken Wilbur talks about.

There's pre-rational, there's rational,

and then there's postrational. And so,

the mistake that the people at the

rational stage make is that they think

that any criticism of the rational must

come from the pre-rational. Something

like a flat-earther criticizing, you

know, science. That would be an example

of a pre-rational critique of the rational.

rational.

That's obviously not what we're

promoting here. Um

there's a distinction you need to make

in your mind that you can criticize

things from above or from below. A

criticism of rationality from below

would be maybe maybe from a from a a

fundament a religious fundamentalist or

from a u flat earth or something like

that. Somebody who hasn't mastered rationality,

rationality,

somebody who hasn't actually understood

science, the methods of science. But

then once you do master science and you

learn it and you you learn the methods

of science, you know, the kind of bog

standard stuff that they teach you in

academia, then you start to wonder,

well, okay, well, is there anything

beyond that? Is there any kind of

cognition, any any way to use the mind

beyond that? And it turns out that there

is. And then that would open you up to

the postrational. And then from the

post-rational, you can criticize the

rational. And that is not irrational.

And that is not because you want to

promote some kind of fantasy or

delusion, but because there are

legitimate limits to the rational stage.

And these are stages of cognition that

we're talking about.

Another warning is that for those of you

who are into spirituality and new age

type people, um, and especially if you

didn't go to academia and you didn't

study hard sciences, then you actually

suffer from being too much in the

pre-rational. you haven't actually

mastered the rational stage of cognitive

development. That's something you need

to work on. And that's not what this

series is about. This series is more

advanced. This is about transcending the

rational, which is different than

learning the rational. And it's

important that you learn to be rational

because otherwise you will be irrational

and that's not good. That's going to

lead to problems in your understanding

of reality and in your life. And a lot

of new age spiritual woo type people do

suffer from irrationality. That's not a

um that's not a madeup thing. that's

real and they would benefit from just

learning rationality. But I'm not going

to teach you rationality here. I'm going

to teach you how to go beyond that.

So just remember that developing

rationality is an important thing. And

that's also how you know that what I'm

what I'm talking about here is coming

from a higher stage rather than a lower

stage is because I'm not here to

demonize rationality.

I'm not here to tell you not to learn

science or not to learn rationality. You

should learn those things. Those are

important. And then that's how you know

that I'm trying to teach you something a

little bit beyond that cuz otherwise I'd

just be demonizing it and straw manning

it which I'm not going to be doing.

Now immediately we should tackle an

objection here which is something like

this. But Leo aren't you contradicting

yourself already because here you are

using rationality to try to deconstruct

rationality thereby doesn't that prove

rationality's validity? After all, isn't

this whole conversation you using logic

and making various kinds of arguments

and points and isn't that rationality?

So, how can rationality be wrong?

If rationality is wrong, then your

critique of rationality must also be

wrong, right? Um

uh this is not a contradiction. It might

seem this way on the surface, but it's

not. Notice that rationality, if we

think of it as a kind of a cognitive system,

system,

it's able to reflect on itself and to

find faults within itself. This is not a

mistake or a contradiction. This is

essential. This is essential. A system's

ability to reflect on itself

to go meta on itself. This is the

essence of what development and reaching

higher stages of cognition is all about.

Notice that rationality is capable of

self-awareness of its own limits.

To turn rationality into a system that

doesn't self-reflect, that doesn't

question itself and doesn't admit any

limits to itself, that itself is to turn

it into a dogma. And that itself is a

kind of rational irrationality.

And notice that rational rationality can

be turned into a dogma. People do do this.

So, um,

it's not at all a contradiction

that people who claim to be highly

rational are actually irrational. That

might sound like, well, but then that's

not that's not possible, right? If

someone is is acting rational, then

they're rational. They can't be

irrational. But no, they can.

And in fact, you can get so wrapped up

in acting rational that you don't see

your own irrationality because that

requires something more than r to see

the irrationality in how you apply your

rational ideas and your rational belief

system which we might call rationalism.

Um this requires consciousness and

self-reflection and something that goes

After all, why would you assume that

rationality has no limits? It would be

So it actually is possible for

rationality to become irrational. That's

not a contradiction. Or rather it is a

contradiction. But to be able to see

that contradiction within yourself is

actually a the whole point of this

series is to teach you that to help you

to see those contradictions because just

because you are rational or you think of

yourself as rational doesn't mean that

your worldview doesn't have

contradictions within it. It certainly

does. Certainly does.

So here's a key framing question for

this entire investigation that we're

doing. It's this. How does rationality

become selfdeception?

If you just contemplate that one question

question

for years,

you will derive all the insights that I

will be sharing with you throughout this

whole series. That's really

where all of this is coming from. That's

the source.

So, here's the core insight for you is

that rationality has limits. Once you

suspect that that's true, then you can

ask questions like, well, what are the

limits of rationality?

How is rationality a trap? How is

rationality misused and abused? How does

rationality get get metaphysics and

epistemology wrong? How does rationality

limit intelligence?

How is rationality an obstacle towards

the highest understanding of reality?

What is rationality?

What is reason?

And what is reason's relationship to truth?

You can just turn off this whole series

right here and just contemplate these

questions for years and you will get all

of the information that I would be

teaching you. Which is how this is

different from any kind of ideology or

belief system. Right? I want you to

contemplate these questions deeply for

yourself and to have these insights for

yourself. But because it takes so long,

it took me 20 years to understand this

stuff. um really it's too much to expect

people to just do it casually like this

is very serious philosophy. So it really

helps to have someone who's gone through

this whole process who can point out the

the the the things you should be

contemplating and the um the various

traps and um you know some of these

things just take a lot of creativity

just to have certain kinds of insights.

You wouldn't even think of them on your

own in 20 years uh if somebody didn't

point them out to you. And sometimes

it's just lucky that I have one of these

insights. You know, across 20 years I

have a few of these insights and I

compile them all together. And then

that's what this is.

That's the value of it.

If you work a lot with rational systems,

you will notice that rational methods

often fail leading to wrong conclusions,

delusions, and wrong sense making,

failure to understand reality, failure

to predict reality. And rational fields

start to stagnate and they get get stuck

in themselves.

There's a key four-part distinction

we're going to be making here, which is

we're going to want to distinguish

between reason, reasonleness,

reasonleness,

rationality, and rationalism.

Credit to David Chapman for this

important distinction.

So, I'm not going to fully define these

right now for you. In a in about an hour

or two when we get towards this this the

last uh part of this episode I'm going

to give you some definitions of these.

But for now just contemplate what might

be the difference between reason,

reasonleness, rationality and rationalism.

rationalism.

For our purposes right now as we kind of

bootstrap this investigation, let's

focus on just the difference between

rationality and rationalism.

Rationality is some kind of function

that your mind is performing. Let's just

start there. And then rationalism is

what is that? Well, that would be to

turn rationality into some kind of ism

or some kind of system. So you can also

have the parallel here between you can

have science and then you can have scientism.

scientism.

What's the difference between science

and scientism? We have a analogous

difference between rationality and

rationalism. So a lot of what this whole

episode is about is about deconstructing

ration rationalism

and then rationality itself. Well, we're

going to maintain that. Of course, we're

not going to stop using rationality.

We're going to keep using it. But also,

we're going to learn as we talk about

the limits of rationalism, we're also

going to learn about the limits of

rationality as well.

So my thesis for this whole series is

that rationalism is a self-deception and

not the highest form of intelligence nor

cognitive development.

But to understand what that really

means, we need to define in a lot of

depth what is rationalism. So let's go

into that right now. I have a list for

you. Um, I it it's worth our time to

really set this up and to think about

what is rationalism, to really define it

deeply because that's what we're deconstructing.

deconstructing.

And see, the trick with rationalism is that

that

you probably don't consciously think of

yourself as a rationalist. You probably

don't identify that way. But

nevertheless, you probably subscribe if

not to the entire paradigm that I'll be

describing here in a second than to

important parts of it. Right? And it and

it's not the case that you need to

subscribe to the whole thing to be

limited by it. Whichever parts of it you

subscribe to will limit your mind's

ability to to cognize and to understand

reality. All right. So let's let's

define what is rationalism.

Rationalism is a worldview. First of

all, it's an implicit epistemic

paradigm. And by implicit, what we mean

is that most people who hold it, they're

not conscious that they're holding it,

but they do hold it. And uh

nevertheless, it limits them.

It's also a faith in the power of reason

to solve all problems, all sense making,

all truth seeeking.

It's quote any belief system that makes

exaggerated claims about the power of

rationality, usually involving a formal

guarantee of correctness. End quote.

These quotes here are all from David

Chapman. So, I'm not going to keep

repeating his name. Just if I'm quoting

something and I I'm not telling you

where I'm quoting it from in this

episode, it's all coming from David

Chapman and his website metarrationality.com.

He also says, quote, "Rationality,

rationalism means that quote,

rationality is all there is to thinking

and acting well. It is sufficient for

all purposes, and there's nothing else

that you need."

This implies that there's nothing

better. There's no better system.

There's no better epistemology than rationality.

rationality.

Rationalism is also quote specifies some

ultimate criterion according to which

thinking or acting could be judged to be

correct or optimal end quote.

And it's quote thinking in accordance

with this criterion leads to true

beliefs. And it also claims that

rationality yields maximally effective

action. End quote.

Rationalism is trying to think about

reality in formal ways as a means of

solving the problem of distinguishing

truth from falsehood.

So this is the key issue that we deal

with when we're talking about the mind

and we're talking about epistemology,

philosophy, science, anything is really

ultimately what we're talking about. We

can all boil it down to how do you

distinguish truth from falsehood?

That's the

really tricky question. How do you do that?

that?

And um rationalism's answer is that well

you be you you you you do that by

becoming more and more formal. You look

for formal ways. And and what do we mean

by formal ways? And we're going to be

using this term called formalism. What

does that mean? Well, see

just think about it. before there was official

official

codified scientific method which only

has existed for about 500 years let's

say since this European scientific

revolution before that how did human

beings make sense of reality well this

was the pre-rational era of human

civilization which is the majority of

human civilization was pre-rational so

this was before official scientific

method um I mean people still still did

science but it wasn't formalized

to formalize something is to lay it down

into a sort of a law or into rules or

into official kind of method and and

then to to teach it by institutions and

through culture and all this kind of

stuff. So you know the ancient Egyptians

we can ask the question like did the

ancient Egyptians have science? Well, in

a certain sense obviously yes because

they built some incredible stuff. You

can't build the pyramids without some

kind of advanced understanding of of

nature and reality and how to carve

rocks. I mean, you could call all that

science. On the other hand, it wasn't

like a formal scientific method the way

that we have now. So, in a certain

sense, they didn't have science, but

nevertheless, they were able to

understand reality. And also notice

that, you know, it was mixed in with a

lot of superstition. it was mixed in

with um mystical ideas and religious

ideas and all sorts of false ideas as

well. So what is the reasoning behind

formalizing scientific method? Well,

it's supposed to be like you know um

we're becoming more rigorous and

therefore by be the the reason for

becoming more rigorous is because

there's a lot of sloppy stuff. If you're

using your mind in a sloppy way, if

you're doing science in a sloppy way,

then you're going to get a lot of truth

mixed with a lot of falsehood as well.

You're going to get superstition, you're

going to get woo, you're going to get

falsehood, and you're going to get

delusions and self-deceptions, which is

all common in the pre-rational

uh stages of of human cognition. So then

as you formalize, as you you know, you

use rigorous method, you do double blind

placeboc controlled studies, that's a

example of formalization. uh you know

you don't imagine that the ancient

Egyptians did any kind of double blind

placebo controlled studies about their

religious beliefs right they just

believe stuff

um and uh and so you know they probably

believe a lot of false stuff even if

they believe some true stuff as well. So

uh the idea is that by you know

formalizing our studies and being very

rigorous and having people proofread our

work and writing you know formal

research papers citing all of our

sources by doing this kind of formal

method then um we're eliminating the

untruth and we're separating the truth

from the untruth and in this way we're

creating the distinction between science

and pseudocience. So we might say

uh as modernists we might say that the

you know the ancient Egyptians had a lot

of pseudocience but also some legitimate

science mixed in. It's just mixed

complex bag and and but but you know we

don't like having pseudocience and

science mixed together. We want

something more pure, more true. We want

to get rid of all the falsehood and the

delusion. So we formalize. Another way

to think about formalism is like think

about a concept like for example intelligence.

intelligence.

You can have a folk notion of

intelligence like oh that person's

really smart. she's really intelligent.

We can just kind of talk about it

informally that way and we're capturing

some reality when we say that. But on

the other hand, like what is

intelligence? It's this amorphous,

nebulous, fuzzy concept. How do we

define it in a rigorous way? So a

scientist comes along and says, well,

okay, so I mean it's no good to just

talk about intelligence, you know, using

our, you know, intuition of who's smart

and who isn't. We need to me start

measuring this stuff. So let's come up

with some kind of you know first of all

let's define what intelligence is and we

can say that well intelligence is your

ability to solve math problems quickly.

That might be one measure. Another

measure is that you know it's your

verbal it's your verbal abilities your

reading comprehension and we could

design some kind of test to measure

that. And maybe it's your ability to

solve geometric puzzles you know

rotating objects like on an IQ test. So,

you know, we can come up with like a a

four-point definition of what

intelligence is and then we can design a

test to measure each of those and then

we can give the these tests to people

and then we get an IQ test and then we

we can give someone a number and then

based on that it seems like okay see

we've formalized this fuzzy notion

called intelligence into something a

little bit more rigorous.

But then the question becomes, well, is

that though really what intelligence is?

Or is that an artificial construct of

the human mind? And maybe it doesn't

really capture what intelligence is.

Maybe intelligence is something beyond

just what this IQ test is capturing. But

then of course the the limitation

becomes if if we start to take our

construct too seriously without being

aware that it's a construct, then we can

get trapped

into thinking that we understand

So this is formalism.

Rationalism is all about formalism as a

solution to this problem of

distinguishing truth from falsehood.

Rationalism is also attempts to create

laws of thinking, creating a method for

right thinking. Like wouldn't it be

ideal because you know the human mind is so

full of bullshit?

Uh most of the time it's easy to

bullshit with the human mind. And so how

do we learn to think properly? What are

the laws of thinking?

Wouldn't it be ideal if we could just

come up with some kind of formula for

how to get to the truth? So rationalism

wants to do that.

It wants to find those laws of thinking.

But maybe those laws don't exist. We

have to be open to that possibility as

Also, maybe you create these laws, but

then those laws actually limit your

ability to think. We have to also

consider that possibility.

So, this is all very tricky stuff. Um,

rationalism is also normative. Normative

means that others ought to follow it.

Everyone ought to be rationalist

according to the rationalist. That's the

proper way to be because if you're not a

rationalist according to the rationalist

then you're some sort of diluted new age

person or some softrained you know fuzzy

intuitive person who believes in a bunch

of woo

rationalism is the assumption that

anything that is true can be arrived at

by rationality and if rationality can't

arrive at it then it cannot be true.

Rationalism is the attempt to create an

objective replacement for intuition

because intuition is subjective, fuzzy,

and unreliable.

Rationalism is the attempt to make human

sensem as rigorous and objective as mathematics.

Mathematics is sort of like the the gold

standard for the rationalist or for the

scientist because the truths of

mathematics can be elegantly written in just

just

simple equations and then those

equations can be checked. We can even

build a computer program to check for

the validity of our equations and our

logical proofs. And so, wouldn't that be

ideal if we could just have a computer

program that can just check any

statement or any belief system or any

worldview for its correctness? And in

this way, we can eliminate any kind of

delusions from our understanding of reality.

reality.

But it's an open question whether that's

even possible though.

Rationalism is an inclination towards

systemic theoretic approaches to

understanding the world. It's the

attempt to make all of reality explicit,

formalized, and quantified.

Formalism is assumed to be more true

than any other kind of knowing. If it

isn't formal, it isn't serious and it

isn't real. If you can't formalize it,

it's not real at all. If it can't be

quantified, it isn't real. If it can't

Rationalism is the notion that all

informal human notions of reality can

simply be formalized with enough work

and that nothing important or truthful

would be lost if we did so. It's the

attempt to boil all of reality down to a

set of logical true false propositions

and statements. It's sensemaking and

understanding turned into propositional

knowledge. And in a sense that's what

formal science is trying to do. That's

what the whole game of academia is. You

go into academia and your job is to

contribute to mankind's knowledge base.

And what do we mean by propositional

knowledge? Well, propositional knowledge

is like we might think of it as

statements that are true or false about

the world. For example,

the earth is round. True or false? True.

Okay, that's a, you know, that's a

propositional statement. And then, you

know, snow is white. Is that true or

false? Well, it's true. Okay. And then

the moon is made of cheese. Is that true

or false? No, it's false. Okay. And then

so you could think of science in a

simplistic manner as just a list of all

the true propositions about the world.

And then a scientist's job or an

academic's job is to, you know, research

more and more of the world and to

contribute to this giant database of

true and false statements about the

world. And that if we just collect and

grow and expand this database of

propositional knowledge that eventually

we'll just understand the whole

universe. And that that's all that there

is to science. That's all that there is

to reason. That's all there is to using

the mind. That's all there is to truth.

Truth just is a database of everything

that's true about the world in

Rationalism is the treating of complex

phenomena as analyzable and reducible to

You know, if you go to university

freshman logic classes, they will teach

you how to reduce

questions about the world and about

nature into logical forms. Whereas like

they even have this kind of special

notation. It's called first order logic.

There's second order logic and so forth.

But it teaches you how to sort of like

reduce everything into syllergistic forms.

forms.

By syllogistic form I mean stuff like

you know Socrates is a man.

Statement number one claim number two is

that uh all men are mortal and then the

conclusion is you know um Socrates

therefore it must be mortal. This is

freshman first order logic class kind of stuff.

stuff.

And rationalism is the notion that you

can reduce sensemaking to

that kind of thing.

It's attempts to understand reality

through logical syllogisms.

The beauty of logical syllogisms is that

they're deductive and that if you have

one of these sort of syllogisms and they

always contain premises but as long as

the premises are true and you go through

the logic and the logic is sound there's

actual rules you know modus ponins modus

tonins all those laws of logic and if

you follow those deductive laws properly

then that guarantees that you get the

correct answer your answer must be right

at the end of all that you know logicing

and so that's very appealing because

ideally we would want our understanding

of the universe to be as rigorous and

solid as mathematics

and as first order logic.

So rationalism attempts to do that.

Rationalism is the belief that

everything can be proven and that things

that should only be taken as true if

they are proven.

It's the demand for rigorous objective

Uh and this leads to this kind of

attitude, this kind of like skeptic

uh conservative scientific attitude of

like, well, extraordinary claims require

extraordinary evidence. If you're going

to claim something, you need to back it

up with sources. You got to site your

sources. You got to site your studies

and all that kind of stuff. So, so

again, you can see how we're formalizing

this whole process of sensemaking and

It's the attempt to systematize knowledge.

knowledge.

It's the attempt for absolute certainty

in knowledge.

However, there's an interesting little

paradox and kind of contradiction here

because at the same time, rationalism

wants to invent a system for absolute

certainty in in our knowledge. On the

other hand, it also will want to deny

You know most academics and scientists

if you tell them that something is

absolutely true uh they'll be very

skeptical of that because from the

pre-rational stages where people would

claim absolute truth in God or absolute

truth in Jesus or whatever you know uh

scientists have become very skeptical of

that because where's the evidence you

know where's the evidence that that

Noah's ark actually existed where is the

evidence that miracles are real you know

you can't claim these things as

absolutes without the evidence without

the and In general, there's a very

skeptical attitude towards any kind of absolutes

absolutes

to the point where absolutes are even

deny that they're even possible.

Uh many in the scientific field just

believe that there are no such thing as absolutes.

Rationalism is quote, "If something is

mathematically true, you can be

absolutely sure of it because it's a

mathematical proof and unarguably

correct." End quote. And that's the

ideal that we're aiming for.

It's the idea of objective correct of

the objective correctness of reason and proof.

proof.

It's the notion that you can just

guarantee truth if you follow certain

correct procedures.

It's the attempt to rid all subjectivity

from understanding and from truth

seeeking. The problem of epistemology is

solved by eliminating subjectivity.

See, that was the real problem in the

pre-rational era is that, you know, you

had all this subjectivity. People

believed in different kinds of gods and

different kinds of mystical woo because,

you know, different cultures have their

own subjective biases and so forth. And

nobody was conscious of their biases and

they were just living out their biases.

And so, you know, to develop a formal

science, we need to get away from all

that. We need to object objectivize all

that subjective stuff. And we do that

by, you know,

by the methods of academia.

This is done ideally by inventing some

kind of mechanical process for

distinguishing truth from falsehood.

Rationalism is the idea that truth and

falsehood can be distinguished

mechanically without intelligence.

This is critical.

Mechanically without intelligence, a

machine that finds the truth. That's the

rationalist ideal in this. There is no

fuzzy soft

It's just a machine.

Ideally, we would have an AI that would

give us all the answers, right?

And right now, even today, you know,

people are still under under this idea

that you can just invent an AI that's

going to tell you the truth,

right? Isn't that what's going to happen

in a decade is we just have an AI and

you just ask the AI anything and the eye

tells you what's true and then you just

believe it and that's it. That's all

there is to epistemology. Leo,

epistemology has been solved. All we

need is just a better AI that just has

more CPU power, GPU power that can just

crunch more numbers and it'll solve all

these philosophical fuzzy problems that

you've been talking about. Actualiz will

become irrelevant because we'll just

have an AI that tells us all the answers.

answers.

Rationalism assumes that that's possible.

possible.

Rationalism assumes that the problem of

self-deception can be solved by just

being hyperrational, rigorous, formal,

and mechanical.

This uh this famous adage of, you know,

quote, shut up and calculate.

Uh about a hundred years ago when they

were developing quantum mechanics, you

know, the fathers of quantum mechanics,

uh they were arguing about, you know,

well, what does it really mean? Is is a

particle really a w, you know, is it a

particle? Is it a wave? Is it here? Is

it there? What what does quantum

mechanics really mean? They were trying

to figure out the interpretations and

and one of the one of the physicists

just was this kind of extreme

rationalist type and he just said, "You

guys are arguing about all this

philosophy. Just shut up and calculate.

Shut up and calculate and then that will

be enough to understand reality.

Or will it?"

Now look, sometimes it is appropriate to

just shut up and calculate. Sometimes

you don't have enough information to do

your philosophy on. And so maybe it's

right to shut up and calculate. Imagine

if you applied that attitude towards

understanding everything that I teach

for example with actualize.org. How far

would that get you?

How deeply would you understand reality

with that approach?

See, a rationalist believes that there's

nothing more to reality than just calculations.

calculations.

If reality is just a computer,

if that's all it is, then all we need to

do is apply that computational approach

and eventually that's going to get us

the closest to to the truth.

But is reality just a computer?

Uh, rationalism is the firm belief that

this is the right way to go.

We need to be more hard, more rigorous.

rid the sciences of all the fluff, all

the woo, all the human sentiment.

And when a rationalist is confronted

with epistemic and metaphysical

problems, he just doubles down on the

rigor. Technical rigor is the solution.

We're just not being rigorous enough.

That's our problem.

Rationalism is a faith that there exists

this master method that quote guarantees

a correct algorithm for rational thought

and action end quote.

It's the default worldview of people in

the technical work and technical fields

like STEM, programming, business, hard

science, academia, western medicine.

Rationalism is a kind of group think and

a kind of culture that permeates these

And academics swim in it like fish and water.

water.

It's an overestimation of pure reason to

solve problems and to understand

reality. It's an overconfidence in

logical frameworks. It's treating

reality like a computer system. Reality

is just an algorithm. It's just an

equation. All we got to do is just find

a few more physics equations and then

we'll solve reality

because everything's just computation.

Reality is just math equations after

all. Right? It's all it is.

Rationalism is truth seeeking reduced to

scientific studies, lab experiments, and

research papers. That's how you do truth

seeeking. You don't sit around and do

philosophy. You do research studies and

then you get your colleagues to confirm

your research studies and then you

publish in papers. Uh, I mean, you

publish a paper in in journals, you

know, credible journals that have high

rigorous standards for proof and and um,

you know, editorial controls and stuff

like that, rigorous peerre.

Rationalism is the treating of

rationality as an absolute. It turns

reason into God.

That's a poetic way of describing what

it is. It's the notion that reason is

the highest intelligence.

the explicit or the implicit notion that

reason should be king over mind and

reality. Rationalism is the pretense

that you are a rational being who makes

sense of reality rationally and acts rationally.

rationally.

It's the notion that you can build up a

rock-solid system of understanding from

rocksolid first principles. This is sort

of the cartisian

um project that Renee Deart tried to do

which sort of launched the the

scientific revolution in Europe. This

idea that you you sit down and you

question everything to rock bottom first

principles and then from that you sort

of build up your system of science based

on on that and then it's and then it

becomes injubitable. You can't doubt it

because, you know, it's built on just,

you know, solid first order logic.

That's just deductive.

This rationalism is a kind of autistic

nerd approach to explaining and

understanding reality. It's a set of

ideals. It's a vibe. It's an aesthetic.

It's a culture.

It's this vibe of facts don't care about

your feelings. Hard science, logic, and

math are what's real, and everything

else is just soft human sentiment.

Rationality is just facts and logic and

science and everything else is just pseudocience.

pseudocience.

It's a dismissive attitude towards the

soft sciences because they're inferior

to the hard sciences

because the closer you get to atomic

physics, that's like what's real is

atomic physics. And then the more higher

up you go, you know, chemistry, biology,

sociology, politics, then the further

you get away from atomic physics, then

the less real it gets.

That's what the rationalist believes.

It's the attempt to apply the methods of

hard science to the soft sciences and to

the social domain. So the rationalist

doesn't just believe that, you know,

atomic physics is what's ultimately

real. But then that attitude is applied

to the social domain as well. For

example, Marxism is supposed to be a scientific

uh approach to economics and to politics.

politics.

Whereas before that people had their you

know political ideas and so forth. When

Karl Marx came along the whole appeal of

Marxism was that it was supposed to be

scientific. You know scientifically

mankind is advancing from u you know the

the the feudal stages to the capitalist

stages to the socialist stages and then

eventually we're going to get to the to

the communist stages and this is you

know this is all pre-ordained and set in

stone kind of thing. this is all

scientific and then people actually

start to believe that Marxism is this

it's not just a political theory it's science

which makes it more true and then makes

people believe in it even harder and

then of course what you get in practice

is not what Marxism predicted

and then you start to wonder well wait a

minute where's the disconnect Marxism

was supposed to be this rational

scientific system and then we get all

this crazy chaos from it. Why is that

the case? See, this is an example of

rationalism failing when it is actually

when it when it collides with the you

know the messiness and the chaos of the

real world, especially the social domain.

domain.

Rationalism is this attitude of owning

people with facts and logic.

Reason must rule the passions, reason

above emotions and woo, the belief that

many of the world's problems can be

solved if only people were just a little

bit more rational.

The conviction that the success of math

and science proves that rationalism must

be correct because after all we landed a

man on the moon. Therefore, science and

logic are true. So what's like what is

there to do philosophy about?

We know how to get to the truth. It's

just this the kind of stuff that got us

to the moon.

Let's just keep doing more of that and

then eventually we'll just understand

everything there is to understand about

the world.

It's the attempt to explain everything

with physics and with evolution.

Rationalists love to evoke invoke

evolution, evolutionary theory. You

know, why do men cheat so much? Well,

evolution. Why do women cheat so much?

Well, evolution. Why this? Why that?

What are men attracted to? What are

women attracted to? Well, it's just evolution.

evolution.

These kinds of explanations. You've read

this kind of stuff. You've heard this

kind of stuff. You've heard these kind

of arguments being made. And a lot of it

is this kind of bro science kind of

stuff, right? So there's an element to

this whole rationalism project which is

like hardcore serious academics with

PhDs. That's like the really rigorous

stuff. And then but then it kind of

devolves as it as it permeates. This is

a culture, right? It permeates through

society and through culture. So it's not

just academics who are doing this bros

on Reddit, you know, your keyboard

warriors on Reddit who are, you know, in

the science subreddits, you know,

arguing about science versus religion

and atheism and theism and this kind of

stuff, right? These Reddit bros are also

creating their own kind of, you know,

bro science, you know, uh, fitness

influencers and weightlifters and so

forth. You know, they are also invoking

this kind of like it they're not just

weightlifting. They're they're doing

weightlifting in a scientific way. They

think, you know, you know, they're

they're measuring the the muscle size,

the muscle mass, and they're measuring

the chemistry and and all this kind of

stuff. And then they're they're invoking

this kind of scientific rationalist language.

language.

And then they bring that into their

debates about mysticism and about

religion and about spirituality. They

bring all that in. Right? This entire

paradigm gets brought in. See,

rationalism is like a lens through which

you make sense of the whole world.

That's why it's so important. That's why

we're deconstructing it is because it it

it doesn't just influence how you do

science. This isn't just a topic for scientists.

Because when we start discussing and

arguing about what reality is, how it

really works,

you're going to make appeals. Religious

people will make appeals to their, you

know, to their Bibles and so forth. And

then science, science geeks and so forth

will make appeals to science and

evolutionary biology and physics and

quantum mechanics or whatever else to

rationalize and justify their views. And

this becomes very dangerous. This

Core to rationalism is this idea of

reductionism. Reductionism is the notion

that you can reduce everything to

particles, physics, equations,

computation or mechanics.

Everything complex and fuzzy can

ultimately be reduced down to hard

physical systems like atoms and

equations. This includes all of ethics,

aesthetics, art, religion, philosophy,

sensemaking, spirituality. Even all of

it can just be reduced down to neurons

in the brain

which are just atoms ultimately. It's

just all chemistry, right? Or is it?

Well, the rationalist believes it is.

Rationalism is generally unholistic.

it. Its approach to reality is to study

very technical specialized

specialized

local aspects of reality, understanding

those and then just stitching those

together. And this is sort of the

academic approach. You know, you have

your you have your physics department,

you have your chemistry department, you

have your biology department, even in

your physics department. It's subdivided

into 20 different sub fields of physics.

And then, you know, you just specialize

in your little narrow field. And you got

to do that because otherwise, you know,

you're not gonna have enough mental

bandwidth to understand all the crazy

technical detail of each one of those

sub fields. So you just specialize in

your narrow little field. You make that

your own niche and then you devote the

rest of your life just studying that.

You're humble. You're not too arrogant.

You don't try to master every field

because that's impossible. And so you're

just very humble. This is kind of the

rationalist ethos. You're humble. You

focus on your little specialty. And

everybody does that. And together we

will collect this database of knowledge

and understanding. And then eventually

that's how we'll understand the whole universe.

universe.

because uh uh

see reductionism in itself is unholistic

because reductionism believes that you

reality is just nothing more than the

sum of its parts. In the end everything

is just atoms. So if you just know the

position of every atom in the universe,

you're going to know everything in the

universe and that's all that there is to

truth seeeking. That's the fundamental attitude.

attitude.

It's attempts to fix complex realities

into simplified models. So a lot of

rationalism is all about modeling stuff

and then they model and model and model

and eventually they they start to take

their models as reality itself.

Rationalism is the belief that

rationality, logic and science are not

relative. They're not subjective and

they're not biased. This is like

objective truth. You know, humans have

mathematics and logic and if we meet

aliens in the future, they will also

have the exact same mathematics and

logic. That's the idea because this is

universal, right? Math and science are universal.

universal.

It's not that some one culture, you

know, there's not Asian math and then

African math and then European math.

uh rationalism is also this kind of masculine

masculine

uh thinker personality type approach

on the MyersBriggs you have your

thinkers and you have your feelers well

rationalism forgets all about the

feeling you know feeling you can't

understand reality through feeling it's

just all thinking and it's all this

masculine approach and that's not a bias

that's just objectively how reality is

it's the subordination of the right

hemisphere to the left hemisphere

it's this overly uh leftrained autistic

ic view of reality.

It's performative formality, rigor, and

objectivity. It's this fantasy that

you're being very strict and rigorous

and literal and objective and factual

and scientific when often times you

So you see hardcore scientists subscribe

to this kind of paradigm, but also

people who are not scientists also

Um,

it's this paradigm that by by being this

science nerd that you're actually being

very rigorous and that you're doing the

best thing possible for having the

cleanest, purest, truest epistemology.

It's this idea that you can solve the

problems of epistemology just by being

ultra scientific.

Uh a great example of this kind of u

performative formalism is basian reasoning.

reasoning.

Anyone who talks about basian reasoning

I'm not going to explain it here. Um

it's really nonsense. Pure nonsense. Um

but uh but the these people who take

basian reasoning seriously uh and and

who think that this is how you solve

epistemology is through through

application of basian reasoning. Um,

this is an example of this kind of like

uh performative uh formality or rigor.

See, you can act as though you're using

your mind in a rigorous way and think

that you're actually getting to the

truth, but you actually aren't. This is

the trap.

Rationalism is the belief that your

worldview is logical and consistent when

it isn't.

It's the attempt to model humans as

rational agents. You know, a lot of uh

economic models try to do this and then

they get all sorts of wacky results

because humans are not just simple

rational agents the way that you assume.

It's the notion that philosophy and

metaphysics are unnecessary or that it's

nonsense or that it's impossible.

Philosophy is nothing more than mental

games and linguistic confusion. You're

not actually solving any kind of

problems by doing philosophy. The only

problems you can solve are by doing science.

science.

Philosophy doesn't actually give you any

kind of answers or understanding because

it's all just so subjective and fuzzy.

But science, you know, gives you hard

answers, gives you facts.

It's the attitude that science does not

It's the belief that reality is made out

of crisp, definite objective categories,

thinking in rigid categories and

dualities. It's the assumption that

there is a set of concrete objective

facts about an external world which is

uh mind independent. There just is an

objective world out there that's

independent of our minds and all we got

to do is just get the fuzzy stuff out of

the way to understand that world and

then we're good. Epistemology is solved.

Rationalism is the elevation of the

objective over the subjective. It takes

objectivity for granted as more real

than subjectivity.

The objective stuff is what's real. The

subjective stuff that's just human

sentiment doesn't matter. Subjectivity

is just the airy fairy mystical woo

which is corrupting science that we got

to get rid of.

Rationalism places rational concepts,

models, abstractions above first person

subjective experience. It even denies

that first person subjective experience exists.

exists.

It even denies the reality of consciousness.

consciousness.

uh you know famously Dan Daniel Dennett

who I would characterize as a

rationalist uh rationalist philosopher

died recently. Um Daniel Dennett wrote a

whole book

trying to argue that that consciousness

is just an illusion and that all of it

ultimately boils down to just Adams and

Uh rationalism believes that first

person experience is unreliable and not

proof of anything.

It requires that all truth be first

third person verifiable. Somebody else

has to verify the truth for you.

Rationalism doesn't believe anything

unless it is verified by peer-reviewed

studies and research papers. A

rationalist will only believe in God if

there's a peer-reviewed research paper

on God.

uh it's preoccupied with justifying and

demonstrating truth as part of a

scientific consensus. Right?

In a sense, the rationalist does not

have a notion of personal truth. Uh

there's only truth as part of a as a collective

and that if it's a personal truth, it's

not really a truth at all. A personal

truth is just some subjective stuff that

you made up, you know, to please

yourself. Whereas the real truth is all

uh third person verified.

Rationalism is this kind of game of

formal academic rigor. The standards of academia.

academia.

It believes that everything true is

accessible but to scientific method and

it is scientific method as dogma and it

denies any limits to scientific method.

Scientific method is able to grasp

everything that's true and everything

that's real.

Rationalism is also often pragmatism.

It's this pragmatic notion of truth.

This sort of Richard Rory notion of

truth. Um truth just is what is

effective. It is utility and value.

It confuses truth with survival.

So this is sort of a little correlary to

the pragmatic thing is that um yeah it's

the belief that science doesn't really

discover truth or prove anything. It's

just useful. So see the rationalist

wants to have it both ways. On the one

hand the rationalist just wants to say

that science is the truth and everything

else is just nonsense. On the other

hand, he also wants to say when you

start to question him about truth and

about is science really truth, then he's

you're going to back him into a corner

and he's going to say, "Well, wait, wait

a minute. Actually, you know, um,

science doesn't really even care about

the truth. Science isn't about truth.

So, it kind of h tries to play it both ways.

ways.

Rationalism is a notion that moral

questions can be quantified and

calculated. So there's this attempt to

even apply rationality to moral

questions which is something like for

example that Sam Harris likes to do

tries to rationalize uh um

yeah it tries to to make

tries to rationalize morality. I guess

you could say

rationalism is the denial that

rationality has limits. It's skepticism

towards beliefs not grounded in rational argument.

argument.

It's belief in a sharp distinction

between science and pseudocience and

therefore an allergy to pseudocience.

Right? So the rationalist believes that

there is such a thing as science and

then everything else that's not science

is by definition pseudocience and that

there's a sharp distinction between

those two things.

Rationalism is a close-mindedness to

anything mystical. It's an attitude of

ridicule and mockery for anything

mystical, woo, traditional, religious,

or new age. It's a stubborn refusal to

take anything mystical seriously. It's

the assumption that anyone taking

talking about mystical things is just

sloppy and delusional, not using their

mind properly, not following the proper

procedures of of thinking.

Uh because in reality, nothing can be

mystical, right? There is no mystery to

the universe. It's just mechanics.

And therefore, it's the impulse to

demystify everything. Everything

And of course, therefore, it's a

rejection and denial of mystical

experience. Mystical experience means

nothing because it's just

hallucinations. Soft, fuzzy human

sentiment, wishful thinking. That's all

that it is. There's no truth in it.

There's nothing deep about it. It's not

better than science. You can't

understand things through mystical

experiences because it you can't verify

them. You know, you had some

hallucination. Okay, but so what? You

saw a vision of Jesus. Okay, but so

what? That doesn't mean it's real.

doesn't mean that it's true. Doesn't

mean that, you know, other people see it

too. It can't be reproduced in a

laboratory. Can't be reproduced in a

double blind placeboc controlled study.

Therefore, it's not real.

So, rationalism rejects experience that

cannot be formalized.

So, it wants experience to be formalized.

formalized.

A thing can only be real if it can be

made explicit and repeatably testable in

a controlled laboratory environment.

Another way to think about rationalism

is that it's an attempt to deny God with reason.

reason.

It's an extreme skepticism applied to

everything immaterial and woo. But

notice this is a very biased application

of skepticism because it never applies

that same level of skepticism towards

materialism, scientism, rationalism itself.

itself.

If a thing doesn't fit rationalism, then

it is assumed to be irrational and false.

It is a kind of hyper secularization.

Everything must be secularized, right?

We need to move away from all the old

superstitious religious dogma of you

know the medieval era and move into a

modern technologically advanced you know technoutopia

technoutopia

uh which is free of of of any mystical woo.

It's like Leo why why call it God? Don't

call it God, call it nothing.

Because the God thing, it's like, uh,

it's icky. There's an allergy to God.

There's an allergy to anything mystical,

anything religious.

Rationalism dismisses intuition,

tradition, lived experience, emotions,

qualia, even consciousness. It often

ignores contextual, emotional, embodied

forms of intelligence. Intelligence is

just the kind of uh

technical intelligence,

the kind of intelligence that's measured

by an acute. That's real intelligence.

Everything else is not really intelligence.

Rationalism is the belief that

statements that can't be subjected to

scientific method,

they're not just false, they're not even

false, they're just meaningless.

For example, a statement like God is love, that's not true, and it's not even

love, that's not true, and it's not even false. It's just meaningless,

false. It's just meaningless, softbrained, word salad nonsense. It

softbrained, word salad nonsense. It means nothing.

Everything is a system to be analyzed. Analysis is the method. Through

Analysis is the method. Through analysis, we can understand all of

analysis, we can understand all of reality.

reality. Rationalism treats consciousness as an

Rationalism treats consciousness as an algorithm.

algorithm. Rationalism, you can think of it as a

Rationalism, you can think of it as a fantasy of control over reality or

fantasy of control over reality or infinity. It's an illusion of certainty

infinity. It's an illusion of certainty and security in a very chaotic,

and security in a very chaotic, epistemically chaotic world.

epistemically chaotic world. It's a craving for guaranteed solutions.

It's a craving for guaranteed solutions. That's what science offers, guaranteed

That's what science offers, guaranteed answers. And you don't need to rely on

answers. And you don't need to rely on yourself. See, the rationalist has this

yourself. See, the rationalist has this allergy of relying on their own

allergy of relying on their own intuitions or their own convictions

intuitions or their own convictions about the truth. It's like the scientist

about the truth. It's like the scientist doesn't want to believe their own

doesn't want to believe their own beliefs. In a sense, what they want is

beliefs. In a sense, what they want is they they want an experiment to tell

they they want an experiment to tell them what is true, to give them the

them what is true, to give them the guaranteed answer so that they don't

guaranteed answer so that they don't bullshit themselves.

Rationalism tries to create rigorous ways of thinking as a safeguard against

ways of thinking as a safeguard against delusion without realizing that these

delusion without realizing that these limits will limit consciousness and

limits will limit consciousness and limit intelligence and create their own

limit intelligence and create their own delusion.

delusion. See that that little wrinkle never

See that that little wrinkle never occurs to the rationalist.

occurs to the rationalist. Rationalism is a psychological aversion

Rationalism is a psychological aversion to ambiguity, fuzziness, relativity,

to ambiguity, fuzziness, relativity, construction,

construction, psychology, and metaphysics. It's the

psychology, and metaphysics. It's the assumption that making understanding

assumption that making understanding more and more technical makes it more

more and more technical makes it more truthful.

truthful. For example,

you know, in in universities, people will write 200page proofs and, you know,

will write 200page proofs and, you know, PhD thesis on one plus 1 equals 2. They

PhD thesis on one plus 1 equals 2. They can't just accept that 1 plus 1 equals

can't just accept that 1 plus 1 equals 2. They can't intuitit that. No, no, no,

2. They can't intuitit that. No, no, no, no. That's too fuzzy. That's too

no. That's too fuzzy. That's too subjective. We need a 200page proof

subjective. We need a 200page proof proving that 1 plus 1 equals 2. Then we

proving that 1 plus 1 equals 2. Then we can be sure it's this kind of attitude.

can be sure it's this kind of attitude. And that might sound ridiculous, but you

And that might sound ridiculous, but you know, very intelligent people have

know, very intelligent people have devoted their whole lives just to to

devoted their whole lives just to to write 200 pages of proofs on why oneplus

write 200 pages of proofs on why oneplus 1 equals 2. And and their proofs fail.

1 equals 2. And and their proofs fail. See, [laughter]

See, [laughter] it's so hard to technically prove that 1

it's so hard to technically prove that 1 plus 1 equals two. That, you know, when

plus 1 equals two. That, you know, when Bertrand Russell and and Gotlib Frag

Bertrand Russell and and Gotlib Frag tried to do this, you know, 100 years

tried to do this, you know, 100 years ago, they tried to, you know, Bertrand

ago, they tried to, you know, Bertrand Russell wrote a thousandpage logic book

Russell wrote a thousandpage logic book just to prove that 1 plus 1 equals two

just to prove that 1 plus 1 equals two in his logic and still it failed. That's

in his logic and still it failed. That's how difficult that is. But that's the

how difficult that is. But that's the attempt that they're trying to do.

attempt that they're trying to do. Uh it's this horror and tear at

Uh it's this horror and tear at insanity. The rationalist really

insanity. The rationalist really struggles with insanity because all of

struggles with insanity because all of rationalism is about maintaining sanity

rationalism is about maintaining sanity and they're not aware of that.

and they're not aware of that. Rationalists consider something like,

Rationalists consider something like, you know, a philosophy like soypism.

you know, a philosophy like soypism. They would consider that absurd. You

They would consider that absurd. You know, that's absurd.

know, that's absurd. Uh rationalists might be obsessed with

Uh rationalists might be obsessed with IQ and formal measures of intelligence

IQ and formal measures of intelligence like that. In a sense, you can think of

like that. In a sense, you can think of rationalism as apologia for scientism,

rationalism as apologia for scientism, materialism, atheism, pragmatism, and

materialism, atheism, pragmatism, and reductionism. It's a set of

reductionism. It's a set of rationalizations explaining why those

rationalizations explaining why those things are true and the correct way of

things are true and the correct way of understanding the world. It's

understanding the world. It's rationality as dogma, the analog of

rationality as dogma, the analog of scientism. It's close-mindedness to

scientism. It's close-mindedness to ideas which do not fit conventional uh

ideas which do not fit conventional uh notions of rationality.

notions of rationality. It's the arrogance of rationality. You

It's the arrogance of rationality. You notice that rationality can be quite

notice that rationality can be quite arrogant.

arrogant. It is rationality which is not

It is rationality which is not self-aware. It is science which is not

self-aware. It is science which is not self-aware.

self-aware. Ultimately it's a stage of cognitive

Ultimately it's a stage of cognitive development

development biodnamic stage orange green and yellow

biodnamic stage orange green and yellow these are really the rational stages the

these are really the rational stages the Susan Cook on the Susan Cook greater

Susan Cook on the Susan Cook greater cook reder model the nine stages of ego

cook reder model the nine stages of ego development it's the achiever and the

development it's the achiever and the expert stage and even stages beyond that

and ultimately we could call it you know I I funnally kind of call it to myself

I I funnally kind of call it to myself rationalism is logical woo

So, okay, that's what rationalism is. We've defined it to death. Um, now this

We've defined it to death. Um, now this is granted as kind of an exaggerated

is granted as kind of an exaggerated stereotype, right? I've I've taken

stereotype, right? I've I've taken rationalism as a definition to its

rationalism as a definition to its ultimate extreme. This would be like a

ultimate extreme. This would be like a 100 out of 100.

100 out of 100. Few people are this cartoonishly

Few people are this cartoonishly rationalist.

rationalist. Usually, you're not going to be 100 out

Usually, you're not going to be 100 out of 100. you're going to be 40 out of

of 100. you're going to be 40 out of 100, maybe 30, maybe 80 out of 100, you

100, maybe 30, maybe 80 out of 100, you know, depending on, you know, where your

know, depending on, you know, where your sensibilities lie. But you'd be

sensibilities lie. But you'd be surprised. You'd be surprised how many

surprised. You'd be surprised how many people are quite cartoonishly

people are quite cartoonishly rationalist, especially when you start

rationalist, especially when you start to argue with them, right? See, usually

to argue with them, right? See, usually when a human being is just going through

when a human being is just going through normal life, they're not thinking about

normal life, they're not thinking about these kinds of deep existential topics,

these kinds of deep existential topics, then their rationalism doesn't really

then their rationalism doesn't really come out because it doesn't have any

come out because it doesn't have any reason to express itself.

reason to express itself. But if you if you take like a hardcore

But if you if you take like a hardcore academic physicist from MIT and and you

academic physicist from MIT and and you sit him down and you start to drill him

sit him down and you start to drill him on these philosophical issues like well

on these philosophical issues like well what is real? Is the mind real? Is

what is real? Is the mind real? Is matter real? Are numbers real? You know,

matter real? Are numbers real? You know, are emotions real? You start to, you

are emotions real? You start to, you know, drill him down on this and then

know, drill him down on this and then you start to talk to him. Well, what

you start to talk to him. Well, what what is truth? How do we distinguish

what is truth? How do we distinguish truth from falsehood? And all this kind

truth from falsehood? And all this kind of stuff. you start to do that, you're

of stuff. you start to do that, you're going to see his rationalism come out

going to see his rationalism come out and it's going to look quite silly and

and it's going to look quite silly and cartoonish.

cartoonish. Um, but of course

Um, but of course that's going to make him look bad. So,

that's going to make him look bad. So, he's going to try to say face and he's

he's going to try to say face and he's going to try to soften it up because he

going to try to soften it up because he doesn't want to come off as just this

doesn't want to come off as just this like logical robot. And, you know, most

like logical robot. And, you know, most people are not logical robots.

people are not logical robots. Um, but then again, I mean, again, you'd

Um, but then again, I mean, again, you'd be surprised at how many are. Here's a

be surprised at how many are. Here's a list of examples in case you think I'm

list of examples in case you think I'm just like straw manning and

just like straw manning and exaggerating. Here's a list of examples

exaggerating. Here's a list of examples of people who fall to some degree into

of people who fall to some degree into this kind of paradigm. Uh

this kind of paradigm. Uh we're going to start with the best one

we're going to start with the best one which is uh less wrong.com which is

which is uh less wrong.com which is founded by Elizer Yudkowski. So this guy

founded by Elizer Yudkowski. So this guy is like the poster boy of rationalism.

um he developed this whole website less wrong.com and this whole community of

wrong.com and this whole community of people who are trying to solve the

people who are trying to solve the problem of epistemology but they're

problem of epistemology but they're trying to solve it purely in the

trying to solve it purely in the rationalists paradigm. You know it's

rationalists paradigm. You know it's just about how to think more logically,

just about how to think more logically, how to be aware of your cognitive

how to be aware of your cognitive biases. This kind of and look that's

biases. This kind of and look that's good is teaching people how to be

good is teaching people how to be rational as opposed to pre-rational.

rational as opposed to pre-rational. That's great but then they don't realize

That's great but then they don't realize there's something beyond that. I mean

there's something beyond that. I mean they call themselves less wrong and

they call themselves less wrong and that's right they are less wrong but

that's right they are less wrong but less wrong is still wrong ultimately at

less wrong is still wrong ultimately at the end of the day it's still wrong

the end of the day it's still wrong right so ultimately in this series what

right so ultimately in this series what we're trying to describe is what's wrong

we're trying to describe is what's wrong with less wrong.com and there is

with less wrong.com and there is something wrong with it it's just uh

something wrong with it it's just uh difficult to put your finger on it other

difficult to put your finger on it other examples of people like this is for

examples of people like this is for example Sam Harris Richard Dawkins

example Sam Harris Richard Dawkins Daniel Dennett Michael Shurmer Lawrence

Daniel Dennett Michael Shurmer Lawrence Krauss Mark Taggmar Joe Shabbach

Krauss Mark Taggmar Joe Shabbach uh Neil deGrasse Tyson to some degree,

uh Neil deGrasse Tyson to some degree, Tim Mlin, Eric and Brett Weinstein to

Tim Mlin, Eric and Brett Weinstein to some degree, Peter Begoian, these kinds

some degree, Peter Begoian, these kinds of characters. You can find interviews

of characters. You can find interviews with these people online. If you watch a

with these people online. If you watch a lot of science videos and philosophy

lot of science videos and philosophy videos on YouTube, you'll find these

videos on YouTube, you'll find these people doing podcasts and doing

people doing podcasts and doing interviews and doing debates, this kind

interviews and doing debates, this kind of stuff, sharing their worldview,

of stuff, sharing their worldview, you're going to see all of it in some

you're going to see all of it in some sense is kind of rooted in rationalism

sense is kind of rooted in rationalism to various degrees. So, I'm not saying

to various degrees. So, I'm not saying they're all 100 out of 100 these cartoon

they're all 100 out of 100 these cartoon characters, but to various degrees, you

characters, but to various degrees, you know, like Richard Dawkins is a great

know, like Richard Dawkins is a great example of a of a rationalist. You know,

example of a of a rationalist. You know, he's pretty high up there as a

he's pretty high up there as a cartoonish rationalist. Um,

cartoonish rationalist. Um, who else? Professor Dave McQue. This

who else? Professor Dave McQue. This channel called Decoding the Gurus.

channel called Decoding the Gurus. Uh, Kurt Jiong's channel. I have an

Uh, Kurt Jiong's channel. I have an interview. I have like a 10-hour

interview. I have like a 10-hour interview. If you haven't seen it, go

interview. If you haven't seen it, go watch it on Kurt Jiongle's channel

watch it on Kurt Jiongle's channel called Theories of Everything. So Kurt

called Theories of Everything. So Kurt Jiongal interviews a lot of these kind

Jiongal interviews a lot of these kind of academic scientific type of people,

of academic scientific type of people, physicists and so forth and they try to

physicists and so forth and they try to understand reality, but you can see he

understand reality, but you can see he and and the people he's interviewing,

and and the people he's interviewing, they're never going to understand

they're never going to understand reality. He does interview some

reality. He does interview some spiritual people and that's fine. Like

spiritual people and that's fine. Like he interviewed Rupert Spir, uh whoever

he interviewed Rupert Spir, uh whoever else, Frank Yang and so forth. So, you

else, Frank Yang and so forth. So, you know, he's open-minded to mystical kind

know, he's open-minded to mystical kind of stuff, but still, you can see that

of stuff, but still, you can see that fundamentally these people will never

fundamentally these people will never understand reality at the levels that

understand reality at the levels that I'm trying to teach it at because

I'm trying to teach it at because they're they're stuck in this academic

they're they're stuck in this academic rationalist paradigm.

rationalist paradigm. Um,

these kind of this kind of uh cultural phenomena of debunking these debunker

phenomena of debunking these debunker type of people, these are rationalists

type of people, these are rationalists usually. Another example is this AI doom

usually. Another example is this AI doom debates channel run by this guy called

debates channel run by this guy called Leon Leon Spear uh Shapi Lron Shapi

Leon Leon Spear uh Shapi Lron Shapi tricky name. Um

tricky name. Um he he's a follower of the less wrong

he he's a follower of the less wrong community and uh Udkowski. So he's a

community and uh Udkowski. So he's a good example of a kind of a rationalist.

good example of a kind of a rationalist. Um

Um he yeah this whole AI doom debate. Oh my

he yeah this whole AI doom debate. Oh my god it's just it's just rationalism

god it's just it's just rationalism crap. um new atheism, atheist debunkers,

crap. um new atheism, atheist debunkers, all all the atheists on YouTube, Matt

all all the atheists on YouTube, Matt Dillah Hunty, Alex O' Conor, there's a

Dillah Hunty, Alex O' Conor, there's a there's a whole slew of these kind of,

there's a whole slew of these kind of, you know, cosmic skeptic, how do they

you know, cosmic skeptic, how do they call themselves? Yeah, there's there's

call themselves? Yeah, there's there's all these YouTube uh atheist channels.

all these YouTube uh atheist channels. So, all of them are stuck in this

So, all of them are stuck in this rationalist paradigm.

rationalist paradigm. uh what I call these kind of fake

uh what I call these kind of fake skeptics. People who apply skepticism to

skeptics. People who apply skepticism to all the mystical stuff and religious

all the mystical stuff and religious stuff and all the new age stuff, but

stuff and all the new age stuff, but they don't apply skepticism to their own

they don't apply skepticism to their own paradigm. These are the fake skeptics.

paradigm. These are the fake skeptics. Um the Reddit science bros, online

Um the Reddit science bros, online science bro culture, but it goes beyond

science bro culture, but it goes beyond this. It goes even into stuff like this

this. It goes even into stuff like this is a culture. Remember, this is kind of

is a culture. Remember, this is kind of a subculture. It goes into areas like,

a subculture. It goes into areas like, you know, Wikipedia editors will

you know, Wikipedia editors will subscribe to rationalism. that rational

subscribe to rationalism. that rational standards will be used to, you know,

standards will be used to, you know, edit Wikipedia.

edit Wikipedia. Journalists, researchers, Silicon Valley

Journalists, researchers, Silicon Valley tech bros,

tech bros, um they're generally going to subscribe

um they're generally going to subscribe to this kind of worldview.

to this kind of worldview. Uh uh other examples of rationalism

Uh uh other examples of rationalism include economic reductionism, various

include economic reductionism, various kinds of schools of economics,

kinds of schools of economics, uh logical positivism, strict

uh logical positivism, strict empiricism, logicism, behaviorism,

empiricism, logicism, behaviorism, realism,

a lot of western analytical philosophy, Bertin Russell, David Hilbert, Gotlov

Bertin Russell, David Hilbert, Gotlov Frager. Uh it also creeps its way into

Frager. Uh it also creeps its way into Western medicine.

uh those who dismiss anything spiritual, paranormal, supernatural, mystical by

paranormal, supernatural, mystical by demanding proof. Uh this James Randy

demanding proof. Uh this James Randy prize situation, this is pure

prize situation, this is pure rationalism. uh evolutionary psychology

rationalism. uh evolutionary psychology Steven Wolfram

Steven Wolfram he's trying to model the whole universe

he's trying to model the whole universe as just a set of calculations and these

as just a set of calculations and these little you know um cellular auton

little you know um cellular auton automata

automata um

um and just in general academia stem

and just in general academia stem we're living in a in a kind of society

we're living in a in a kind of society that is kind of now dominated by

that is kind of now dominated by technology

technology technology is this like supreme power.

technology is this like supreme power. It creates the most wealthiest

It creates the most wealthiest companies. All the tech companies are

companies. All the tech companies are now the biggest, wealthiest, most

now the biggest, wealthiest, most powerful companies. They have a lot of

powerful companies. They have a lot of political influence. Of course, they

political influence. Of course, they also influence academia influ academia

also influence academia influ academia influences them. So, there's a lot of

influences them. So, there's a lot of sort of incestuous cross-pollination

sort of incestuous cross-pollination between politics, big tech, academia.

between politics, big tech, academia. This is all going back and forth. And um

This is all going back and forth. And um the ideology behind all of that

the ideology behind all of that um is infested with rationalism. Here's

um is infested with rationalism. Here's an example of peak rationalism. It's

an example of peak rationalism. It's called the church touring thesis. I'm

called the church touring thesis. I'm going to quote it here from Wikipedia.

going to quote it here from Wikipedia. It says something like this. Quote, "Any

It says something like this. Quote, "Any method of reasoning other than

method of reasoning other than mathematical logic will lead you to

mathematical logic will lead you to holding contradictory beliefs. From any

holding contradictory beliefs. From any two contradictory beliefs, you can

two contradictory beliefs, you can deduce all falsehoods. Since we don't

deduce all falsehoods. Since we don't believe all false things, our brains

believe all false things, our brains must run on logic." End quote.

must run on logic." End quote. That's the church touring thesis.

That's the church touring thesis. Uh, another example of rationalism is

Uh, another example of rationalism is something like this. Here's a list of

something like this. Here's a list of all the cognitive biases. There's like

all the cognitive biases. There's like dozens of them, 50 of them or so. Just

dozens of them, 50 of them or so. Just study this list, learn this list, apply

study this list, learn this list, apply this to your own thinking process, and

this to your own thinking process, and this will solve the problem of

this will solve the problem of selfdeception.

selfdeception. Another

Another example of rationalism is u

example of rationalism is u some kind of narrowly designed clinical

some kind of narrowly designed clinical study

study that shows that for example red wine

that shows that for example red wine increases longevity is good for health.

increases longevity is good for health. Now technically this study has been done

Now technically this study has been done properly. It followed all the proper you

properly. It followed all the proper you know procedures

know procedures of how to conduct a study but the study

of how to conduct a study but the study is is measuring such narrow variables

is is measuring such narrow variables right it's not capturing the totality of

right it's not capturing the totality of human health on a couple of you know

human health on a couple of you know three variables that they measured you

three variables that they measured you know they selected you know maybe

know they selected you know maybe longevity and they selected some you

longevity and they selected some you know some protein uh biioarker and then

know some protein uh biioarker and then they they selected some you know

they they selected some you know inflammation biioarker and then they

inflammation biioarker and then they measure those things and they say well

measure those things and they say well red wine seems to improve all these

red wine seems to improve all these three variables

three variables Therefore, red wine, you know, is

Therefore, red wine, you know, is healthy for you. And then they publish

healthy for you. And then they publish this study and then in in a in a in, you

this study and then in in a in a in, you know, in the Nature Journal, and it's a

know, in the Nature Journal, and it's a wellrespected journal. And then

wellrespected journal. And then everybody, you know, all the journalists

everybody, you know, all the journalists go out and say, "Oh, start drinking red

go out and say, "Oh, start drinking red wine because it's good for you." This

wine because it's good for you." This kind of thing. But it never really

kind of thing. But it never really occurs to these kinds of people that

occurs to these kinds of people that this is a very narrow study. It doesn't

this is a very narrow study. It doesn't truly capture the the holism of what

truly capture the the holism of what human health entails, nor the diversity

human health entails, nor the diversity of human genetics, how, you know, red

of human genetics, how, you know, red wine is going to impact different

wine is going to impact different genetic groups differently and so forth.

genetic groups differently and so forth. All these complexities are completely

All these complexities are completely reduced down to some some simplistic

reduced down to some some simplistic thing. But it seems like it's rational,

thing. But it seems like it's rational, right? It seems like this was a a solid

right? It seems like this was a a solid scientific study.

scientific study. But it's possible to design very narrow

But it's possible to design very narrow scientific experiments and studies that

scientific experiments and studies that are going to be very misleading.

But nobody cares about that because the researchers that were working on this

researchers that were working on this study, you know, to them they said,

study, you know, to them they said, "Well, Leo, but but our study was just

"Well, Leo, but but our study was just so technical and so limited. We didn't

so technical and so limited. We didn't come out there and say that everyone

come out there and say that everyone should start drinking red wine. All we

should start drinking red wine. All we did we we just, you know, technically

did we we just, you know, technically all we said is that it increases and

all we said is that it increases and improves these three biomarkers and

improves these three biomarkers and that's all that it is.

that's all that it is. See, they want to have it both ways.

See, they want to have it both ways. They want to say that. But then human

They want to say that. But then human beings, when human beings are living,

beings, when human beings are living, right? They're not living by narrow

right? They're not living by narrow nerdy technical, you know, three

nerdy technical, you know, three biomarker nonsense. They need to to to

biomarker nonsense. They need to to to take scientific facts and so forth and

take scientific facts and so forth and they need to distill it down into

they need to distill it down into highlevel

highlevel concepts and understanding that then

concepts and understanding that then informs how human beings actually live

informs how human beings actually live their life, what they eat, how they

their life, what they eat, how they exercise, how they think about the

exercise, how they think about the world, how they do religion or don't and

world, how they do religion or don't and so forth, right?

so forth, right? Humans can't live on technical science

Humans can't live on technical science research studies.

research studies. And that is what the human is doing all

And that is what the human is doing all the time is it's living first and

the time is it's living first and foremost. It's living and even the

foremost. It's living and even the scientists who are doing these narrow

scientists who are doing these narrow studies first and foremost they're

studies first and foremost they're living they're surviving only then are

living they're surviving only then are they doing science

they doing science and this can get lost on them right and

and this can get lost on them right and because of the unholistic nature of

because of the unholistic nature of rationalism it's like well but Leo that

rationalism it's like well but Leo that doesn't matter that's beyond the scope

doesn't matter that's beyond the scope of science it who cares yeah of course

of science it who cares yeah of course you're right of course you can't just

you're right of course you can't just live by scientific studies but Leo I'm

live by scientific studies but Leo I'm just a humble researcher I'm just like a

just a humble researcher I'm just like a humble chemist and all I did I just did

humble chemist and all I did I just did this little simple study and so what

this little simple study and so what See, it's a refusal to take epistemic

See, it's a refusal to take epistemic responsibility.

Uh because no scientist really takes epistemic responsibility. All they do is

epistemic responsibility. All they do is they only take responsibility for their

they only take responsibility for their little narrow, you know, thesis that

little narrow, you know, thesis that they're that they're working on and

they're that they're working on and nothing else. But when you do that, you

nothing else. But when you do that, you can't make sense of the entirety of

can't make sense of the entirety of reality. And then the scientists will

reality. And then the scientists will say, "Well, Leo, but that's because you

say, "Well, Leo, but that's because you can't. That's too much. That's too much

can't. That's too much. That's too much to ask for.

to ask for. Another

Another example of rationalism is a robot.

example of rationalism is a robot. Imagine a robot that gets stuck in a

Imagine a robot that gets stuck in a logical loop when it's told a specific

logical loop when it's told a specific set of words which cause it to

set of words which cause it to self-destruct because it can't think

self-destruct because it can't think outside of its own logic

because the robot just operates. It's sort of this kind of like idea that you

sort of this kind of like idea that you know Azac Azimov's you know three rules

know Azac Azimov's you know three rules of robotics you know a robot shall never

of robotics you know a robot shall never hurt a person and a robot shall never do

hurt a person and a robot shall never do this and a robot shall always do this

this and a robot shall always do this and it's got these three rules and then

and it's got these three rules and then you know you get these science fiction

you know you get these science fiction kind of scenarios where you know well

kind of scenarios where you know well well what happens if the if you put a

well what happens if the if you put a robot in kind of a situation where those

robot in kind of a situation where those rules are kind of starting to conflict

rules are kind of starting to conflict and contradict with each other what's

and contradict with each other what's the robot going to do and the robot is

the robot going to do and the robot is kind of like in it's caught in its own

kind of like in it's caught in its own logic and uh it doesn't know what to do

logic and uh it doesn't know what to do because the robot is not truly

because the robot is not truly intelligent because it's just following

intelligent because it's just following these three rules and those three rules

these three rules and those three rules do not define what intelligence is.

Another example of rationalism is for example in academic philosophy. If you

example in academic philosophy. If you go into academic philosophy, how do they

go into academic philosophy, how do they do philosophy? Their notion of how to do

do philosophy? Their notion of how to do philosophy properly is you're going to

philosophy properly is you're going to go read

go read famous dead philosophers. You're going

famous dead philosophers. You're going to read their texts in their original

to read their texts in their original languages and then you're going to

languages and then you're going to dissect them into technical little

dissect them into technical little arguments. you know, what did he say in

arguments. you know, what did he say in this sentence and what did he say in

this sentence and what did he say in that sentence and you're going to you're

that sentence and you're going to you're going to look for contradictions or

going to look for contradictions or you're going to look for little minor

you're going to look for little minor points that they made and you're going

points that they made and you're going to make your own arguments and you're

to make your own arguments and you're going to justify your argument based on

going to justify your argument based on logic and textual evidence. You're going

logic and textual evidence. You're going to you're going to cite the cart and

to you're going to cite the cart and you're going to cite Kant and you're

you're going to cite Kant and you're going to put you know you're going to

going to put you know you're going to assemble together this kind of argument

assemble together this kind of argument and by doing this you are doing real

and by doing this you are doing real philosophy and you're doing truth

philosophy and you're doing truth seeeking and you're really understanding

seeeking and you're really understanding something about the world.

It's important to understand that rationalism is a paradigm held by an

rationalism is a paradigm held by an ego, by a self, by a mind.

ego, by a self, by a mind. This paradigm is doing survival. It

This paradigm is doing survival. It itself is trying to survive. It fights

itself is trying to survive. It fights tooth and nail to defend itself. This

tooth and nail to defend itself. This paradigm is not self-aware of its own

paradigm is not self-aware of its own survival. It is unconscious and

survival. It is unconscious and mechanical, which limits its

mechanical, which limits its intelligence and it limits its

intelligence and it limits its self-reflective capacity.

self-reflective capacity. But it is intelligent enough to make

But it is intelligent enough to make strong technical arguments,

which is what makes it so self-deceptive and so difficult to deconstruct.

and so difficult to deconstruct. Because if you're going to argue with a

Because if you're going to argue with a rationalist

like you're going to try to argue with a Sam Harris or you're going to try to

Sam Harris or you're going to try to argue with a uh Ilizer Yudowski or a Lon

argue with a uh Ilizer Yudowski or a Lon Shapiro, you're going to argue with

Shapiro, you're going to argue with these people. They're very good at

these people. They're very good at making arguments. They're very logical.

making arguments. They're very logical. They will present facts and evidence and

They will present facts and evidence and this is very convincing to a lot of

this is very convincing to a lot of onlookers. You know, you you look at

onlookers. You know, you you look at these debates and you could be very

these debates and you could be very convinced by a debate. You know, watch a

convinced by a debate. You know, watch a debate between Sam Harris and Jordan

debate between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson and you're going to see that

Peterson and you're going to see that Sam Harris makes very powerful arguments

Sam Harris makes very powerful arguments against Jordan Peterson.

against Jordan Peterson. But what's funny, it's so funny is that

But what's funny, it's so funny is that ultimately Sam Harris is wrong in his

ultimately Sam Harris is wrong in his arguments in his conclusion. His

arguments in his conclusion. His ultimate conclusion is wrong, but his

ultimate conclusion is wrong, but his arguments are correct. How can that be?

arguments are correct. How can that be? How do we explain that?

How do we explain that? Have you ever been in an argument with

Have you ever been in an argument with such a person? They're highly rational,

such a person? They're highly rational, highly educated, very scientific,

highly educated, very scientific, more educated than you.

more educated than you. But ultimately, they're still making bad

But ultimately, they're still making bad arguments and they're still wrong at the

arguments and they're still wrong at the end of the day. So our challenge is how

end of the day. So our challenge is how do we explain this phenomena?

do we explain this phenomena? Technically, what makes this kind of

Technically, what makes this kind of paradigm and epistemology and worldview

paradigm and epistemology and worldview wrong? Right? Because if they are making

wrong? Right? Because if they are making these mistakes and they are coming out

these mistakes and they are coming out wrong, and look, I'm not demonstrating

wrong, and look, I'm not demonstrating why Sam Harris is wrong. You're just we

why Sam Harris is wrong. You're just we don't have time for that here to go into

don't have time for that here to go into the the the depth of that. Um you just

the the the depth of that. Um you just have to kind of take me at my word.

have to kind of take me at my word. [laughter]

[laughter] Um but trust me, he's wrong on on very

Um but trust me, he's wrong on on very important things, but he's very good at

important things, but he's very good at making arguments. Um so

making arguments. Um so so yeah, how do we explain that? That's

so yeah, how do we explain that? That's what we're trying to explain.

what we're trying to explain. [snorts] Here's

a quote that explains the gist of the problem by John Dolan. He says, quote,

problem by John Dolan. He says, quote, "These briefly are the key elements of

"These briefly are the key elements of the stereotype.

the stereotype. Logic cripples and constrains. It forces

Logic cripples and constrains. It forces one into narrow and mechanical modes of

one into narrow and mechanical modes of thought that cut one off from the vast

thought that cut one off from the vast range of superior thoughts, feelings,

range of superior thoughts, feelings, and perception. Logic is an is an enemy

and perception. Logic is an is an enemy of wit and humor. Logic makes us dull

of wit and humor. Logic makes us dull and pedantic. Logic presupposes a

and pedantic. Logic presupposes a simple-minded black and white yes no

simple-minded black and white yes no conception of the world. But logic

conception of the world. But logic misses the point of half the things we

misses the point of half the things we ordinarily say and cannot match the

ordinarily say and cannot match the insight of the humblest person's common

insight of the humblest person's common sense.

sense. End quote.

That's the gist of our problem. And by the way, when I say that Sam Harris, you

the way, when I say that Sam Harris, you know, is ultimately wrong against for

know, is ultimately wrong against for some Jordan Peterson, I don't get me

some Jordan Peterson, I don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Jordan Peterson

wrong. I'm not saying Jordan Peterson makes great arguments. He makes terrible

makes great arguments. He makes terrible arguments a lot of times, awful, awful

arguments a lot of times, awful, awful arguments. But he is wrong. I mean, he

arguments. But he is wrong. I mean, he is correct on some very fundamental

is correct on some very fundamental things. And so, it's very ironic. How

things. And so, it's very ironic. How could it be that Jordan Peterson makes

could it be that Jordan Peterson makes such terrible arguments, but then he's

such terrible arguments, but then he's he's correct on such fundamental things,

he's correct on such fundamental things, and then Sam Harris makes such great

and then Sam Harris makes such great arguments, but then he's incorrect on

arguments, but then he's incorrect on such fundamental things. See, that's the

such fundamental things. See, that's the that's the really interesting thing

that's the really interesting thing here.

here. And the problem with rationalists is

And the problem with rationalists is that they don't just apply their

that they don't just apply their worldview to technical domains like

worldview to technical domains like physics, logic, and computer science.

physics, logic, and computer science. They try to apply to social issues, to

They try to apply to social issues, to human behavior, to social science, to

human behavior, to social science, to politics, to economics, to morality, to

politics, to economics, to morality, to ethics, to religion, to history, to

ethics, to religion, to history, to business, to philosophy, and to

business, to philosophy, and to spirituality.

spirituality. But if rationalism fails to formalize

But if rationalism fails to formalize even something like mathematics, which

even something like mathematics, which it fails to do, which is what Bur and

it fails to do, which is what Bur and Russell failed to do, it will certainly

Russell failed to do, it will certainly fail when applied to politics, to

fail when applied to politics, to morality, to business, to economics, and

morality, to business, to economics, and to philosophy.

Rationalism is a kind of a mind virus that infects academia and spreads

that infects academia and spreads outward through society and culture

outward through society and culture into business into politics even

into business into politics even culturally it's dominant because of big

culturally it's dominant because of big tech success of tech science and

tech success of tech science and computer science and see the success of

computer science and see the success of science and especially computer science

science and especially computer science in the last 50 years has created such a

in the last 50 years has created such a huge illusion

huge illusion that rationality must be true because

that rationality must be true because how else can we explain the success of

how else can we explain the success of computer science and all the technology

computer science and all the technology that we have.

And that turns out to be a very powerful illusion, difficult to deconstruct,

illusion, difficult to deconstruct, difficult to even see what's the

difficult to even see what's the alternative to that.

alternative to that. Conservatives like Jordan Peterson love

Conservatives like Jordan Peterson love to whine about postmodernism corrupting

to whine about postmodernism corrupting academia. And it does to some degree,

academia. And it does to some degree, but no one out there is really

but no one out there is really articulating how rationalism corrupts

articulating how rationalism corrupts academia.

academia. how modernism corrupts academia.

how modernism corrupts academia. And so in a nutshell, this is my formal

And so in a nutshell, this is my formal explanation of that issue

explanation of that issue of what's wrong with the less wrong.com

of what's wrong with the less wrong.com Sam Harris

Sam Harris type of worldview.

type of worldview. Kant famously said after reading Hume

Kant famously said after reading Hume that Hume awoke him from his dogmatic

that Hume awoke him from his dogmatic slumber. And so with this series, I hope

slumber. And so with this series, I hope to awaken rationalists and academics and

to awaken rationalists and academics and scientists from their dogmatic slumber.

scientists from their dogmatic slumber. All right. Now, let's get into some

All right. Now, let's get into some really deep stuff. So,

really deep stuff. So, let's go back to that four-part

let's go back to that four-part distinction that we made between uh, you

distinction that we made between uh, you know,

know, reason, reasonleness, rationality, and

reason, reasonleness, rationality, and rationalism. So, let me define these for

rationalism. So, let me define these for you, and I'm going to be quoting David

you, and I'm going to be quoting David Chapman here. So, reasonleness is

Chapman here. So, reasonleness is defined as, quote, thinking and acting

defined as, quote, thinking and acting in ways that make sense and are likely

in ways that make sense and are likely to work, but are not formally rational.

to work, but are not formally rational. End quote.

End quote. Rationality is defined as quote formal,

Rationality is defined as quote formal, systemic, explicit, technical, abstract,

systemic, explicit, technical, abstract, rigorous methods for making uh for

rigorous methods for making uh for thinking and acting

thinking and acting end quote. It's a kind of a rules-based

end quote. It's a kind of a rules-based way of sensemaking.

Uh that's David Chapman's definition of rationality. This is very tricky because

rationality. This is very tricky because to actually define what is rationality

to actually define what is rationality is in itself such a such a hornets nest

is in itself such a such a hornets nest of a problem that I'm not even going to

of a problem that I'm not even going to define it for you. I want you to

define it for you. I want you to contemplate that for yourself. I'm just

contemplate that for yourself. I'm just going to say that that's his definition.

going to say that that's his definition. I have a slightly different formulation

I have a slightly different formulation of it in my own mind. I'm not even going

of it in my own mind. I'm not even going to say it yet because I want you to just

to say it yet because I want you to just contemplate it for yourself as a

contemplate it for yourself as a homework assignment.

homework assignment. Um

Um because it's it's it's such a slippery

because it's it's it's such a slippery thing. You know what is rationality?

thing. You know what is rationality? Contemplate. Don't just take my answers.

Contemplate. Don't just take my answers. Contemplate. And don't take David

Contemplate. And don't take David Chapman's definitions and don't look it

Chapman's definitions and don't look it up in a and don't ask AI and don't look

up in a and don't ask AI and don't look it up in a on Wikipedia. I want you to

it up in a on Wikipedia. I want you to contemplate that. This is something you

contemplate that. This is something you must contemplate.

must contemplate. And now we're going to define

And now we're going to define rationalism as just an ideology that

rationalism as just an ideology that makes exaggerated claims about the power

makes exaggerated claims about the power of rationality.

of rationality. And it aims for definite proof of

And it aims for definite proof of rationality's universal efficacy. That's

rationality's universal efficacy. That's quoting David Chapman. And then David

quoting David Chapman. And then David Chapman defines metrationality. What is

Chapman defines metrationality. What is that? Metrationality is quote informal

that? Metrationality is quote informal reasoning about how to best use

reasoning about how to best use reasonable rational and metrational

reasonable rational and metrational methods together in particular context

methods together in particular context end quote.

So see if if rationalism is this kind of paradigm

paradigm and worldview

and rationality is this kind of system of thinking that we're doing you know

of thinking that we're doing you know this kind of formal systematic thinking

this kind of formal systematic thinking metrationality

metrationality is not the application of rationality to

is not the application of rationality to rationality. This is an important

rationality. This is an important distinction because if you think it's

distinction because if you think it's that then you're going to be question

that then you're going to be question begging, right? Because the question

begging, right? Because the question here, the more fundamental question is

here, the more fundamental question is what is rationality and what what are

what is rationality and what what are its limits? To understand the limits of

its limits? To understand the limits of rationality, you have to go beyond the

rationality, you have to go beyond the rational. You can't just apply the same

rational. You can't just apply the same system to itself and hope to be able to

system to itself and hope to be able to understand the systems limits. To

understand the systems limits. To understand the limits of a system, the

understand the limits of a system, the system has to go outside and beyond of

system has to go outside and beyond of itself. And that's what metrationality

itself. And that's what metrationality is. So metarrationality is not a more

is. So metarrationality is not a more rigorous more formal way of doing

rigorous more formal way of doing rationality. Metar rationality is

rationality. Metar rationality is starting to in a fuzzy intuitive way

starting to in a fuzzy intuitive way start to to kind of tease apart

start to to kind of tease apart different parts of rationality and

different parts of rationality and rationalism

rationalism and uh exploring its limits and how to

and uh exploring its limits and how to best apply it.

best apply it. So what we're arguing here is that

So what we're arguing here is that rationalism is bad and it's a

rationalism is bad and it's a self-deception and it must be discarded.

self-deception and it must be discarded. And rationality is important but it is

And rationality is important but it is still limited. It must be learned but

still limited. It must be learned but then transcended

then transcended and then you're going to use it as a

and then you're going to use it as a tool. Rationality is a tool. You can

tool. Rationality is a tool. You can apply it in certain cases, but then

apply it in certain cases, but then you're going to have the meta awareness

you're going to have the meta awareness to understand that well, okay, I can

to understand that well, okay, I can apply rationality here and here, but

apply rationality here and here, but then I'm not going to apply it in that

then I'm not going to apply it in that situation because it's not going to work

situation because it's not going to work in that situation, and I'm not going to

in that situation, and I'm not going to apply it over there because it's too

apply it over there because it's too limited over there. See?

So, now let's start to get deep into why rationalism is wrong.

There's two main categories of wrongness, epistemology and ontology.

wrongness, epistemology and ontology. The epistemology is actually more

The epistemology is actually more fascinating and it's in a certain sense

fascinating and it's in a certain sense deeper. There's more content to it. So

deeper. There's more content to it. So I'm leaving that for part two and part

I'm leaving that for part two and part three. Uh here we're going to focus on

three. Uh here we're going to focus on the ontology. So let's start with

the ontology. So let's start with ontology.

ontology. Rationalism has an unconscious ontology.

Rationalism has an unconscious ontology. Understanding this ontology requires a

Understanding this ontology requires a lot of work and a lot of time and

lot of work and a lot of time and creative intelligence and intuition.

creative intelligence and intuition. Took me 20 years to fully understand

Took me 20 years to fully understand what this ontology entails. So what is

what this ontology entails. So what is the ontology of rationalism? And by the

the ontology of rationalism? And by the way, what is ontology? Uh, ontology is

way, what is ontology? Uh, ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals with

the branch of philosophy that deals with questions of being. What is there? What

questions of being. What is there? What is there in the universe? What's real?

is there in the universe? What's real? That's ontology. And epistemology is how

That's ontology. And epistemology is how do we know what's real?

do we know what's real? So the ontology of rationalism is as

So the ontology of rationalism is as follows. There exists an objective

follows. There exists an objective material world that is distinct from you

material world that is distinct from you and the self.

and the self. That's crucial.

That's crucial. All of science hinges on this. The world

All of science hinges on this. The world is distinct from the person who is

is distinct from the person who is investigating the world.

Uh the next item is objectivity is more fundamental than subjectivity. So

fundamental than subjectivity. So objectivity is what's actually real.

objectivity is what's actually real. To understand what's real, we need to

To understand what's real, we need to get out of subjectivity.

get out of subjectivity. Another

Another piece of this ontology is that there

piece of this ontology is that there exist distinct objects. That's just a

exist distinct objects. That's just a given. There just are cats and dogs and

given. There just are cats and dogs and men and women and trees and atoms in the

men and women and trees and atoms in the world. That's just what the world is

world. That's just what the world is made out of. These discrete distinct

made out of. These discrete distinct things.

things. The next piece is that everything has a

The next piece is that everything has a crisp objective definition.

crisp objective definition. We can define what is a cat and what is

We can define what is a cat and what is a dog and they're different from each

a dog and they're different from each other fundamentally. We can define what

other fundamentally. We can define what is a man and what is a woman and they're

is a man and what is a woman and they're different from each other fundamentally.

different from each other fundamentally. They're mutually exclusive.

They're mutually exclusive. Everything has a fixed identity.

Everything has a fixed identity. By identity, we're saying something very

By identity, we're saying something very deep. You know, you can wonder what is

deep. You know, you can wonder what is identity. That's a whole video onto

identity. That's a whole video onto itself. What is identity? You can't ask

itself. What is identity? You can't ask a more profound question than that

a more profound question than that almost. Um but like in this case, what

almost. Um but like in this case, what I'm talking about when I say identity is

I'm talking about when I say identity is like a cat. What is a cat?

like a cat. What is a cat? That's a much more profound question

That's a much more profound question than you would think that that than than

than you would think that that than than science understands. What is a cat and

science understands. What is a cat and what is a dog and what is the difference

what is a dog and what is the difference between a cat and a dog? And what makes

between a cat and a dog? And what makes a cat different from a dog at the

a cat different from a dog at the identity level?

identity level? Well, science and rationalism just

Well, science and rationalism just assumes that there are these identities.

assumes that there are these identities. A cat just is a cat and a dog just is a

A cat just is a cat and a dog just is a dog. Another

dog. Another way to say it is that there within

way to say it is that there within rationalism, there is no onlogical

rationalism, there is no onlogical relativity. Things just are what they

relativity. Things just are what they are. What a thing is, a thing's identity

are. What a thing is, a thing's identity doesn't depend on perspective. And it

doesn't depend on perspective. And it doesn't depend on who's asking

doesn't depend on who's asking and how you're asking. It just is what

and how you're asking. It just is what it is. A cat is a cat. It doesn't matter

it is. A cat is a cat. It doesn't matter who's looking at it, how you're looking

who's looking at it, how you're looking at it. It just is a cat.

Another piece of the ontology is that reality and objects are mind

reality and objects are mind independent.

independent. How you think about objects doesn't

How you think about objects doesn't change them.

change them. Another piece of the ontology is that

Another piece of the ontology is that mind can be distinguished from matter.

mind can be distinguished from matter. There's mind over here. That's the

There's mind over here. That's the subjective fuzzy stuff. That's the woo.

subjective fuzzy stuff. That's the woo. That's the illusion. That's the not real

That's the illusion. That's the not real stuff. And then there's matter. And

stuff. And then there's matter. And matter is what's real.

matter is what's real. Mind is just matter with various

Mind is just matter with various illusions in it somehow. We don't know

illusions in it somehow. We don't know the exact nature of these illusions. But

the exact nature of these illusions. But mind it must obviously just be an

mind it must obviously just be an illusion stemming from atoms, right?

illusion stemming from atoms, right? Atoms turn into cells, turn into um

Atoms turn into cells, turn into um neurons and then neurons somehow create

neurons and then neurons somehow create this illusion of mind and that's just

this illusion of mind and that's just all that there is to it. And uh and

all that there is to it. And uh and obviously what's real is the atoms and

obviously what's real is the atoms and the neurons and what's unreal is the

the neurons and what's unreal is the mind and the ideas and the the fuzzy

mind and the ideas and the the fuzzy human stuff.

Another piece of this ontology is that all higher order things can be reduced

all higher order things can be reduced down to atomic facts. So consciousness

down to atomic facts. So consciousness just is atoms. That's all that it is.

just is atoms. That's all that it is. There's not two things in the universe.

There's not two things in the universe. There's not like atoms and then

There's not like atoms and then consciousness. There's just atoms and

consciousness. There's just atoms and then consciousness is just some sort of

then consciousness is just some sort of complex combination of atoms. That's all

complex combination of atoms. That's all that that is.

Another piece of the ontology is that qualities are reducible.

qualities are reducible. You can reduce qualities to numbers, to

You can reduce qualities to numbers, to equations, to atoms.

equations, to atoms. What do we mean by qualities? Red,

the image of a unicorn in your mind. Imagine a unicorn. See, that's a

Imagine a unicorn. See, that's a quality. You have a qualitative

quality. You have a qualitative experience of a unicorn in your mind. So

experience of a unicorn in your mind. So to a scientist, to a to a reductionist,

to a scientist, to a to a reductionist, to a rationalist, that unicorn that you

to a rationalist, that unicorn that you have in your mind, um there's nothing

have in your mind, um there's nothing more to that unicorn than just numbers

more to that unicorn than just numbers and and atoms. It's just some kind of

and and atoms. It's just some kind of equations. That's all that it is. A very

equations. That's all that it is. A very complex equation, computation.

Another piece of the ontology is that subjectivity is not real and the self is

subjectivity is not real and the self is not real.

not real. What is the self? There's no such thing

What is the self? There's no such thing as a self. There's just like atoms and

as a self. There's just like atoms and stuff, right? There's a universe.

stuff, right? There's a universe. There's a world. The self is just some

There's a world. The self is just some human madeup stuff. It's not real.

When sc what is science studying? What does a scientist believe he's studying?

does a scientist believe he's studying? Does he believe he's studying the self

Does he believe he's studying the self when he's studying gravity?

when he's studying gravity? When he's studying chemistry, when he's

When he's studying chemistry, when he's doing math, does he believe he's

doing math, does he believe he's studying the self? No. He believes he's

studying the self? No. He believes he's studying an external world outside of

studying an external world outside of himself.

The next piece of the ontology is that reality is nothing more than a machine.

reality is nothing more than a machine. And since it's nothing more than a

And since it's nothing more than a machine, mechanical methods are all that

machine, mechanical methods are all that we need to understand it.

we need to understand it. Another piece of the ontology is that

Another piece of the ontology is that reality is dumb.

reality is dumb. Reality can't be intelligent. Nothing is

Reality can't be intelligent. Nothing is inherently intelligent.

inherently intelligent. Another

piece of the ontology is that reality is inherently not mystical. There's nothing

inherently not mystical. There's nothing mystical. Everything can be demystified

mystical. Everything can be demystified if you if you do your thinking process

if you if you do your thinking process properly. If you use rationality

properly. If you use rationality properly, everything will get

properly, everything will get demystified into non-stical stuff. At

demystified into non-stical stuff. At the end of the day,

the end of the day, another piece of the ontology is that

another piece of the ontology is that consciousness and mind are not

consciousness and mind are not fundamental. These are second order

fundamental. These are second order perhaps even third third order

perhaps even third third order epipenomena

not fundamental to what reality is. Another piece of the ontology is that

Another piece of the ontology is that there exist others who can corroborate

there exist others who can corroborate what is real and what is true.

Another piece of the ontology is that reality is finite.

reality is finite. Another one is that reality is not a

Another one is that reality is not a unity. Another one is that absolutes do

unity. Another one is that absolutes do not exist.

And another one is that there is no higher intelligence than the human.

higher intelligence than the human. Now, a few of these pieces of the

Now, a few of these pieces of the ontology you might even as a rationalist

ontology you might even as a rationalist you might question. You might say,

you might question. You might say, "Well, Leo, I'm a rationalist. I even

"Well, Leo, I'm a rationalist. I even identify as a rationalist, but I don't

identify as a rationalist, but I don't believe the universe is necessarily

believe the universe is necessarily finite. Maybe it's infinite. I'm open to

finite. Maybe it's infinite. I'm open to that possibility. And I'm and I'm not,

that possibility. And I'm and I'm not, you know, you said I believe it's not a

you know, you said I believe it's not a unity, but maybe it is a unity. Why are

unity, but maybe it is a unity. Why are you saying that? And you know, I believe

you saying that? And you know, I believe that there might be aliens who are more

that there might be aliens who are more intelligent than humans or AI might be

intelligent than humans or AI might be more intelligent than humans. I can buy

more intelligent than humans. I can buy that. So why are you saying these

that. So why are you saying these things? Well,

things? Well, the problem is that you don't really

the problem is that you don't really understand what I'm talking about. Um,

understand what I'm talking about. Um, when I say infinite or finite, you don't

when I say infinite or finite, you don't understand what that means. And when I

understand what that means. And when I say unity, you don't understand what

say unity, you don't understand what that means. And when I say absolute, you

that means. And when I say absolute, you don't understand what that means. And

don't understand what that means. And when I say intell something more

when I say intell something more intelligent than human, you don't

intelligent than human, you don't understand the consequences of these of

understand the consequences of these of these ideas, right? You understand them

these ideas, right? You understand them in a superficial sense. So a scientist

in a superficial sense. So a scientist might say, well, Leo, as a scientist,

might say, well, Leo, as a scientist, you know, I'm open to the universe being

you know, I'm open to the universe being infinite. And science does not

infinite. And science does not contradict the I mean, science is

contradict the I mean, science is compatible with a finite universe or an

compatible with a finite universe or an infinite universe. You know, that's an

infinite universe. You know, that's an open question. It's okay. We don't we're

open question. It's okay. We don't we're not dogmatic about that.

not dogmatic about that. No, actually, you are. You don't

No, actually, you are. You don't understand that all of science is

understand that all of science is finitude, right?

Your entire understanding of the universe is a finite one.

universe is a finite one. When I say infinite, you say, well, the

When I say infinite, you say, well, the universe might, you know, it might be

universe might, you know, it might be infinite in three dimensions. You know,

infinite in three dimensions. You know, XYZ coordinates might go on forever.

XYZ coordinates might go on forever. That's not what I mean. When I say

That's not what I mean. When I say infinite, I truly mean absolutely

infinite, I truly mean absolutely infinite. I don't just mean in three

infinite. I don't just mean in three spatial dimensions or even in the time

spatial dimensions or even in the time dimension. I mean absolutely infinite.

dimension. I mean absolutely infinite. You don't know what that you can't

You don't know what that you can't fathom what I'm saying and you don't

fathom what I'm saying and you don't understand that science is all of

understand that science is all of science is finite right you're under the

science is finite right you're under the illusion that that science can deal with

illusion that that science can deal with infinity it can't that's because you

infinity it can't that's because you don't understand what infinity is

don't understand what infinity is likewise when I say one of your

likewise when I say one of your onlogical assumptions is that reality is

onlogical assumptions is that reality is not a unity so you might say well Leo I

not a unity so you might say well Leo I believe it could be a unity again you

believe it could be a unity again you don't understand what I mean by unity

when I say unity That means reality is so one that there

That means reality is so one that there doesn't even exist an other who you can

doesn't even exist an other who you can ask if your science is true or real.

ask if your science is true or real. Right? See as a scientist you think that

Right? See as a scientist you think that you can go and ask somebody to

you can go and ask somebody to corroborate. You can you can ask an

corroborate. You can you can ask an whether it's a human or an alien or just

whether it's a human or an alien or just a a unconscious uh you know appar

a a unconscious uh you know appar scientific apparatus you can ask that

scientific apparatus you can ask that thing to tell you what truth is. You can

thing to tell you what truth is. You can use it to corroborate because you think

use it to corroborate because you think it's other than you. You think you can

it's other than you. You think you can you can gather a collection of other

you can gather a collection of other people, other minds, and collaborate

people, other minds, and collaborate together to come to a consensus on what

together to come to a consensus on what the truth is, right? That's because you

the truth is, right? That's because you don't understand that it's a unity.

don't understand that it's a unity. You don't understand that that the

You don't understand that that the scientific mind when it's doing

scientific mind when it's doing analysis, it's always subdividing

analysis, it's always subdividing reality. You're trying to use

reality. You're trying to use subdivision to understand unity. And you

subdivision to understand unity. And you don't see that you can't understand

don't see that you can't understand unity through subdivision because the

unity through subdivision because the very act of your understanding is

very act of your understanding is already subdividing the unity breaking

already subdividing the unity breaking your ability to understand it.

When you say that there are higher intelligences than human whether it's an

intelligences than human whether it's an AI or an alien you can say that

AI or an alien you can say that that doesn't mean you comprehend the

that doesn't mean you comprehend the ramifications of what you're actually

ramifications of what you're actually supposedly admitting to. See,

one of the problems with rationalism is that the rationalist truly does not

that the rationalist truly does not comprehend what higher intelligence

comprehend what higher intelligence beyond the human is. Because all of

beyond the human is. Because all of rationality and all of rationalism, this

rationality and all of rationalism, this is only just human in a very narrow

is only just human in a very narrow space within consciousness

space within consciousness within mind space. If we think of

within mind space. If we think of everything as just mind space, it's a

everything as just mind space, it's a very small, very low form of mind space

and everything that you consider rational and reasonable is within that

rational and reasonable is within that mind space.

mind space. Anything beyond that mind space

Anything beyond that mind space from a rationalist point of view is

from a rationalist point of view is going to seem irrational and therefore

going to seem irrational and therefore false. That doesn't mean it is

false. That doesn't mean it is irrational and false. That just means

irrational and false. That just means it's outside of your mind space. It's

it's outside of your mind space. It's literally outside of your domain of

literally outside of your domain of sanity.

The rationalist doesn't understand that there exists higher intelligence and

there exists higher intelligence and higher consciousness than the human so

higher consciousness than the human so high that it literally transcends human

high that it literally transcends human sanity. And then this is what mysticism

sanity. And then this is what mysticism is. Mysticism is not the belief in

is. Mysticism is not the belief in religious dogma and superstition and

religious dogma and superstition and nonsense. I mean there are that kind of

nonsense. I mean there are that kind of mysticism. That's that's bullshit. But

mysticism. That's that's bullshit. But that's not what we're talking about.

that's not what we're talking about. That's not interesting. That's too easy.

That's not interesting. That's too easy. What we're talking about is a mind

What we're talking about is a mind that's completely beyond the human mind.

That's what truly higher intelligence means. But then for the human mind to

means. But then for the human mind to understand that mind, it's not going to

understand that mind, it's not going to seem rational.

seem rational. You see, this is the fundamental

You see, this is the fundamental problem.

problem. This is why we need to deconstruct

This is why we need to deconstruct rationality is not so that you can

rationality is not so that you can believe

believe preodern nonsense and superstition. It's

preodern nonsense and superstition. It's so that your mind can expand into a

so that your mind can expand into a higher form of intelligence that is uh

higher form of intelligence that is uh beyond your own sanity and beyond

beyond your own sanity and beyond anything the human race considers

anything the human race considers reasonable and rational.

See, but all of these things are lost on a rationalist.

But of course, the rationalist, like I said, it's a par, it's a clever, sneaky

said, it's a par, it's a clever, sneaky paradigm that wants to maintain itself.

paradigm that wants to maintain itself. So, it's always going to try to come up

So, it's always going to try to come up with rationalizations against everything

with rationalizations against everything that I'm saying here, right? So, the

that I'm saying here, right? So, the rationalist is going to have smart

rationalist is going to have smart arguments. He's going to make various

arguments. He's going to make various kinds of arguments and sort of pseudo

kinds of arguments and sort of pseudo concessions to things that I'm saying,

concessions to things that I'm saying, you know, in order to save face.

you know, in order to save face. But fundamentally what the rationalist

But fundamentally what the rationalist is not realizing is that this entire

is not realizing is that this entire paradigm is is is it's such a small

paradigm is is is it's such a small little island within this giant ocean of

little island within this giant ocean of consciousness.

consciousness. And that

And that most of the advanced stuff that's way

most of the advanced stuff that's way beyond your current consciousness

beyond your current consciousness is so far beyond that it's not going to

is so far beyond that it's not going to seem rational to you and it's not going

seem rational to you and it's not going to seem scientific. And that's not a

to seem scientific. And that's not a mistake. That's not a bug. as a feature

mistake. That's not a bug. as a feature that just shows you the limits of your

that just shows you the limits of your current paradigm,

current paradigm, right? But for you to be able to

right? But for you to be able to understand those higher things, you're

understand those higher things, you're going to have to deconstruct this

going to have to deconstruct this paradigm, which is what we're doing.

paradigm, which is what we're doing. But you're so attached to your paradigm

But you're so attached to your paradigm with your sense of self, you don't even

with your sense of self, you don't even understand that your entire worldview,

understand that your entire worldview, all of science is just a construct of

all of science is just a construct of the self to maintain your sanity. You

the self to maintain your sanity. You don't even understand that.

don't even understand that. So because of that, you're going to be

So because of that, you're going to be fighting for your life and for your

fighting for your life and for your sanity.

sanity. And so literally, the things that I'm

And so literally, the things that I'm trying to teach you here will take you

trying to teach you here will take you beyond your own sanity, which is why

beyond your own sanity, which is why you're going to reject them.

So back to the ontology. Uh that's the whole ontology, I gave it to you, of

whole ontology, I gave it to you, of rationalism.

rationalism. It's also the ontology of materialism,

It's also the ontology of materialism, of scientism. There's a lot of overlap

of scientism. There's a lot of overlap between these things. Um, so first of

between these things. Um, so first of all, you should notice that all of those

all, you should notice that all of those points that I gave you about the

points that I gave you about the ontology, all of those are assumptions.

ontology, all of those are assumptions. They're just assumptions. None of them

They're just assumptions. None of them have ever been proven.

have ever been proven. Most of them are unconscious. The people

Most of them are unconscious. The people who hold these assumptions, they don't

who hold these assumptions, they don't even understand that they hold them.

even understand that they hold them. They don't understand the consequences

They don't understand the consequences of these assumptions. It takes a lot of

of these assumptions. It takes a lot of philosophical work just to become

philosophical work just to become conscious of the assumptions which is a

conscious of the assumptions which is a great example of why philosophy is so

great example of why philosophy is so valuable and so necessary for science.

valuable and so necessary for science. This is why science cannot do without

This is why science cannot do without philosophy because science is incapable

philosophy because science is incapable of deeply questioning its own

of deeply questioning its own assumptions. Philosophy is necessary for

assumptions. Philosophy is necessary for that. See philosophy is in a sense

that. See philosophy is in a sense meta-cience. It is it is a form of

meta-cience. It is it is a form of metrationality.

metrationality. You see, because to to question the

You see, because to to question the assumptions of rationalism and

assumptions of rationalism and rationality and to try try to transcend

rationality and to try try to transcend it and to see if there's anything beyond

it and to see if there's anything beyond it, well, you would need something more

it, well, you would need something more general, less specific than a rigorous

general, less specific than a rigorous formal system because the rigorous

formal system because the rigorous formal system has certain assumptions

formal system has certain assumptions baked into its very rigorous nature,

baked into its very rigorous nature, right? It's laws. Any system of laws you

right? It's laws. Any system of laws you create will have assumptions um about

create will have assumptions um about the validity of why those laws were

the validity of why those laws were selected. If you want to start to

selected. If you want to start to question why those laws were selected,

question why those laws were selected, why those rules are being followed, you

why those rules are being followed, you need to go outside of that system. The

need to go outside of that system. The system can't do that about itself. This

system can't do that about itself. This is the self-reflection problem.

And I'd like you to notice that these assumptions come from conformity for the

assumptions come from conformity for the most part. So here we're connecting with

most part. So here we're connecting with my episode,

my episode, the psychology of conformity.

the psychology of conformity. All of rationalism is just conformity.

All of rationalism is just conformity. That's all that it is.

That's all that it is. But it's so sophisticated and

But it's so sophisticated and pseudointellent. I don't want to call it

pseudointellent. I don't want to call it intelligent. I'm going to call it

intelligent. I'm going to call it pseudointelligent

pseudointelligent because in my mind it's not intelligent.

because in my mind it's not intelligent. But for most people it seems

But for most people it seems intelligent. You know, an MIT academic

intelligent. You know, an MIT academic seems intelligent. He's not, but he

seems intelligent. He's not, but he seems intelligent to the average person.

seems intelligent to the average person. When you see a Sam Harris, you know,

When you see a Sam Harris, you know, arguing with a Jordan Peterson, it seems

arguing with a Jordan Peterson, it seems intelligent. It's not. What they're

intelligent. It's not. What they're doing is not intelligent by my

doing is not intelligent by my standards. But of course there are many

standards. But of course there are many degrees of intelligence here of course

degrees of intelligence here of course right so by human standards it seems

right so by human standards it seems intelligent just cuz you don't know

intelligent just cuz you don't know anything higher

Now back to this issue of what's wrong with rationalism. Rationalism might work

with rationalism. Rationalism might work if the universe was a finite

if the universe was a finite deterministic

deterministic clockwork machine made of objective

clockwork machine made of objective definite crisp mind independent parts.

definite crisp mind independent parts. But this ontology is fundamentally

But this ontology is fundamentally wrong.

wrong. Which is why rationalists tend to not

Which is why rationalists tend to not want to discuss metaphysics and ontology

want to discuss metaphysics and ontology because if they did, they would realize

because if they did, they would realize how bad their ontology is. See, reality

how bad their ontology is. See, reality is an absolute unity. This has profound

is an absolute unity. This has profound and subtle implications for science, for

and subtle implications for science, for rationality, for understanding and

rationality, for understanding and sensemaking.

sensemaking. No distinction, what what does it mean

No distinction, what what does it mean to say that it's absolute unity? That

to say that it's absolute unity? That means that no distinction has an a fixed

means that no distinction has an a fixed objective reality.

objective reality. What I'm saying is that literally there

What I'm saying is that literally there is not a difference between a cat and a

is not a difference between a cat and a dog fundamentally.

dog fundamentally. But science assumes there is.

But science assumes there is. Rationality assumes that there is. There

Rationality assumes that there is. There is not a difference fundamentally

is not a difference fundamentally between science and pseudocience. But

between science and pseudocience. But rationalism assumes there is. There is

rationalism assumes there is. There is not a difference between even

not a difference between even rationality and irrationality.

rationality and irrationality. But rationality assumes that there is.

But rationality assumes that there is. All of science is working on there being

All of science is working on there being these fixed distinctions.

these fixed distinctions. See, science doesn't even understand

See, science doesn't even understand that the building block of of the

that the building block of of the universe is not atoms or equations or

universe is not atoms or equations or computation. It's distinctions.

computation. It's distinctions. Science and rationalists don't even have

Science and rationalists don't even have enough consciousness to understand that.

enough consciousness to understand that. That's because they're living in a

That's because they're living in a distinct world. They're living in a

distinct world. They're living in a world of duality. They don't really

world of duality. They don't really understand the implications and

understand the implications and ramifications of non-duality. What I'm

ramifications of non-duality. What I'm discussing here is non-duality.

discussing here is non-duality. Non-uality is just another synonym for

Non-uality is just another synonym for unity. Absolute unity.

It's because ontologically we have an absolute unity that um nothing is

absolute unity that um nothing is objectively distinct from anything else

objectively distinct from anything else in a fixed absolute way. All the

in a fixed absolute way. All the distinctions are morphing, changing,

distinctions are morphing, changing, fluid,

fluid, and that that's the true nature of the

and that that's the true nature of the world. Not a machine. See, a machine has

world. Not a machine. See, a machine has fixed parts. Another way to put it is

fixed parts. Another way to put it is that absolute unity means that there are

that absolute unity means that there are no parts to reality. There are no fixed

no parts to reality. There are no fixed parts. All the parts that you think are

parts. All the parts that you think are separate from each other, these are

separate from each other, these are pseudo separations. Pseudo parts. They

pseudo separations. Pseudo parts. They are parts in a

These are they're they're parts only as they are conceived by a mind

they are conceived by a mind and the mind doing the conceiving. This

and the mind doing the conceiving. This is absolutely fundamental. Reality just

is absolutely fundamental. Reality just is a mind that is conceiving of parts

is a mind that is conceiving of parts and distinctions. And all of this is

and distinctions. And all of this is lost on rationalism.

lost on rationalism. So this brings us to um now we're going

So this brings us to um now we're going to go deep into David Chapman's work.

to go deep into David Chapman's work. This brings us to the problem of

This brings us to the problem of nebulosity as he calls it. Nebulosity.

nebulosity as he calls it. Nebulosity. It's a bit of a pompous word.

It's a bit of a pompous word. Nebulosity. Um, nebulous means

Nebulosity. Um, nebulous means cloudlike, means fuzzy, abstract,

cloudlike, means fuzzy, abstract, ambiguous, amorphous.

ambiguous, amorphous. So, what is the problem of nebulosity?

So, what is the problem of nebulosity? He defines it like this. All of science

He defines it like this. All of science and sensemaking is plagued by

and sensemaking is plagued by categorization and definition problems.

categorization and definition problems. Rationality depends upon definitions to

Rationality depends upon definitions to work. But what is a definition anyways?

work. But what is a definition anyways? It's a very deep subject. Rationality

It's a very deep subject. Rationality assumes that definitions exist for

assumes that definitions exist for objects. This is another way to say that

objects. This is another way to say that it assumes identities, fixed identities,

it assumes identities, fixed identities, fixed categories, fixed distinctions.

fixed categories, fixed distinctions. Um,

Um, rationality assumes mind independent

rationality assumes mind independent definitions.

definitions. But what if definitions are not mind

But what if definitions are not mind independent? What if the mind is

independent? What if the mind is defining the object and thereby creating

defining the object and thereby creating the object and that's what an object is?

the object and that's what an object is? How and where do you draw boundaries

How and where do you draw boundaries between things in order to make truth

between things in order to make truth claims? See, this is the problem. If you

claims? See, this is the problem. If you want to have a formal

want to have a formal logical system that deals with, you

logical system that deals with, you know, propositions of statements, you

know, propositions of statements, you need to be able to crisply define what

need to be able to crisply define what you're talking about. For example, if

you're talking about. For example, if you want to say that snow is white,

you want to say that snow is white, well, you need a crisp definition of

well, you need a crisp definition of snow. What is snow?

snow. What is snow? And what is white? And while we're at

And what is white? And while we're at it, what is is [laughter]

it, what is is [laughter] it all depends on the meaning of what is

it all depends on the meaning of what is is,

is, right? So um but seriously what is

right? So um but seriously what is white? How do you define white

white? How do you define white scientifically?

scientifically? See a scientist will come in here and

See a scientist will come in here and say well Leo white is just like you know

say well Leo white is just like you know it's a wavelength of light and it's it

it's a wavelength of light and it's it you know it's the 425

you know it's the 425 nanometer range of light or whatever.

nanometer range of light or whatever. It's a mixture of multiple lights. I

It's a mixture of multiple lights. I don't know what it I don't know how they

don't know what it I don't know how they define white but that's what it is they

define white but that's what it is they want to say.

want to say. But, you know, it gets very very hairy.

But, you know, it gets very very hairy. And this is the this is this is a trick

And this is the this is this is a trick because snow, you know, is snow really

because snow, you know, is snow really white? What about the little blue tint

white? What about the little blue tint it has? Or it's more clear, transparent?

it has? Or it's more clear, transparent? How do you define these things? How do

How do you define these things? How do you define what snow is? Does ice count

you define what snow is? Does ice count as snow? Is an icicle snow? Does it have

as snow? Is an icicle snow? Does it have to be falling from the sky if it's on

to be falling from the sky if it's on the ground? But what if dirt is mixed

the ground? But what if dirt is mixed into it? Is that snow still? At what

into it? Is that snow still? At what point does it stop being snow? If it's

point does it stop being snow? If it's melting, is it snow? Now it's water. Is

melting, is it snow? Now it's water. Is it still white? Is water snow? See, it

it still white? Is water snow? See, it gets very confusing. This is the problem

gets very confusing. This is the problem of nebulosity that David Chapman is

of nebulosity that David Chapman is talking about.

talking about. So, for science to work, it needs to be

So, for science to work, it needs to be able to identify, categorize, and

able to identify, categorize, and distinguish objects. The more crisply it

distinguish objects. The more crisply it can do so, the better it works. But

can do so, the better it works. But there's a problem. Many, many problems.

there's a problem. Many, many problems. So many problems. We got to pace

So many problems. We got to pace ourselves here. I'm getting ahead of

ourselves here. I'm getting ahead of myself. Uh before we get into into that,

myself. Uh before we get into into that, let's let's cover some of these uh other

let's let's cover some of these uh other examples. Here's some examples. Um for

examples. Here's some examples. Um for example,

example, science assumes that there just is such

science assumes that there just is such a thing as a planet. But what is a

a thing as a planet. But what is a planet really? How do you define what a

planet really? How do you define what a planet is? Or for example, it assumes

planet is? Or for example, it assumes that there is such a thing as a

that there is such a thing as a particle, but what is a particle? How do

particle, but what is a particle? How do you define what a particle is? Or there

you define what a particle is? Or there just is such thing as an object, but

just is such thing as an object, but what is an object? How do you define

what is an object? How do you define what an object is? Or there is such

what an object is? Or there is such thing as a human. How do you define what

thing as a human. How do you define what a human is? Is a Neanderthal a human?

a human is? Is a Neanderthal a human? When did the first human appear

When did the first human appear scientifically?

Or now we get even into more complex things which are various kinds of

things which are various kinds of abstractions. For example, look,

rationalism will assume that there just is such a thing as being rational. But

is such a thing as being rational. But what does it mean to be rational? How do

what does it mean to be rational? How do you define that in a rigorous way?

or assumes that there is just s such a thing as right and wrong, good and bad.

thing as right and wrong, good and bad. How do you define those concepts?

How do you define those concepts? There just is such a thing as science

There just is such a thing as science and pseudocience. But how do you define

and pseudocience. But how do you define those?

those? What counts as pseudocience?

What counts as pseudocience? See, the truth is that none of these

See, the truth is that none of these things are ever fully known. It's all

things are ever fully known. It's all just assumed as simple and given.

just assumed as simple and given. And it works on the surface. It works a

And it works on the surface. It works a little bit if you're doing basic

little bit if you're doing basic science. It works. Like if you want to

science. It works. Like if you want to shoot a projectile,

shoot a projectile, you can successfully shoot a projectile

you can successfully shoot a projectile without getting into these complex

without getting into these complex ontological issues. If you just want to,

ontological issues. If you just want to, you know, do some chemistry and invent a

you know, do some chemistry and invent a new drug, you can do that without

new drug, you can do that without getting into this complex ontology. But

getting into this complex ontology. But when you start to do really deep science

when you start to do really deep science and you start to get into the quantum

and you start to get into the quantum physics level into the like the real

physics level into the like the real questions of what is anything at all,

questions of what is anything at all, where did anything or you you go to the

where did anything or you you go to the very macro scale like you know the big

very macro scale like you know the big bang, where the big bang come from,

bang, where the big bang come from, where did anything come from at all. You

where did anything come from at all. You get into these deep kind of questions or

get into these deep kind of questions or like what is life? What is

like what is life? What is consciousness? What is a mind? What is

consciousness? What is a mind? What is the self? You get into these deep

the self? You get into these deep questions. um these simplistic

questions. um these simplistic assumptions uh about just there being

assumptions uh about just there being discrete objects just working together

discrete objects just working together in a mechanical fashion. All this breaks

in a mechanical fashion. All this breaks down. None of this holds because these

down. None of this holds because these were just assumptions. That's all they

were just assumptions. That's all they were.

were. There are no definite boundaries between

There are no definite boundaries between physical objects. Even at the atomic

physical objects. Even at the atomic level, there's no objective criterion

level, there's no objective criterion for which atoms are part of which

for which atoms are part of which objects.

objects. Nowhere in the universe does it say that

Nowhere in the universe does it say that here is a cloud and this atom is part of

here is a cloud and this atom is part of this cloud. Whereas this other atom is

this cloud. Whereas this other atom is not part of this cloud. This is

not part of this cloud. This is the picking out of that cloud out of the

the picking out of that cloud out of the sky.

sky. The self is doing that. The mind is

The self is doing that. The mind is doing that.

See, so this is breaking that distinction that science makes between

distinction that science makes between the self who is studying the universe

the self who is studying the universe and the universe itself. Because of

and the universe itself. Because of course the self and the universe are

course the self and the universe are one. You are the universe studying

one. You are the universe studying itself.

itself. But science doesn't understand the

But science doesn't understand the complex, you know, entanglements that

complex, you know, entanglements that this is going to create, the paradoxes

this is going to create, the paradoxes that this creates.

How many clouds are in the sky today? There is no objective answer to that

There is no objective answer to that question because what determines what is

question because what determines what is a cloud?

a cloud? Your mind does. This is not a physical

Your mind does. This is not a physical fact you find in the world. How many

fact you find in the world. How many clouds are there? How many rocks are

clouds are there? How many rocks are there on the moon?

there on the moon? See, simplistically,

See, simplistically, under the materialist paradigm, you

under the materialist paradigm, you think that there is an answer to that

think that there is an answer to that question. But actually, there isn't.

question. But actually, there isn't. Because what counts as a rock?

Because what counts as a rock? Is a pebble a rock? If you have a rock

Is a pebble a rock? If you have a rock and there's a crack in it, but it's not

and there's a crack in it, but it's not all the way cracked in half, is that two

all the way cracked in half, is that two rocks? Is that one rock? How do we count

rocks? Is that one rock? How do we count that? Right? Is a grain of sand a rock

that? Right? Is a grain of sand a rock technically?

How about a car? Is a car a single object or is it how many objects are in

object or is it how many objects are in a car? Who gets to say?

a car? Who gets to say? See, quantity itself is relative and

See, quantity itself is relative and subjective.

subjective. How many of what you think there are?

How many of what you think there are? How many objects are there in the

How many objects are there in the universe? Is there an objective answer

universe? Is there an objective answer to that question? Does God know the

to that question? Does God know the answer to that question? In a certain

answer to that question? In a certain sense, no. Because the very notion of

sense, no. Because the very notion of quantity, quantifying things is

quantity, quantifying things is something that your own mind is doing

something that your own mind is doing and projecting onto the world. This is

and projecting onto the world. This is where that distinction between reality

where that distinction between reality and mind is breaking down. And then

and mind is breaking down. And then we're going to say that there is no such

we're going to say that there is no such thing as mind independent objects. All

thing as mind independent objects. All objects are inside the mind. All objects

objects are inside the mind. All objects are mind. An object is mind

are mind. An object is mind making a distinction within itself.

So, human perception is too hairy to give rationalism the clean, distinct

give rationalism the clean, distinct objects that it needs in order to

objects that it needs in order to construct itself.

construct itself. Let's go through a couple of deep

Let's go through a couple of deep examples of nebulosity so you kind of

examples of nebulosity so you kind of start to see some of the profound

start to see some of the profound implications of it because it can seem

implications of it because it can seem kind of trivial. You might say, well,

kind of trivial. You might say, well, Leo, you know, how many rocks are there

Leo, you know, how many rocks are there on the moon? Who really cares? Is that

on the moon? Who really cares? Is that really

really that gerine to the entire edifice of

that gerine to the entire edifice of science? Does that really change

science? Does that really change anything about science? Or like how many

anything about science? Or like how many clouds are in the sky? Does that really

clouds are in the sky? Does that really change how we do science and what

change how we do science and what science means? And the answer is yes, it

science means? And the answer is yes, it does. But you don't understand probably

does. But you don't understand probably the implications. So let's look at some

the implications. So let's look at some more examples. Consider an apple,

more examples. Consider an apple, ordinary apple. Now most rationalists

ordinary apple. Now most rationalists and scientists and materialists would

and scientists and materialists would consider that an apple is just a well-

consider that an apple is just a well- definfined object that just exists

definfined object that just exists independent of the mind. Something

independent of the mind. Something that's obvious, given, nothing mystical

that's obvious, given, nothing mystical about it, and it's just objective.

about it, and it's just objective. It's just a fact, right? An apple's just

It's just a fact, right? An apple's just a fact.

a fact. But when we're thinking about apples and

But when we're thinking about apples and talking about apples and trying to

talking about apples and trying to understand apples,

understand apples, what apple am I talking about? Am I

what apple am I talking about? Am I talking about an apple today?

talking about an apple today? One of our

One of our juicy giant apples or an apple from

juicy giant apples or an apple from 5,000 years ago? Have you ever seen an

5,000 years ago? Have you ever seen an apple from 5,000 years ago? It's like a

apple from 5,000 years ago? It's like a little crab apple. It hardly even

little crab apple. It hardly even resembles an apple. Probably barely

resembles an apple. Probably barely tastes like a modern apple.

tastes like a modern apple. Today's apples are these gigantic

Today's apples are these gigantic genetically modified monstrosities that

genetically modified monstrosities that have been bred over a thousand years to

have been bred over a thousand years to be juicy and colorful and all this.

be juicy and colorful and all this. So, in what sense are they the same

So, in what sense are they the same thing?

thing? See, when we're doing science, we're not

See, when we're doing science, we're not just talking about specific objects in

just talking about specific objects in the world like this apple, that pear,

the world like this apple, that pear, that banana, specific objects. We're

that banana, specific objects. We're also talking about abstract categories.

also talking about abstract categories. Apple. How do you even understand what I

Apple. How do you even understand what I mean by apple? Apple is an abstract

mean by apple? Apple is an abstract category of thing.

category of thing. It doesn't even refer to that specific

It doesn't even refer to that specific apple over there. It's a it's a term for

apple over there. It's a it's a term for entire class.

entire class. But what is a class?

But what is a class? Is a class just a um a collection of

Is a class just a um a collection of atoms? Can we just reduce a class to

atoms? Can we just reduce a class to just atoms? That's all it is. Just

just atoms? That's all it is. Just atoms, calculations, and equations. But

atoms, calculations, and equations. But you see, atom itself is a class.

but the human mind when we're talking about understanding and sensemaking

about understanding and sensemaking which is the primary concern here. Uh to

which is the primary concern here. Uh to understand reality

understand reality you're not just understanding individual

you're not just understanding individual objects you're you're also understanding

objects you're you're also understanding abstractions and classes.

abstractions and classes. How do you define what these

How do you define what these abstractions and classes actually are?

abstractions and classes actually are? How do you define what an apple is? For

How do you define what an apple is? For example, if I genetically modify an

example, if I genetically modify an apple with 5% pair DNA, is it still an

apple with 5% pair DNA, is it still an apple? How do you classify it? If you

apple? How do you classify it? If you want to make truth claims about apples

want to make truth claims about apples and pears and their differences, you

and pears and their differences, you better be able to crisply define what

better be able to crisply define what what is an apple and what is a pair. So,

what is an apple and what is a pair. So, you can say, well, [clears throat] it's

you can say, well, [clears throat] it's true that apples are this way, and it's

true that apples are this way, and it's true that pairs are this way, and what's

true that pairs are this way, and what's true of a pair is not true of an apple.

true of a pair is not true of an apple. That's basically what's all of science

That's basically what's all of science depends upon. Do you see how fundamental

depends upon. Do you see how fundamental this is? If you can't make these crisp

this is? If you can't make these crisp categories, then you can't make truth

categories, then you can't make truth statements about different objects in

statements about different objects in the in the universe.

Look at how interesting this gets. If an apple is growing on a tree, is it still

apple is growing on a tree, is it still an apple?

an apple? Where does the apple begin and the tree

Where does the apple begin and the tree end?

end? Is it valid to say that an apple is a

Is it valid to say that an apple is a tree?

tree? What's the difference? And I'm talking

What's the difference? And I'm talking about the fruit. So the apple fruit, is

about the fruit. So the apple fruit, is the apple fruit a tree or not? What's

the apple fruit a tree or not? What's the difference between an apple fruit

the difference between an apple fruit and the tree?

The things that are true of the apple tree, do those apply to the apple fruit

tree, do those apply to the apple fruit and vice versa?

and vice versa? If I take an apple and I put it into the

If I take an apple and I put it into the fire, is it still an apple? At what

fire, is it still an apple? At what point does it stop being an apple?

point does it stop being an apple? If you eat the apple and the apple is

If you eat the apple and the apple is inside your gut, is that still an apple?

inside your gut, is that still an apple? At what point does the apple stop being

At what point does the apple stop being an apple and it becomes you?

If I cut an apple in half with a knife, just one clean slice in half, how many

just one clean slice in half, how many objects do we have? Two or still one

objects do we have? Two or still one apple. Who gets to say?

apple. Who gets to say? And what about the little bits, the

And what about the little bits, the little microscopic bits of juice and

little microscopic bits of juice and apple particles that are on my knife

apple particles that are on my knife after I've sliced it? Because you never

after I've sliced it? Because you never slice it perfectly. You slice it in

slice it perfectly. You slice it in half, you got two big halves. What about

half, you got two big halves. What about the residue on the knife? Does that

the residue on the knife? Does that count as the apple?

count as the apple? So, do we have two apples, two pieces,

So, do we have two apples, two pieces, or do we have three? And do we count

or do we have three? And do we count this as one piece? Or do we count well,

this as one piece? Or do we count well, how do we count this particle sludge

how do we count this particle sludge that's left on the knife? How do we

that's left on the knife? How do we count that? How do we quantify that?

[snorts] Now, we might, a scientist might want to

Now, we might, a scientist might want to say, well, what determines whether an

say, well, what determines whether an object is one or two is the physical

object is one or two is the physical connection. If they're physically

connection. If they're physically connected, that means that they're one.

connected, that means that they're one. And if they're not, that means that it's

And if they're not, that means that it's two. But first of all, why should

two. But first of all, why should physical connection be what determines

physical connection be what determines what is an object? Why can't you have an

what is an object? Why can't you have an object that is physically disconnected?

After all, if we're talking about a cloud, we say that there's let's say

cloud, we say that there's let's say let's say there's one very kind of

let's say there's one very kind of clear, prominent, perfectly clear sky,

clear, prominent, perfectly clear sky, but just one clear prominent cloud in

but just one clear prominent cloud in the sky. and we say, "Oh, look,

the sky. and we say, "Oh, look, obviously there's one cloud up there

obviously there's one cloud up there today." Okay, fine. But

today." Okay, fine. But is the cloud physically connected? No.

is the cloud physically connected? No. No atoms at all if you go to the very

No atoms at all if you go to the very micro level, no atoms ever are

micro level, no atoms ever are physically, you know, touching each

physically, you know, touching each other.

other. And after all, what is physical anyways?

And after all, what is physical anyways? How do you even define what a physical

How do you even define what a physical connection is? See, we just assume that

connection is? See, we just assume that there are just these things called

there are just these things called physical connections. Not really. Not

physical connections. Not really. Not when you go down to the atomic level.

when you go down to the atomic level. And if the rationalists want to say that

And if the rationalists want to say that the atomic level, which they want to say

the atomic level, which they want to say is ultimately what is the truth, the

is ultimately what is the truth, the ultimate truth is the atomic level.

ultimate truth is the atomic level. Well, at the atomic level, there is no

Well, at the atomic level, there is no such thing as a physical connection. And

such thing as a physical connection. And yet, rationalism depends on physical

yet, rationalism depends on physical connections to define what objects are

connections to define what objects are and then to make truth claims about

and then to make truth claims about them.

And then you know what actually determines what a physical connection

determines what a physical connection is?

is? H

H if I glue two things together, does that

if I glue two things together, does that count as a physical connection?

count as a physical connection? But there are many objects that you

But there are many objects that you would say that's one object that are

would say that's one object that are glued together.

glued together. For example, you would say, well, that's

For example, you would say, well, that's one car, but the car is glued out of a

one car, but the car is glued out of a bunch of parts.

If there's oil between, you know, parts inside of an engine, does that mean it's

inside of an engine, does that mean it's one engine or multiple parts? What is

one engine or multiple parts? What is it?

If I take an apple and I compress it in a in a press into a 5% sized cube of

a in a press into a 5% sized cube of itself,

itself, is that still an apple?

is that still an apple? You might say, "Well, Leo, but so what?

You might say, "Well, Leo, but so what? Like you're you're saying these things,

Like you're you're saying these things, but what does it have to do with

but what does it have to do with anything?" Well, you see, because

anything?" Well, you see, because when you're doing science and you're

when you're doing science and you're doing your experiments and you're going

doing your experiments and you're going to be making knowledge, propositional

to be making knowledge, propositional knowledge claims about all these things,

knowledge claims about all these things, you're going to be using terms. You're

you're going to be using terms. You're going to say something like snow is

going to say something like snow is white in a in the most simple sense.

white in a in the most simple sense. Snow is white and apples are are such

Snow is white and apples are are such and such have such and such properties

and such have such and such properties and uh you know, apples are different

and uh you know, apples are different from pears in such and such a way. But

from pears in such and such a way. But to what degree are those things actually

to what degree are those things actually true? They're only true to the extent

true? They're only true to the extent that you have you know what you're

that you have you know what you're talking about, right? You have to define

talking about, right? You have to define apple and snow and white and pear and

apple and snow and white and pear and difference and sameness and and all this

difference and sameness and and all this kind of stuff. And so the problem that

kind of stuff. And so the problem that happens for for logical people is that

happens for for logical people is that our macro reality that we're dealing

our macro reality that we're dealing with every day that we're surviving in

with every day that we're surviving in that we're trying to understand and make

that we're trying to understand and make sense of is so chaotic and nebulous

sense of is so chaotic and nebulous and amorphous and fluid that it's very

and amorphous and fluid that it's very difficult to make definitive statements

difficult to make definitive statements about anything.

And this makes sensemaking very difficult.

difficult. If you haven't noticed, sensemaking is

If you haven't noticed, sensemaking is very very difficult to do correctly.

very very difficult to do correctly. And this is one of the reasons is

And this is one of the reasons is because what rationalism has to do to

because what rationalism has to do to simplify all this complexity down, it

simplify all this complexity down, it has to simplify it down into

has to simplify it down into little models, little abstractions and

little models, little abstractions and so forth. So you say that oh there's

so forth. So you say that oh there's apples and pairs, but in what sense are

apples and pairs, but in what sense are there really apples and pairs or are

there really apples and pairs or are these just simplifications of your mind?

these just simplifications of your mind? Once you make these simplifications, now

Once you make these simplifications, now you're dealing with lowresolution models

you're dealing with lowresolution models of the actual thing. And then you start

of the actual thing. And then you start to combine them and do logic on them.

to combine them and do logic on them. And then you get false conclusions.

And then you get false conclusions. And you're also when you're distilling

And you're also when you're distilling this stuff down and simplifying it,

this stuff down and simplifying it, you're making all sorts of simplifying

you're making all sorts of simplifying assumptions.

assumptions. For example, you're assuming that a that

For example, you're assuming that a that an apple is mind independent. You're

an apple is mind independent. You're assuming that quantity is mind

assuming that quantity is mind independent.

Is an apple really an objective reality or does it only exist inside your mind?

or does it only exist inside your mind? And how would you know the difference?

Here's another example of nebulosity. I'm going to give you a couple of these

I'm going to give you a couple of these kind of deep examples. And I want you to

kind of deep examples. And I want you to really contemplate this, you know,

really contemplate this, you know, contend with the with the with the

contend with the with the with the onlogical complexity of of what it means

onlogical complexity of of what it means to understand reality.

to understand reality. Because usually human beings are making

Because usually human beings are making sense of reality in such superficial or

sense of reality in such superficial or narrow ways, even scientists,

narrow ways, even scientists, that they're never contending with the

that they're never contending with the with the real complexity of what we're

with the real complexity of what we're doing here when when we're trying to

doing here when when we're trying to understand the world.

understand the world. For example, simple question might be

For example, simple question might be like, how long is an elephant? That's a

like, how long is an elephant? That's a kind of a scientific question. But then

kind of a scientific question. But then the question becomes, what counts as an

the question becomes, what counts as an elephant? Does a mammoth count as an

elephant? Does a mammoth count as an elephant?

It's tricky. But let's say we grant you that. Okay, this thing here is an

that. Okay, this thing here is an elephant. We'll just we'll just

elephant. We'll just we'll just stipulate that's an elephant by

stipulate that's an elephant by definition. Okay, so whatever's in front

definition. Okay, so whatever's in front of us is an elephant. But then how long

of us is an elephant. But then how long is it? Well, how do you measure it? Do

is it? Well, how do you measure it? Do you do you what do you do with its trunk

you do you what do you do with its trunk and its tail? Do you stretch them out?

and its tail? Do you stretch them out? How much do you stretch them out when

How much do you stretch them out when you're measuring it?

And then at what temperature are you measuring this this elephant? Because

measuring this this elephant? Because depending on whether you're measuring it

depending on whether you're measuring it in the in the hot jungle or in the in

in the in the hot jungle or in the in the cold, you know, tundra, uh it's

the cold, you know, tundra, uh it's going to be a different length.

going to be a different length. And are you measuring in the morning or

And are you measuring in the morning or in the evening? Because depending on the

in the evening? Because depending on the morning and evening, you know, you're

morning and evening, you know, you're taller in the mornings and you're

taller in the mornings and you're shorter in the evenings. And so it is

shorter in the evenings. And so it is with elephants, I assume. Uh, do you

with elephants, I assume. Uh, do you include the the hairs on its nose and

include the the hairs on its nose and tail? Do you include that in your

tail? Do you include that in your measurement? Do you count the dirt and

measurement? Do you count the dirt and oil on its hair? Do you include that in

oil on its hair? Do you include that in the measurement?

Is the oil and dirt that's caked onto the elephant's ass, is that part of the

the elephant's ass, is that part of the elephant, let's say I want to weigh the

elephant, let's say I want to weigh the elephant and find out its mass. Well,

elephant and find out its mass. Well, does the oil of the elephant count, does

does the oil of the elephant count, does the does the food in its stomach, what

the does the food in its stomach, what do we do about that? Is that part of the

do we do about that? Is that part of the elephant? Should we consider that it

elephant? Should we consider that it part of the elephant or not? What about

part of the elephant or not? What about the dirt on its tail that's caked into

the dirt on its tail that's caked into his hair?

his hair? What if one hair is hanging

What if one hair is hanging off the elephant's tail and it's

off the elephant's tail and it's detached from the elephant's body, but

detached from the elephant's body, but it's still holding on because it's caked

it's still holding on because it's caked with dirt? You know, the elephant swims

with dirt? You know, the elephant swims around in the mud, so it's just kind of

around in the mud, so it's just kind of caked on. Do we include that hair in the

caked on. Do we include that hair in the mass and the length of the elephant?

mass and the length of the elephant? And of course we have to understand uh

And of course we have to understand uh the elephant's velocity because the

the elephant's velocity because the length of the elephant literally depends

length of the elephant literally depends on how fast it's moving through spaceime

on how fast it's moving through spaceime according to Einstein's general

according to Einstein's general relativity. So if you don't know the

relativity. So if you don't know the elephant's velocity and your own

elephant's velocity and your own velocity relative to the elephant and

velocity relative to the elephant and you you know you get your reference

you you know you get your reference frames correct then you're not going to

frames correct then you're not going to really know the length of the elephant.

really know the length of the elephant. So it's relative to its velocity. Is the

So it's relative to its velocity. Is the elephant dead or alive? Because it's

elephant dead or alive? Because it's going to be different depending on if

going to be different depending on if it's dead or alive. And then how do we

it's dead or alive. And then how do we know if it's dead?

know if it's dead? When does an elephant count as dead

When does an elephant count as dead versus alive?

versus alive? And if finally we measure this elephant

And if finally we measure this elephant somehow and we say that it's 8.246

somehow and we say that it's 8.246 meters long,

meters long, how long does that truth last?

how long does that truth last? The elephant is that long is that long?

The elephant is that long is that long? For what? For a minute, for an hour, for

For what? For a minute, for an hour, for a day, and then it's different.

a day, and then it's different. And then what is a meter anyway? How do

And then what is a meter anyway? How do we even know what a meter is? How do we

we even know what a meter is? How do we even measure what a meter is?

So this gets us into like the the deep the really deep philosophical issues of

the really deep philosophical issues of science and you know empiricism.

science and you know empiricism. Empiricism just sort of assumes that we

Empiricism just sort of assumes that we can go out in the world and just kind of

can go out in the world and just kind of like measure stuff and see stuff and

like measure stuff and see stuff and it's just it's there for us. It's just a

it's just it's there for us. It's just a given. But then when you actually start

given. But then when you actually start to get deeper and deeper into the

to get deeper and deeper into the complexities of it, you run into all

complexities of it, you run into all these problems. And serious scientists

these problems. And serious scientists who are doing serious scientific work,

who are doing serious scientific work, they're always running into these kinds

they're always running into these kinds of problems. And then the question is

of problems. And then the question is how then do you navigate it with your

how then do you navigate it with your mind? And you're going to say, well man,

mind? And you're going to say, well man, all we do is we just study the facts,

all we do is we just study the facts, the facts and the logic and it's just

the facts and the logic and it's just the objective. But it's like no, because

the objective. But it's like no, because there's so much interpretive work that

there's so much interpretive work that your mind is doing to make sense of all

your mind is doing to make sense of all this stuff. Just to understand what the

this stuff. Just to understand what the right, you know, how do you just to

right, you know, how do you just to understand and to make sense of how do

understand and to make sense of how do you measure an elephant properly? That

you measure an elephant properly? That already requires a lot of very intuitive

already requires a lot of very intuitive higher order kinds of thinking that

higher order kinds of thinking that cannot be simply boiled down to atomic

cannot be simply boiled down to atomic facts. You're making decisions. You're

facts. You're making decisions. You're making judgments, executive judgments

making judgments, executive judgments about, you know, doing it this way

about, you know, doing it this way versus doing it that way. Interpretive

versus doing it that way. Interpretive judgments as well.

Now, you might say, "Well, Leo, but ultimately, so what? It sounds like

ultimately, so what? It sounds like you're just kind of like nitpicking

you're just kind of like nitpicking stuff, and these are just like little

stuff, and these are just like little technical problems of, you know,

technical problems of, you know, imperfect measurement. You know, who

imperfect measurement. You know, who cares if if you measure the elephant

cares if if you measure the elephant this way or that way? Ultimately, the

this way or that way? Ultimately, the elephant has some side of some kind of

elephant has some side of some kind of length. Whether you can measure it by

length. Whether you can measure it by pulling on its tail or not, who cares?

pulling on its tail or not, who cares? In the end, it's just an object that

In the end, it's just an object that just exists.

Or is it? What if objects themselves are relative?

What if objects themselves are relative? What if there is no such thing as an

What if there is no such thing as an elephant?

elephant? even that particular one right in front

even that particular one right in front of you. What if in some sense

of you. What if in some sense you're projecting that elephant onto

you're projecting that elephant onto whatever is there?

Here's some more examples of nebulosity. Are fruits healthy to eat? Might be kind

Are fruits healthy to eat? Might be kind of a scientific question you might ask,

of a scientific question you might ask, right?

right? Well, what counts as a fruit? And which

Well, what counts as a fruit? And which fruits? because you're you're

fruits? because you're you're generalizing, you know, to say that the

generalizing, you know, to say that the category of fruit is an extremely

category of fruit is an extremely general abstract category. How do you

general abstract category. How do you determine what to fit in there? Do

determine what to fit in there? Do berries count as fruits? Is a rotten

berries count as fruits? Is a rotten fruit a fruit? Is a poisonous fruit a

fruit a fruit? Is a poisonous fruit a fruit?

So, in what sense can you say that it's true that it's healthy to eat fruits?

See, simplistically, some nutrition scientists might say it

some nutrition scientists might say it is true that it's healthy to eat fruits,

is true that it's healthy to eat fruits, and it's and it's it's also, you know,

and it's and it's it's also, you know, it's false that eating McDonald's is

it's false that eating McDonald's is healthy for you. But based on what are

healthy for you. But based on what are you making those true and false claims?

you making those true and false claims? See, there's so much oversimplification

See, there's so much oversimplification that is happening there, right? Because

that is happening there, right? Because they're not thinking of all the edge

they're not thinking of all the edge cases. They're not thinking about what

cases. They're not thinking about what about if the fruit is rotten, what if

about if the fruit is rotten, what if the fruit is poisonous?

the fruit is poisonous? Now, the scientists will say, "Well,

Now, the scientists will say, "Well, Leo, yeah, of course I can't think of

Leo, yeah, of course I can't think of all of these different edge cases. That

all of these different edge cases. That would take too long and it's too too

would take too long and it's too too messy." Of course not. So, we're we're

messy." Of course not. So, we're we're oversimplifying stuff. And that's just,

oversimplifying stuff. And that's just, you know, all of us scientists, we we

you know, all of us scientists, we we all know this, Leo. You're not you're

all know this, Leo. You're not you're not telling us anything new. We already

not telling us anything new. We already know everything you're saying. No, you

know everything you're saying. No, you don't. You don't understand uh how

don't. You don't understand uh how problematic this becomes

problematic this becomes because you are making truth claims and

because you are making truth claims and you are making sense of reality using

you are making sense of reality using these gross simplifications

but then you're not accounting in a holistic manner how this is distorting

holistic manner how this is distorting everything that you understand about the

everything that you understand about the world.

Even the fact that all you're saying is that well you know I'm I'm just a humble

that well you know I'm I'm just a humble nutritionist and all I do I just you

nutritionist and all I do I just you know I just report these nutrition

know I just report these nutrition studies and of course they're not

studies and of course they're not totally holistic and all of that but you

totally holistic and all of that but you know this is the best we can do even

know this is the best we can do even when you make that kind of claim. See

when you make that kind of claim. See already what you're doing this is this

already what you're doing this is this is the key to David Chapman's point is

is the key to David Chapman's point is that you're not being strictly formal

that you're not being strictly formal when you do that.

when you do that. See, the fuzziness in your thinking

See, the fuzziness in your thinking is

absolutely critical because what we're trying to demonstrate

because what we're trying to demonstrate here with all these examples is that

here with all these examples is that strict formalism just doesn't work. It

strict formalism just doesn't work. It can't work.

can't work. Not just because it's difficult or it's

Not just because it's difficult or it's time consuming technically, but that

time consuming technically, but that literally the ontology of reality

literally the ontology of reality doesn't allow for it. It makes it

doesn't allow for it. It makes it impossible. Reality just isn't this way.

impossible. Reality just isn't this way. It isn't this way where you can reduce

It isn't this way where you can reduce it and simplify it down in these ways

it and simplify it down in these ways that are being assumed by science and

that are being assumed by science and rationality.

in order for you to survive and to understand the world,

understand the world, you need to make use of fuzzy intuitive

you need to make use of fuzzy intuitive thinking and understanding and

thinking and understanding and sensemaking

sensemaking which

which is prior to and transcendent of formal

is prior to and transcendent of formal science and formal rationality which we

science and formal rationality which we would say rationalism.

would say rationalism. You couldn't operate otherwise. Your

You couldn't operate otherwise. Your mind literally couldn't operate

mind literally couldn't operate otherwise because you need to be able to

otherwise because you need to be able to make judgment calls. Like for example,

make judgment calls. Like for example, when you say, well, what counts as a

when you say, well, what counts as a fruit? Does a does a rotten fruit count

fruit? Does a does a rotten fruit count as a fruit in terms of healthy eating?

as a fruit in terms of healthy eating? You would say no, it doesn't count. But

You would say no, it doesn't count. But then what are you using to understand

then what are you using to understand that no, it doesn't count. That it

that no, it doesn't count. That it shouldn't be counted as part of that

shouldn't be counted as part of that category. Well, you're using fuzzy

category. Well, you're using fuzzy intuitive kinds of sensemaking and

intuitive kinds of sensemaking and understanding which cannot be codified

understanding which cannot be codified and formalized because there's way too

and formalized because there's way too many exceptions for you to be able to

many exceptions for you to be able to formalize them all and put them into

formalize them all and put them into rules or to make any kind of

rules or to make any kind of mathematical model of them or a system

mathematical model of them or a system of rules for how to think properly about

of rules for how to think properly about these different categories.

these different categories. That's the issue.

That's the issue. We're trying to demonstrate that

We're trying to demonstrate that formalism is actually a mistake and that

formalism is actually a mistake and that it actually makes sensemaking worse, not

it actually makes sensemaking worse, not better.

better. Not always. Sometimes formalism is

Not always. Sometimes formalism is necessary and good. We're not trying to,

necessary and good. We're not trying to, you know, we're not saying to abandon

you know, we're not saying to abandon all formalism, but uh we're trying to

all formalism, but uh we're trying to show the limitations of formalism. And

show the limitations of formalism. And we're trying to debunk this paradigm,

we're trying to debunk this paradigm, this worldview that says that just

this worldview that says that just increasing formalism is the solution to

increasing formalism is the solution to all of these epistemic problems. It

all of these epistemic problems. It isn't. It can't be.

isn't. It can't be. Why not? Because you can't even define

Why not? Because you can't even define what formalism is.

what formalism is. You can't even define what rational is.

You can't even define what rational is. You can't define what science is. You

You can't define what science is. You can't define what an apple is. You can't

can't define what an apple is. You can't define what a cat is. You can't define

define what a cat is. You can't define what a woman is. You can't define what a

what a woman is. You can't define what a man is. You can't define what a human

man is. You can't define what a human is. Can't define what an elephant is.

Can't define what an atom is. Can't define what red is. You literally can't

define what red is. You literally can't define anything

define anything because you actually don't know what

because you actually don't know what anything is.

This is so fundamental that science completely overlooks it.

And this ties in with with that assumption about reality being finite.

assumption about reality being finite. See, all of rationalism assumes that

See, all of rationalism assumes that reality is finite onlogically

reality is finite onlogically because finite has to do with

because finite has to do with definition. Here's the connection.

For rationalism to work, it needs to be able to have crisp definitions. to have

able to have crisp definitions. to have crisp definitions. The only things that

crisp definitions. The only things that can be crisply defined are finite

can be crisply defined are finite things. You can't by definition define

things. You can't by definition define an infinite thing. But if reality as a

an infinite thing. But if reality as a whole is an infinite thing, then reality

whole is an infinite thing, then reality as a whole is literally undefined.

as a whole is literally undefined. That's not a mistake or a lack of

That's not a mistake or a lack of knowing. That's what it is. It's

knowing. That's what it is. It's undefined.

undefined. So if reality is truly infinite, this is

So if reality is truly infinite, this is what I mean by you don't understand the

what I mean by you don't understand the consequences of infinity. If reality is

consequences of infinity. If reality is truly infinite, which also means it's a

truly infinite, which also means it's a unity, that means you can't define it.

unity, that means you can't define it. Because in order to define something,

Because in order to define something, you need to go outside and beyond it to

you need to go outside and beyond it to define it with

define it with what is a definition. To define

what is a definition. To define something, you need to you have

something, you need to you have something other to it to define it in

something other to it to define it in terms of, right? Like what is a cat? A

terms of, right? Like what is a cat? A cat is something that has legs and parts

cat is something that has legs and parts and fur and and this and that. See,

and fur and and this and that. See, you're you're defining it with other

you're you're defining it with other things.

But you can't do that if if you have infinity. You can't define infinity

infinity. You can't define infinity because infinity is so total that you

because infinity is so total that you can't go outside of it to define it with

can't go outside of it to define it with anything else.

So this is where the ontology destroys rationalism. Rationalism can't work

rationalism. Rationalism can't work because reality is infinite. Now you

because reality is infinite. Now you might say, well, how do you know it's

might say, well, how do you know it's infinite? Well, I can't demonstrate that

infinite? Well, I can't demonstrate that to you here. And part of the problem of

to you here. And part of the problem of rationalism is that a rationalist will

rationalism is that a rationalist will expect me to demonstrate it to you here

expect me to demonstrate it to you here through some kind of formal proof. And

through some kind of formal proof. And of course, that's the whole catch22 here

of course, that's the whole catch22 here is that I can't formally prove to you

is that I can't formally prove to you that reality is infinite. That's the

that reality is infinite. That's the whole point of why we're deconstructing

whole point of why we're deconstructing rationality is so that you can realize

rationality is so that you can realize the infinity of it for yourself. So

the infinity of it for yourself. So that's that's beyond the scope of this

that's that's beyond the scope of this episode. You just have to take my word

episode. You just have to take my word for it for now. But I mean, it requires

for it for now. But I mean, it requires awakening.

In a sense, the entire paradigm of materialism, scientism, and rationalism,

materialism, scientism, and rationalism, you can think of it as just a denial of

you can think of it as just a denial of infinity. That's all that it is in a

infinity. That's all that it is in a sense. Because what's happening is that

sense. Because what's happening is that the mind, the scientific mind is just

the mind, the scientific mind is just doing analysis. Analysis is subdividing

doing analysis. Analysis is subdividing reality all the time without being

reality all the time without being construct aware enough to see that it's

construct aware enough to see that it's subdividing reality. So, it's

subdividing reality. So, it's subdividing reality and then confusing

subdividing reality and then confusing those subdivisions with being out there

those subdivisions with being out there when actually they are in here.

when actually they are in here. There is this idea that you can separate

There is this idea that you can separate the subjective from the objective,

the subjective from the objective, remove the subjective and just study the

remove the subjective and just study the objective. And you can't do that if what

objective. And you can't do that if what we're talking about is infinity. Because

we're talking about is infinity. Because within infinity, the subjective and

within infinity, the subjective and objective are in a unity with each

objective are in a unity with each other.

other. And if you don't realize that, then

And if you don't realize that, then you're going to get everything wrong.

you're going to get everything wrong. [snorts]

I sort of went on a tangent from my example back to this example of

example back to this example of nebulosity. So we were talking about

nebulosity. So we were talking about which fruits are healthy to eat.

Healthy for who? For humans, for cats, for flies, which types of humans,

for flies, which types of humans, different types of humans. Apples could

different types of humans. Apples could be healthy for them or fruits could be

be healthy for them or fruits could be healthy or unhealthy for them. You know,

healthy or unhealthy for them. You know, maybe there's animals for whom fruits

maybe there's animals for whom fruits are unhealthy. But when we say fruits

are unhealthy. But when we say fruits are healthy to eat, when we just say

are healthy to eat, when we just say that and we say that that's true. Some

that and we say that that's true. Some nutritionists say that. See, there's all

nutritionists say that. See, there's all sorts of assumptions like, well, we're

sorts of assumptions like, well, we're talking about humans and we're not

talking about humans and we're not talking about cats or elephants or other

talking about cats or elephants or other creatures, aliens.

And now that's the scientists would say, well yeah, Leo, that's obvious. We're

well yeah, Leo, that's obvious. We're just kind of simplifying. Yeah, but the

just kind of simplifying. Yeah, but the point is that the your mind is still

point is that the your mind is still able to make sense of these

able to make sense of these simplifications. And this is absolutely

simplifications. And this is absolutely essential for you to make sense of

essential for you to make sense of reality is that you're always operating

reality is that you're always operating with these kinds of simplifications,

with these kinds of simplifications, abstractions, fuzzy, nebulous concepts,

abstractions, fuzzy, nebulous concepts, none of which are ever fully defined

none of which are ever fully defined ever.

ever. You cannot define what a cat is.

You cannot define what a cat is. You cannot define what anything is. And

You cannot define what anything is. And yet your mind still understands it,

yet your mind still understands it, still works with it somehow.

That's because the essence of mind is is an informal

the essence of mind is is an informal process.

process. And if you don't understand and

And if you don't understand and appreciate that and see the power of

appreciate that and see the power of that, the power lies in its informality.

that, the power lies in its informality. That's why it's powerful. When you

That's why it's powerful. When you formalize it, you lose its power. You

formalize it, you lose its power. You actually lose its robustness. It's

actually lose its robustness. It's robust because it's informal. It's

robust because it's informal. It's nebulous. This is essential to proper

nebulous. This is essential to proper use of the mind.

use of the mind. Why are we talking about those? Because

Why are we talking about those? Because we're act this is actually a way for us

we're act this is actually a way for us to overcome some of the deepest

to overcome some of the deepest self-deceptions of the mind which are

self-deceptions of the mind which are committed by the scientific mind. Not by

committed by the scientific mind. Not by the pre-rational mind, by the by the by

the pre-rational mind, by the by the by the rational and by the modern mind, not

the rational and by the modern mind, not the premodern mind. The deceptions of

the premodern mind. The deceptions of the premodern mind are are too easy.

the premodern mind are are too easy. They're uninteresting.

We say let's say an apple is healthy. But are the seeds inside the apple are

But are the seeds inside the apple are healthy? Are they? They contain cyanide.

Are fruits sprayed with pesticides? Are those considered healthy? What about GMO

those considered healthy? What about GMO fruits? How do you know if those are

fruits? How do you know if those are healthy? How much fruit? Maybe up to a

healthy? How much fruit? Maybe up to a certain point fruit are healthy, but

certain point fruit are healthy, but then beyond that point they're not

then beyond that point they're not healthy anymore. So in what sense can

healthy anymore. So in what sense can you even say that? Like look, you might

you even say that? Like look, you might say, well, yeah, we can qualify. We can

say, well, yeah, we can qualify. We can say

say specific [snorts] kinds of fruits like

specific [snorts] kinds of fruits like apples are healthy for human beings.

apples are healthy for human beings. That statement is true.

That statement is true. Well, maybe it's not true when you

Well, maybe it's not true when you consider the the apple seeds. And maybe

consider the the apple seeds. And maybe maybe if you consider eating a ton of of

maybe if you consider eating a ton of of the of the apples, it's no longer true.

the of the apples, it's no longer true. You'll say, "Okay, Leo, let's qualify

You'll say, "Okay, Leo, let's qualify first. Let's say apples are healthy for

first. Let's say apples are healthy for human beings as long as you don't eat

human beings as long as you don't eat the apple seeds and also you don't eat

the apple seeds and also you don't eat too much of it. you keep it under, you

too much of it. you keep it under, you know, a certain amount. But then even

know, a certain amount. But then even that's not going to work because you

that's not going to work because you could say, well, what about people with

could say, well, what about people with a certain genetic disorder? Is that

a certain genetic disorder? Is that healthy for them? And you can say, okay,

healthy for them? And you can say, okay, we can qualify further. Apples are

we can qualify further. Apples are healthy for these kinds of people who

healthy for these kinds of people who don't have this kind of genetic

don't have this kind of genetic disorder, blah blah blah blah blah.

disorder, blah blah blah blah blah. Okay, but what if we cook the apples and

Okay, but what if we cook the apples and we overcook them? Does that count? So

we overcook them? Does that count? So now we have to qualify. Raw apples are

now we have to qualify. Raw apples are healthy, but not the overcooked ones.

See, and this goes on forever. There's no end to this.

There's no end to this. Is ketchup a fruit? Is orange juice a

Is ketchup a fruit? Is orange juice a fruit? Is refined sugar from apples a

fruit? Is refined sugar from apples a fruit? Is a nut a fruit? Is a plastic

fruit? Is a nut a fruit? Is a plastic apple a fruit? Uh, is a plastic apple a

apple a fruit? Uh, is a plastic apple a fruit?

fruit? Now, you might say, "Well, obviously,

Now, you might say, "Well, obviously, Leo, a plastic apple is not a fruit."

Leo, a plastic apple is not a fruit." Um, that's just silly. Yeah. But see, if

Um, that's just silly. Yeah. But see, if we're in a room together and I say,

we're in a room together and I say, "Hand me that apple over there and you

"Hand me that apple over there and you you look over there and it's it's a

you look over there and it's it's a plastic apple. It's obviously plastic.

plastic apple. It's obviously plastic. You're not deceived. You grab it. You

You're not deceived. You grab it. You hand it to me. No questions, no no

hand it to me. No questions, no no concerns. It just works. You understand

concerns. It just works. You understand exactly what I'm talking about. Even

exactly what I'm talking about. Even though that apple wasn't a real apple.

though that apple wasn't a real apple. It was just a plastic apple, but you

It was just a plastic apple, but you still understood what I told you. That's

still understood what I told you. That's because your mind is so advanced. your

because your mind is so advanced. your understanding is so fucking advanced and

understanding is so fucking advanced and you have no comprehension of how

you have no comprehension of how advanced your own understanding is that

advanced your own understanding is that it doesn't matter, right? You're not

it doesn't matter, right? You're not like a logical computer or robot where

like a logical computer or robot where it's like, you know, you tell a robot,

it's like, you know, you tell a robot, "Hand me that apple." And the the robot

"Hand me that apple." And the the robot looks over and says, "No, that's not an

looks over and says, "No, that's not an apple. That's a plastic thing."

apple. That's a plastic thing." See, that's because if the robot was

See, that's because if the robot was programmed with these kinds of logical

programmed with these kinds of logical rules, it wouldn't have enough

rules, it wouldn't have enough sophistication and intelligence to

sophistication and intelligence to really be able to interpret what you're

really be able to interpret what you're saying.

Now, you might say, "Well, Leo, but AI are are really smart these days. They're

are are really smart these days. They're able to understand all this all this

able to understand all this all this intuitive stuff." Exactly. The only

intuitive stuff." Exactly. The only reason AI is so intelligent, notice

reason AI is so intelligent, notice this, is because uh these

this, is because uh these computer scientists have figured out a

computer scientists have figured out a way to create this this intuitive fuzzy

way to create this this intuitive fuzzy nebulous black box, which they have no

nebulous black box, which they have no idea how it actually works.

idea how it actually works. They just, you know, create it somehow

They just, you know, create it somehow through some sort of mechanical process.

through some sort of mechanical process. They create it. But then this thing

They create it. But then this thing somehow works in a very fuzzy mystical

somehow works in a very fuzzy mystical almost way. Have no idea how it actually

almost way. Have no idea how it actually works. And then it's able to understand

works. And then it's able to understand the difference between an apple and a

the difference between an apple and a plastic apple and all these sorts of

plastic apple and all these sorts of nuances and so forth which could never

nuances and so forth which could never be captured in any kind of formal

be captured in any kind of formal system. Notice that you could not create

system. Notice that you could not create an AI using formal you know logical

an AI using formal you know logical rules.

And so in order to reach the kind of level of intelligence that humans have,

level of intelligence that humans have, you had to abandon the logical rules for

you had to abandon the logical rules for creating AI and you had to go with a

creating AI and you had to go with a fuzzy black block black box approach.

fuzzy black block black box approach. And that's what made it really

And that's what made it really intelligent.

intelligent. You might say, well, Leo, but so what?

You might say, well, Leo, but so what? Here's the thing.

Here's the thing. Academia and science is all about taking

Academia and science is all about taking that fuzzy stuff and formalizing it

that fuzzy stuff and formalizing it into, you know, a scientific method and

into, you know, a scientific method and all of that, thinking that that solves

all of that, thinking that that solves the problem of self-deception and that

the problem of self-deception and that you're going to be able to use that to

you're going to be able to use that to understand reality at the highest

understand reality at the highest levels.

levels. And that's not going to work. That's the

And that's not going to work. That's the point.

point. And the point is that they don't

And the point is that they don't understand that it's not going to work.

And I'm not just talking about in the future like you know in the future there

future like you know in the future there will be things that science doesn't

will be things that science doesn't understand because its current method is

understand because its current method is limited. No, I'm saying that there are

limited. No, I'm saying that there are very advanced profound things that I can

very advanced profound things that I can teach you right now today that a

teach you right now today that a scientist and a rationalist will not

scientist and a rationalist will not understand simply because they're

understand simply because they're operating from that paradigm.

operating from that paradigm. And they don't understand that. And

And they don't understand that. And therefore, I literally can't teach them

therefore, I literally can't teach them the most advanced truths about the

the most advanced truths about the universe because they won't be able to

universe because they won't be able to comprehend it because their mind is

comprehend it because their mind is limited by this paradigm. That's the

limited by this paradigm. That's the point.

[snorts] More examples of nebulosity. Is the sky

More examples of nebulosity. Is the sky blue? What counts as the sky? What

blue? What counts as the sky? What counts as blue? Are birds dinosaurs? Is

counts as blue? Are birds dinosaurs? Is there water in a coconut?

There's liquid in there. And if you do a microscopic analysis, most of that

microscopic analysis, most of that liquid is water. But

if let's say I needed a I needed water for some sort of

I needed water for some sort of laboratory experiment,

laboratory experiment, could I use a coconut to to get that

could I use a coconut to to get that water? No, probably not. Even though

water? No, probably not. Even though technically there is water in a coconut.

technically there is water in a coconut. Or is there? Depends on how you want to

Or is there? Depends on how you want to look at it. See the issue here is that

look at it. See the issue here is that the question of is there water in a

the question of is there water in a coconut doesn't have an objective

coconut doesn't have an objective answer. It all depends relativistically

answer. It all depends relativistically on what you are asking the question for

on what you are asking the question for its purpose, what you need it to do for

its purpose, what you need it to do for you.

you. That's nebulosity.

That's nebulosity. Nebulosity is not just about objects not

Nebulosity is not just about objects not being concrete enough and crisp enough

being concrete enough and crisp enough and defined enough. It's also about how

and defined enough. It's also about how we're using these concepts as well. How

we're using these concepts as well. How we're using and talking about these

we're using and talking about these objects.

Here's an interesting philosophical question. You know, there there are

question. You know, there there are these debates about trans. Are trans

these debates about trans. Are trans women really women and so forth? Here's

women really women and so forth? Here's a really interesting way to phrase it.

a really interesting way to phrase it. Let's say in a hundred years we have the

Let's say in a hundred years we have the technology to do perfect surgery

technology to do perfect surgery to give a biological woman a working

to give a biological woman a working penis and sperm and hormones so that all

penis and sperm and hormones so that all of it works and she's able to impregnate

of it works and she's able to impregnate a biological woman.

a biological woman. Is she still a woman or is she now a

Is she still a woman or is she now a man?

man? That's the really interesting question

That's the really interesting question with the trans question, right?

with the trans question, right? Because right now we don't have good

Because right now we don't have good enough surgery to do this. But in a 100

enough surgery to do this. But in a 100 years you can imagine that we will have

years you can imagine that we will have this kind of surgery available. Well, in

this kind of surgery available. Well, in that case, what really is a man and a

that case, what really is a man and a woman?

woman? I'd like you to contemplate that for

I'd like you to contemplate that for yourself.

yourself. There are also higher order questions

There are also higher order questions that we ask and that we deal with all

that we ask and that we deal with all the time for sensemaking purposes. For

the time for sensemaking purposes. For example, is that person a Marxist? Is

example, is that person a Marxist? Is that person a fascist? Is that person a

that person a fascist? Is that person a a Nazi?

Oftentimes there are not objective answers to these questions.

answers to these questions. And notice that the term science is

And notice that the term science is itself nebulous. What is science? I dare

itself nebulous. What is science? I dare you to define it.

For example, is actualize that already science.

How about the term reasonable? I dare you to try to define reasonable. What

you to try to define reasonable. What the fuck is reasonable? That's the most

the fuck is reasonable? That's the most nebulous of terms. What about crazy and

nebulous of terms. What about crazy and absurd?

absurd? These are nebulous terms. Why does that

These are nebulous terms. Why does that matter? Well, because when I start

matter? Well, because when I start telling you advanced

telling you advanced uh truths from trans, you know, rational

uh truths from trans, you know, rational domains of of intelligence and

domains of of intelligence and consciousness, you're going to call me

consciousness, you're going to call me crazy and absurd.

But you can't even define what crazy and absurd are. And yet you you're using

absurd are. And yet you you're using those terms to try to deny what other

those terms to try to deny what other people are telling you to certain deny

people are telling you to certain deny certain truths and facts and realities.

How about the word truth? Everyone uses the word or the concept truth, but no

the word or the concept truth, but no scientist can define it. I dare you

scientist can define it. I dare you define what truth is.

See, rationalism cannot even define what truth is. And yet, it entirely depends

truth is. And yet, it entirely depends upon it. How do you even scientifically

upon it. How do you even scientifically answer the question, what is truth? How

answer the question, what is truth? How do you run a scientific experiment to

do you run a scientific experiment to prove that?

How do you do a peer-reviewed research study on what truth is? And yet, science

study on what truth is? And yet, science requires the concept of truth. You can't

requires the concept of truth. You can't do science without this concept. Some

do science without this concept. Some people say like, "Oh, well, Leo, you

people say like, "Oh, well, Leo, you know, science doesn't care about the

know, science doesn't care about the truth."

truth." I mean, you're so not understanding the

I mean, you're so not understanding the death of this problem.

death of this problem. Of course, science cares about truth.

Of course, science cares about truth. You wouldn't be arguing with anybody if

You wouldn't be arguing with anybody if you didn't care about truth.

you didn't care about truth. That's the only reason you argue is

That's the only reason you argue is because you have some vague notion of

because you have some vague notion of what truth is and you think you got it

what truth is and you think you got it and the other person doesn't. That's the

and the other person doesn't. That's the only reason you're arguing.

only reason you're arguing. That's the only reason you're debunking

That's the only reason you're debunking or that you're even skeptical about

or that you're even skeptical about anything is because you have a deep

anything is because you have a deep intuition for truth, but you can't

intuition for truth, but you can't define it.

Most of the things your mind cares about, attaches meaning to, and makes

about, attaches meaning to, and makes truth claims about are hopelessly

truth claims about are hopelessly nebulous and cannot be reduced down to

nebulous and cannot be reduced down to anything formal, atomic, objective, or

anything formal, atomic, objective, or rigorously scientific.

rigorously scientific. Now here the rationalist will pull this

Now here the rationalist will pull this move and say well yeah Leo sure I agree

move and say well yeah Leo sure I agree with you in practice you're right we

with you in practice you're right we can't do it because you know we can't

can't do it because you know we can't track the the the

track the the the exact physical coordinates of every atom

exact physical coordinates of every atom in the universe you know it's too much

in the universe you know it's too much it's too complicated we can't do all

it's too complicated we can't do all that but in theory we could

and the answer is no you can't in theory you can't this is

in theory you can't this is selfdeception

selfdeception the mind works in a very loose andfor

the mind works in a very loose andfor formal, abstract, nebulous way for very

formal, abstract, nebulous way for very important reasons. Sensemaking cannot be

important reasons. Sensemaking cannot be strictly formal.

strictly formal. And to think that it can is a very deep

And to think that it can is a very deep epistemic and onlogical mistake.

epistemic and onlogical mistake. You cannot treat sensemaking like

You cannot treat sensemaking like physics and math.

physics, math, science, these are all just small subsets of a larger thing

just small subsets of a larger thing called understanding or sensemaking

and you cannot create a separation because here the scientific person or

because here the scientific person or the rationalist will want to say yeah

the rationalist will want to say yeah Leo I mean you're talking about stuff I

Leo I mean you're talking about stuff I understand all this but you're not

understand all this but you're not talking about science we have like

talking about science we have like scientific questions over here and then

scientific questions over here and then the stuff that you're talking about

the stuff that you're talking about these are not scientific questions and

these are not scientific questions and we just have to come to terms with that.

we just have to come to terms with that. But again, see, you're creating a

But again, see, you're creating a distinction between scientific questions

distinction between scientific questions and not scientific questions. But you

and not scientific questions. But you don't know what are scientific questions

don't know what are scientific questions and what are not scientific questions

and what are not scientific questions because you can't even define what

because you can't even define what science is in an objective, rigorous

science is in an objective, rigorous way.

way. And yet you're assuming, see, you're

And yet you're assuming, see, you're assuming you know these differences and

assuming you know these differences and distinctions. And you're assuming that

distinctions. And you're assuming that they actually exist for you to know them

they actually exist for you to know them and that your mind is not constructing

and that your mind is not constructing them. That's the selfdeception.

Rationalism requires boundaries and categories to be objective, crisp,

categories to be objective, crisp, simple, non-perspectal,

simple, non-perspectal, non-relativistic.

Rationalism makes simplifications of complex phenomena because full

complex phenomena because full descriptions are impossible and it

descriptions are impossible and it assumes and requires reducible

assumes and requires reducible complexity. But many things, most things

complexity. But many things, most things are not reducably complex.

quoting David Chapman, quote, "Rationalism attempts to reinterpret

"Rationalism attempts to reinterpret nebulosity as linguistic vagueness and

nebulosity as linguistic vagueness and uncertainty." End quote.

uncertainty." End quote. And quoting him again, "Rationalism's

And quoting him again, "Rationalism's goal is to prove that rationality is

goal is to prove that rationality is guaranteed correct or optimal and that

guaranteed correct or optimal and that and nebulosity makes this impossible."

and nebulosity makes this impossible." End quote.

End quote. See,

See, to the rationalists, it seems like what

to the rationalists, it seems like what the issues and problems I'm presenting

the issues and problems I'm presenting here that they're just linguistic

here that they're just linguistic problems.

But that's not what is being said. What's being said is that these are

What's being said is that these are epistemic problems and even deeper that

epistemic problems and even deeper that these are onlogical problems

these are onlogical problems and that you can't fix this with any

and that you can't fix this with any amount of formalizing your language.

Rationalism tries to work around these problems by quote adding formal

problems by quote adding formal machinery end quote.

machinery end quote. This formal machinery obiscates the

This formal machinery obiscates the problem with counterproductive

problem with counterproductive complexity.

complexity. Rationalism invents ad hoc machinery to

Rationalism invents ad hoc machinery to try to overcome these issues

try to overcome these issues and uh it seems like it's going to work

and uh it seems like it's going to work but it doesn't work

but it doesn't work and it doesn't recognize that.

and it doesn't recognize that. Now an important little nuance here is

Now an important little nuance here is that nebulosity

that nebulosity does not mean that things are just

does not mean that things are just subjective in a sense of it's just all a

subjective in a sense of it's just all a matter of opinion and it's all arbitrary

matter of opinion and it's all arbitrary and anything goes.

and anything goes. Some categories are more effective than

Some categories are more effective than others.

Nebulosity means rather that um you have to be very careful here not to make a

to be very careful here not to make a straw man of relativism. Go see my

straw man of relativism. Go see my episode called Understanding Relativity

episode called Understanding Relativity or Relativism Part One where I make a

or Relativism Part One where I make a steel man of of relativity. Um because

steel man of of relativity. Um because it's it's often um straw man. But

it's it's often um straw man. But nebulosity does not mean uh

nebulosity does not mean uh that anything goes. What it means is

that anything goes. What it means is that when you say something, you have to

that when you say something, you have to qualify it. You have to say that you

qualify it. You have to say that you know X is true under these in

know X is true under these in circumstances from this point of view

circumstances from this point of view for a certain purpose that I have as a

for a certain purpose that I have as a mind trying to understand the world.

mind trying to understand the world. It gets rid of this simplification in

It gets rid of this simplification in science that science is just this

science that science is just this objective neutral thing. You know when

objective neutral thing. You know when we're doing science we're just

we're doing science we're just objectively observing the world. No,

objectively observing the world. No, when you're doing science, you're asking

when you're doing science, you're asking questions for specific motivated

questions for specific motivated purposes of survival, from a human point

purposes of survival, from a human point of view, from within a human frame, from

of view, from within a human frame, from within a human mind, limited by human

within a human mind, limited by human sanity. And within that, you're taking a

sanity. And within that, you're taking a point of view, you're asking questions

point of view, you're asking questions about certain variables, certain

about certain variables, certain phenomenon in the world. All of this is

phenomenon in the world. All of this is biased, deeply biased.

biased, deeply biased. And then you're you're mixing these

And then you're you're mixing these things up in your own mind which biases

things up in your own mind which biases it even further. And you're adding it to

it even further. And you're adding it to your own worldview and paradigm and

your own worldview and paradigm and sensemaking system which biases it even

sensemaking system which biases it even further.

For example, humans evolved from chimps is true from a certain point of view.

is true from a certain point of view. Did humans really evolve from chimps?

Did humans really evolve from chimps? Technically no. Because chimps didn't

Technically no. Because chimps didn't exist when our an our common the common

exist when our an our common the common ancestor between humans and chimps is

ancestor between humans and chimps is not a chimp. It's something in between.

not a chimp. It's something in between. Chimps actually evolved you know on

Chimps actually evolved you know on their own for millions of years

their own for millions of years alongside humans to become chimps.

alongside humans to become chimps. So our common ancestor is not

So our common ancestor is not technically a chimp. But when I say

technically a chimp. But when I say humans evolved from chimps, every one of

humans evolved from chimps, every one of you understands what I'm talking about.

you understands what I'm talking about. Right? Of course, the pedants in the

Right? Of course, the pedants in the audience, those of you who are

audience, those of you who are rationalist pedants might say, "Oh, Leo,

rationalist pedants might say, "Oh, Leo, no, technically humans did not evolve

no, technically humans did not evolve from chimps." Yeah, you can say all that

from chimps." Yeah, you can say all that stuff. But see, if you're smart, if

stuff. But see, if you're smart, if you're actually intelligent, you'll

you're actually intelligent, you'll realize that pedentry is not

realize that pedentry is not intelligence.

intelligence. Pedentry is a low form of intelligence.

Pedentry is a low form of intelligence. A higher form of intelligence is to

A higher form of intelligence is to understand that when I say humans

understand that when I say humans evolved from chimps, you understand my

evolved from chimps, you understand my point. I don't literally mean that a

point. I don't literally mean that a human came from a chimpanzees vagina.

human came from a chimpanzees vagina. That's not literally what I'm being

That's not literally what I'm being what's being said. What's being said, if

what's being said. What's being said, if you're intelligent and you're using your

you're intelligent and you're using your intuition in a fuzzy way, I'm saying

intuition in a fuzzy way, I'm saying that

that humans came from something more

humans came from something more primitive than a human, which was kind

primitive than a human, which was kind of chimp-like. That's that's more of

of chimp-like. That's that's more of like what I'm saying when I say humans

like what I'm saying when I say humans evolved from chimps.

For example, when I say the sky is blue, that's true from a certain point of

that's true from a certain point of view,

view, right? A pent might say, "Well, Leo, no,

right? A pent might say, "Well, Leo, no, the sky is technically not blue because,

the sky is technically not blue because, you know, at night it's black and in the

you know, at night it's black and in the morning it's orange, and then, you know,

morning it's orange, and then, you know, if there's clouds, it's white or it's

if there's clouds, it's white or it's gray." This like, see, a pent will do

gray." This like, see, a pent will do that. That's a lower form of

that. That's a lower form of intelligence. But when I say the sky is

intelligence. But when I say the sky is blue, you're not going to nitpick, you

blue, you're not going to nitpick, you know, which shade of blue is Leo talking

know, which shade of blue is Leo talking about. You generally understand the

about. You generally understand the truth of that statement.

truth of that statement. See, truth is not this binary thing of

See, truth is not this binary thing of like that's true, that's false, and then

like that's true, that's false, and then that that's all that there is. Truth is

that that's all that there is. Truth is a, you know, we're capturing shades of

a, you know, we're capturing shades of truth, different perspectives on truth.

truth, different perspectives on truth. For example, when we say that women give

For example, when we say that women give birth,

birth, a woman is someone that gives birth as a

a woman is someone that gives birth as a definition for woman, that's generally

definition for woman, that's generally true. We kind of can all understand and

true. We kind of can all understand and agree with that. But then we also

agree with that. But then we also understand there's a lot of edge cases

understand there's a lot of edge cases and exceptions where women are not able

and exceptions where women are not able to give birth. Some women are born

to give birth. Some women are born without the ability other people other

without the ability other people other women have you know uh accidents and and

women have you know uh accidents and and diseases and so forth that prevent that

diseases and so forth that prevent that whatever.

whatever. So is a woman defined by the ability to

So is a woman defined by the ability to give birth?

give birth? Technically no.

Technically no. You can imagine creating a alternative

You can imagine creating a alternative race of women we might call them who are

race of women we might call them who are just like regular women but we just

just like regular women but we just completely remove all their ability to

completely remove all their ability to have birth.

have birth. But they still have all the other let's

But they still have all the other let's say features of women. They have the

say features of women. They have the psychology of women. They have the the

psychology of women. They have the the moodiness of women, the emotions of

moodiness of women, the emotions of women, the the physical needs of women

women, the the physical needs of women and so forth. They might even have the

and so forth. They might even have the anatomical features. They might have the

anatomical features. They might have the breasts and the and and all the, you

breasts and the and and all the, you know, all the genitals and so forth, but

know, all the genitals and so forth, but they're just not able to give birth by,

they're just not able to give birth by, you know, some genetic tinkering that we

you know, some genetic tinkering that we do

do um at the very micro scale. So, and they

um at the very micro scale. So, and they and they look fully like women. In fact,

and they look fully like women. In fact, we could even kind of sex them up a

we could even kind of sex them up a little bit so that they look like extra

little bit so that they look like extra like women.

like women. So, that they're like they look even

So, that they're like they look even more feminine than the class than than

more feminine than the class than than your average woman. So, by all intents

your average woman. So, by all intents and purposes, when you see this this uh

and purposes, when you see this this uh you know, this being walking around,

you know, this being walking around, you're going to call it a woman. You're

you're going to call it a woman. You're going to think of it as a woman, even

going to think of it as a woman, even though it's not technically able to give

though it's not technically able to give birth. Um,

so is that still a woman? Well, there's there's not an objective answer to that.

there's not an objective answer to that. It depends on how you want to look at

It depends on how you want to look at it.

And if I did call it a woman, you would understand where I'm coming

you would understand where I'm coming from. you would understand what I mean

from. you would understand what I mean even though it technically it doesn't

even though it technically it doesn't give birth.

give birth. Another example,

Another example, it's kind of a controversial one. You

it's kind of a controversial one. You know, for example, I might want to make

know, for example, I might want to make a claim that men care about truth more

a claim that men care about truth more than women.

than women. Is that true or false?

In what sense is it true to say that? And then and and if we say that that's

And then and and if we say that that's true, let's just just grant it to me for

true, let's just just grant it to me for a second that that's true in some sense.

a second that that's true in some sense. And again, see that in some sense plays

And again, see that in some sense plays a very important part because I mean it

a very important part because I mean it in some sense and I don't mean it in

in some sense and I don't mean it in some other sense.

some other sense. I also may not mean it across the board.

I also may not mean it across the board. I I might mean it just as an average as

I I might mean it just as an average as a generalization.

a generalization. But see a lot of the statement truth

But see a lot of the statement truth claims that we make about the world a

claims that we make about the world a lot of the ways in which we understand

lot of the ways in which we understand the world it's all generalizations. And

the world it's all generalizations. And then the question becomes what are the

then the question becomes what are the right ways to generalize? What are the

right ways to generalize? What are the wrong ways? And then this is where a lot

wrong ways? And then this is where a lot of subjectivity and relativ relativity

of subjectivity and relativ relativity comes into play. But

comes into play. But if we want to say that like say that men

if we want to say that like say that men care about truth more than women do,

See, if you're a scientist and you say, "No, Leah, that's not a scientific

"No, Leah, that's not a scientific statement."

statement." Well, you got a problem here. Because if

Well, you got a problem here. Because if there's any truth at all in that

there's any truth at all in that statement,

statement, supposedly it should be part of science,

supposedly it should be part of science, right? Do you really want to say that

right? Do you really want to say that science is this very formal thing, but

science is this very formal thing, but then there's all these other truths

then there's all these other truths outside of science that just science is

outside of science that just science is not going to look at, care about, or

not going to look at, care about, or just completely ignore? Well, then your

just completely ignore? Well, then your science is extremely limited and

science is extremely limited and crippled.

crippled. On the other hand, in what sense is men

On the other hand, in what sense is men don't, you know, men care about truth

don't, you know, men care about truth more than women? In what sense can we

more than women? In what sense can we say that that's scientifically true?

say that that's scientifically true? How do we demonstrate or prove that?

How do we demonstrate or prove that? Even if it was true, how do we do prove

Even if it was true, how do we do prove it?

it? That's very difficult. See, and so this

That's very difficult. See, and so this this kind of gets you into the

this kind of gets you into the hairiness, but but look, if you as a

hairiness, but but look, if you as a man, why do I say this? I'm not trying

man, why do I say this? I'm not trying to be like misogynistic or sexist here,

to be like misogynistic or sexist here, but if you as a man are trying to

but if you as a man are trying to understand women, how women work, how

understand women, how women work, how women think, their psychology,

women think, their psychology, which is very important for a man's

which is very important for a man's survival to understand that because

survival to understand that because otherwise you're going to be a crippled

otherwise you're going to be a crippled man. You have to you have to understand

man. You have to you have to understand women's relationship to truth.

women's relationship to truth. It's different than it is for a man

It's different than it is for a man generally speaking.

generally speaking. And it's important for you to understand

And it's important for you to understand that and that is part of a larger

that and that is part of a larger sensemaking that you are doing as you're

sensemaking that you are doing as you're growing up in the world.

growing up in the world. And it's also

And it's also different from science but it's not also

different from science but it's not also outside the realm of science. We don't

outside the realm of science. We don't want to say that as what either. But

want to say that as what either. But what I want you to see is that we have

what I want you to see is that we have sensemaking and understanding which is

sensemaking and understanding which is this giant generalized thing very fuzzy

this giant generalized thing very fuzzy very hairy and chaotic and abstract. And

very hairy and chaotic and abstract. And then within it we have a little island

then within it we have a little island that we might call formal academic

that we might call formal academic science.

And you might say well well so what? Well,

Well, the the the crux of it is is that see

the the the crux of it is is that see what you really care about as a mind is

what you really care about as a mind is not really science. Even if you're a

not really science. Even if you're a scientist, what I'm trying to convince

scientist, what I'm trying to convince you of is that what's really important

you of is that what's really important is not science. What's really important

is not science. What's really important is that you get this right right here.

is that you get this right right here. You get the entire thing right. You get

You get the entire thing right. You get sensemaking right. If you get

sensemaking right. If you get sensemaking right, then science, you can

sensemaking right, then science, you can do science. But if you are only focused

do science. But if you are only focused on science and you don't get sensemaking

on science and you don't get sensemaking right, you will get science wrong

right, you will get science wrong because sensemaking is not contained in

because sensemaking is not contained in science. Science is contained in

science. Science is contained in sensemaking.

You're missing the forest for the trees. as a rationalist.

as a rationalist. And all of this is happening ultimately

And all of this is happening ultimately because reality, the world, the universe

because reality, the world, the universe is not a clockwork. It's a mind. It's a

is not a clockwork. It's a mind. It's a mind. A mind, the difference between a

mind. A mind, the difference between a mind and a physical system is that a

mind and a physical system is that a mind is fluid. It blends between things.

mind is fluid. It blends between things. It's fuzzy. It's nebulous. That's the

It's fuzzy. It's nebulous. That's the nature of mind is it's fluid. The reason

nature of mind is it's fluid. The reason it's fluid is because it's unified.

it's fluid is because it's unified. Therefore, none of the distinctions are

Therefore, none of the distinctions are fixed. They don't have a fixed objective

fixed. They don't have a fixed objective reality. They all dissolve.

reality. They all dissolve. They're all temporary.

They're all temporary. And you can't fix this by sharpening up

And you can't fix this by sharpening up language or by formalizing it. [snorts]

language or by formalizing it. [snorts] Rationalism assumes that ordinary

Rationalism assumes that ordinary language is defective because it's not

language is defective because it's not clear enough. But this lacks but this

clear enough. But this lacks but this lack of clarity and messiness of

lack of clarity and messiness of ordinary language is actually a feature

ordinary language is actually a feature and not a bug.

Whether this is now quoting David Chapman, whether or not an object

Chapman, whether or not an object belongs to a category often does not

belongs to a category often does not have a definite true or false answer.

have a definite true or false answer. End quote. It depends on spectrums and

End quote. It depends on spectrums and degrees, depends on perspective, depends

degrees, depends on perspective, depends on purpose. Uh categorization is

on purpose. Uh categorization is contextual.

contextual. Which category should we use? This is

Which category should we use? This is not an objective factual question.

not an objective factual question. For example, categories of mental

For example, categories of mental illness, categories of species,

illness, categories of species, categories of political party,

categories of political party, categories of bad science or this is

categories of bad science or this is anomalous data that we should throw

anomalous data that we should throw away. These kinds of categories

away. These kinds of categories uh these are not atomic facts that you

uh these are not atomic facts that you find in the world.

Nebulosity is not merely a matter of degree or ambiguity. It also depends on

degree or ambiguity. It also depends on your needs, your goals, and your

your needs, your goals, and your purposes.

purposes. What do you need the concept or category

What do you need the concept or category for?

for? For example, what counts as water

For example, what counts as water depends on what you need it for.

depends on what you need it for. Is there water in a coconut? Depends on

Is there water in a coconut? Depends on what you need the water for.

If you are asking because you're thirsty and you need to quench your thirst. In a

and you need to quench your thirst. In a certain sense, there is. You can drink a

certain sense, there is. You can drink a coconut and it'll quench your thirst.

coconut and it'll quench your thirst. If you're asking for the purposes of

If you're asking for the purposes of running a chemistry experiment because

running a chemistry experiment because you need pure H2O, then no, there isn't.

For example, is that object straight? Depends on what you need it for. How

Depends on what you need it for. How straight do you need it? It's straight

straight do you need it? It's straight for the purposes of maybe, you know,

for the purposes of maybe, you know, some sort of macro purpose, some sort of

some sort of macro purpose, some sort of general purpose.

general purpose. Um, you know, if if you're if you're

Um, you know, if if you're if you're building some furniture and you have a

building some furniture and you have a board, it's like, is that board

board, it's like, is that board straight? Well, for the purposes of

straight? Well, for the purposes of building this couch, yeah, it's straight

building this couch, yeah, it's straight enough.

enough. But if you were going to use this to

But if you were going to use this to build, you know, a skyscraper, it's not

build, you know, a skyscraper, it's not straight enough because the skyscraper

straight enough because the skyscraper requires, you know, because it's so so

requires, you know, because it's so so tall, you need everything to be extra

tall, you need everything to be extra straight because the tolerances are so

straight because the tolerances are so much tighter for what counts as

much tighter for what counts as straight. And then if you say in a

straight. And then if you say in a technical sense, nothing is ever

technical sense, nothing is ever straight.

So there's even a relative factor here of

there's even a relative factor here of in what sense are you asking the

in what sense are you asking the question and also of what kind of

question and also of what kind of questions are you asking? Your questions

questions are you asking? Your questions themselves are not clear-cut. How do you

themselves are not clear-cut. How do you formulate the question? How you

formulate the question? How you formulate your questions very much

formulate your questions very much determines what kind of answers you're

determines what kind of answers you're going to get.

going to get. So there's virtually no truths, absolute

So there's virtually no truths, absolute truths found at the uh level of macro

truths found at the uh level of macro objects.

objects. And often what's meant by true is just

And often what's meant by true is just practically true enough. True for a

practically true enough. True for a particular purpose.

particular purpose. And your mind understands this

And your mind understands this intuitively without you need needing to

intuitively without you need needing to formalize it. That's the power of your

formalize it. That's the power of your mind.

Humans invent and select onlogical categories to suit their survival.

categories to suit their survival. categorization is inherently irreducibly

categorization is inherently irreducibly nebulous. Ontologically, also sameness

nebulous. Ontologically, also sameness and difference are relative.

and difference are relative. I'm not going to have time to explain

I'm not going to have time to explain that here. Go watch my long 4hour

that here. Go watch my long 4hour episode called sameness versus

episode called sameness versus difference where we go into that in

difference where we go into that in depth.

depth. Identity itself is relativistic and mind

Identity itself is relativistic and mind dependent. Contemplate that doozy right

dependent. Contemplate that doozy right there.

there. Also consider that true and false are

Also consider that true and false are not just objective properties of the

not just objective properties of the physical world. For example, David

physical world. For example, David Chapman gives this example. Consider a

Chapman gives this example. Consider a book full of lies.

book full of lies. A book full of lies is not physically

A book full of lies is not physically false because those are just collection

false because those are just collection of atoms.

of atoms. Atoms can't be false. The falseness of

Atoms can't be false. The falseness of the lies in the book only exists inside

the lies in the book only exists inside of your mind.

of your mind. A mind is needed to interpret the

A mind is needed to interpret the symbols and deal with the meanings in

symbols and deal with the meanings in order to make sense of the world.

order to make sense of the world. So this simplistic idea that you can

So this simplistic idea that you can just boil down truth to atomic facts

just boil down truth to atomic facts just doesn't fly. It doesn't fly because

just doesn't fly. It doesn't fly because when you're reading a book, even if

when you're reading a book, even if you're reading a science textbook, you

you're reading a science textbook, you might be reading a science textbook and

might be reading a science textbook and then you find a sentence that says

then you find a sentence that says something and then you say that's not

something and then you say that's not true because I did some experiment and

true because I did some experiment and showed that it's that's false. But how

showed that it's that's false. But how do you know that that's true or false?

do you know that that's true or false? How do you make sense of that? See, it's

How do you make sense of that? See, it's not in the atoms that it's true and

not in the atoms that it's true and false. It's in your own mind, in the

false. It's in your own mind, in the symbols, the connections of symbols in

symbols, the connections of symbols in your own mind.

Quoting David Chapman, quote, there exists no definite, absolutely true

exists no definite, absolutely true answers to most questions, however they

answers to most questions, however they are stated. There is no objective answer

are stated. There is no objective answer to is Trump a fascist. There is no

to is Trump a fascist. There is no objective answer to is there water in a

objective answer to is there water in a coconut? There's no objective answer to

coconut? There's no objective answer to are apples healthy.

Most issues and objects relevant to human life are macrocale and even

human life are macrocale and even non-physical abstractions.

We run into questions like is drinking red wine good or bad for you? These kind

red wine good or bad for you? These kind of macro abstract questions, nebulous

of macro abstract questions, nebulous questions. Should you give your children

questions. Should you give your children a vaccine?

Does candidate X have a mental illness for this medical? Like let's say I'm

for this medical? Like let's say I'm running a I'm a scientist and I'm

running a I'm a scientist and I'm running a medical trial and I want to

running a medical trial and I want to study depression. So now I have to

study depression. So now I have to create the category of depression and I

create the category of depression and I have to somehow screen depressed people

have to somehow screen depressed people to be part of my medical trial. But how

to be part of my medical trial. But how do I define what depression is in a

do I define what depression is in a formal way?

formal way? See that how nebulous that is. And then

See that how nebulous that is. And then depending on how I define dep

depending on how I define dep depression, how I filter people into my

depression, how I filter people into my study, that's going to depend that

study, that's going to depend that that's going to influence the ultimate

that's going to influence the ultimate conclusion of my scientific study

conclusion of my scientific study of whether some drug helps or hurts

of whether some drug helps or hurts depressed people.

depressed people. For example, the question of like should

For example, the question of like should you take that UFO video that you saw on

you take that UFO video that you saw on YouTube, should you take it seriously?

YouTube, should you take it seriously? Very nebulous question.

Very nebulous question. Question like do do psychedelics damage

Question like do do psychedelics damage the brain? That's a difficult question

the brain? That's a difficult question to answer in the general.

to answer in the general. How about this one? Do psychedelics

How about this one? Do psychedelics reveal legitimate scientific truths

reveal legitimate scientific truths about reality? How do you answer that

about reality? How do you answer that scientifically?

scientifically? How about this one? Does such and such a

How about this one? Does such and such a thing count as abuse or does such and

thing count as abuse or does such and such a thing count as theft?

Well, people have different opinions about that.

A question like is this scientific instrument like this telescope is it

instrument like this telescope is it calibrated properly?

See, you can't have a formal method for how to calibrate a scientific

how to calibrate a scientific instrument.

You have to actually use intelligence to see whether your scientific instruments

see whether your scientific instruments are calibrated properly because there's

are calibrated properly because there's so many different ways that a scientific

so many different ways that a scientific instrument could be miscalibrated in a

instrument could be miscalibrated in a in a hund different ways. And you can't

in a hund different ways. And you can't possibly uh formalize them all. And yet

possibly uh formalize them all. And yet you need to understand if your

you need to understand if your instruments are properly calibrated to

instruments are properly calibrated to do science.

do science. And how do you know that you that you

And how do you know that you that you judge the instrument calibration is

judge the instrument calibration is proper when you could be self-deceived

proper when you could be self-deceived about that?

about that? See, how do you invent a system of rules

See, how do you invent a system of rules to per to prevent that self-deception?

to per to prevent that self-deception? Now, we're getting to some really

Now, we're getting to some really interesting epistemology.

interesting epistemology. These are the real issues that plague

These are the real issues that plague science.

Or a question like, how do you interpret the the results of this quantum

the the results of this quantum mechanics experiment correctly?

mechanics experiment correctly? Lots of disagreement about that. or a

Lots of disagreement about that. or a question like, "Do terrorists have a

question like, "Do terrorists have a legitimate grievance against American

legitimate grievance against American Empire?

Empire? Are terrorists justified in their in

Are terrorists justified in their in their violent attacks?

their violent attacks? What is the rational correct answer to

What is the rational correct answer to that question?"

And you see, I want you to see, you might say, "Well, Leo, this is

might say, "Well, Leo, this is terrorism. It has nothing to do with

terrorism. It has nothing to do with science."

science." But all of it is connected and unified

But all of it is connected and unified by sensemaking, understanding, and

by sensemaking, understanding, and truth.

truth. Ultimately, when people are arguing with

Ultimately, when people are arguing with each other about things, they're arguing

each other about things, they're arguing over truth. Some terrorist will say,

over truth. Some terrorist will say, "Yeah, we have a legitimate grievance

"Yeah, we have a legitimate grievance against the government." And somebody

against the government." And somebody else will say, "No, they don't." And

else will say, "No, they don't." And you're arguing over truth. And in

you're arguing over truth. And in science, you're arguing over truth. Did

science, you're arguing over truth. Did Did the dinosaurs die out because of a

Did the dinosaurs die out because of a comet or because of a meteorite or

comet or because of a meteorite or because of some virus or whatever?

because of some virus or whatever? you're arguing over truth.

you're arguing over truth. All of this is connected uh by the the

All of this is connected uh by the the more general problem of how do you

more general problem of how do you distinguish truth from falsehood? See,

distinguish truth from falsehood? See, your mind is always doing that. You need

your mind is always doing that. You need to do that in order to survive and to

to do that in order to survive and to understand anything.

understand anything. How do you judge whether what I'm

How do you judge whether what I'm telling you is true or false?

telling you is true or false? How do you judge? See, you say, "Well,

How do you judge? See, you say, "Well, Leo, science is the most true thing that

Leo, science is the most true thing that we have." So, we just use science.

we have." So, we just use science. [snorts] But how did you determine that

[snorts] But how did you determine that science was the most true thing we have?

science was the most true thing we have? Did you read a textbook? How did you

Did you read a textbook? How did you know that the science textbook was true?

How about a question like, "Does that computer contain pornography?" Well,

computer contain pornography?" Well, what counts as pornography?

what counts as pornography? How do you formalize what is

How do you formalize what is pornography? You might say, "What what

pornography? You might say, "What what does it matter?" Well, if you have a

does it matter?" Well, if you have a legal case, let's say somebody is found

legal case, let's say somebody is found to have porn on their computer and it's

to have porn on their computer and it's underageed porn and now the government

underageed porn and now the government is suing them. Well, now you need to

is suing them. Well, now you need to make a legal case whether that was truly

make a legal case whether that was truly underageed porn on that computer or it

underageed porn on that computer or it wasn't. Well, how do you formalize that?

wasn't. Well, how do you formalize that? Which is why our legal system is

Which is why our legal system is notoriously ambiguous and nebulous. Laws

notoriously ambiguous and nebulous. Laws are specifically written to be ambiguous

are specifically written to be ambiguous on purpose. Why? Because if you write

on purpose. Why? Because if you write the law too formally,

the law too formally, then you're going to create all sorts of

then you're going to create all sorts of room for loopholes

room for loopholes and then criminals are going to exploit

and then criminals are going to exploit that. See, do you see how how all all

that. See, do you see how how all all how interconnected all this is? It goes

how interconnected all this is? It goes so deep.

so deep. Is that thing over there misinformation?

Is that thing over there misinformation? How do you define what's misinformation?

How do you define what's misinformation? Is that person lying? How do you define

Is that person lying? How do you define lying versus delusion versus

lying versus delusion versus self-deception versus just a difference

self-deception versus just a difference of perspective? Is that person

of perspective? Is that person gaslighting me? How do you define what

gaslighting me? How do you define what gaslighting is?

gaslighting is? Is that organization over there a cult?

Is that organization over there a cult? How do you define what a cult is?

Does that fetus over there have uh is that a person with human rights?

that a person with human rights? How do you define human rights? How do

How do you define human rights? How do you define a person? Is a person born at

you define a person? Is a person born at the moment of conception or is the

the moment of conception or is the person happen when it comes out of the

person happen when it comes out of the woman's body?

woman's body? When does a person become a person?

Here's another interesting example. Is Christianity true?

Is Christianity true? See, the problem is that these

See, the problem is that these rationalists, they don't just argue

rationalists, they don't just argue about science stuff. They argue about

about science stuff. They argue about religious stuff, too. A rationalist want

religious stuff, too. A rationalist want to say, "No, Christianity is not true."

to say, "No, Christianity is not true." But then you, how do you define

But then you, how do you define Christianity? And how do you define

Christianity? And how do you define true? And then which version of

true? And then which version of Christianity are we talking about? There

Christianity are we talking about? There might be some versions which are true

might be some versions which are true and some which are false. And then which

and some which are false. And then which parts of Christianity to say that

parts of Christianity to say that Christianity is true? Do all the parts

Christianity is true? Do all the parts need to be true or just some of the

need to be true or just some of the parts like 50%,

parts like 50%, 80%, who determines that percentage?

80%, who determines that percentage? Consider for example that God existed,

Consider for example that God existed, but everything else in the Bible was

but everything else in the Bible was false.

false. So the only truthful part is that God

So the only truthful part is that God exists, but everything else else about

exists, but everything else else about Christianity is false. Does that mean

Christianity is false. Does that mean Christianity is false or is it true?

Christianity is false or is it true? In a certain sense, it's false in the

In a certain sense, it's false in the details, but it's true. In the most

details, but it's true. In the most important thing, you might say like the

important thing, you might say like the most important thing about Christianity

most important thing about Christianity is if there is a god that it recognizes

is if there is a god that it recognizes a god, right? So, if it gets that right,

a god, right? So, if it gets that right, but everything else wrong, is it still

but everything else wrong, is it still worthwhile to teach it?

See, these are the kind of nebulous, hairy questions that humans deal with.

hairy questions that humans deal with. And not just human scientists deal with

And not just human scientists deal with it all the time too.

it all the time too. These are issues of sensemaking.

And you can't just say, well, yeah, there's all these fuzzy human

yeah, there's all these fuzzy human issues and then there's hard science and

issues and then there's hard science and what's really true is the hard science

what's really true is the hard science and then all this fuzzy human

and then all this fuzzy human sentimental kind of weird chaotic stuff.

sentimental kind of weird chaotic stuff. It's like, yeah, we don't know how to

It's like, yeah, we don't know how to deal with it, but it it doesn't really

deal with it, but it it doesn't really matter because it's not the hard truth.

matter because it's not the hard truth. See, you can't even say that because you

See, you can't even say that because you can't even define this difference.

You don't know if that's true. You don't know if this is a valid

You don't know if this is a valid distinction that you're making.

distinction that you're making. You certainly haven't proved it.

You certainly haven't proved it. You certain have you certainly haven't

You certain have you certainly haven't determined this using science.

determined this using science. That's not science. That's a vague

That's not science. That's a vague intuition that you have at best.

intuition that you have at best. Nothing scientific about it, nothing

Nothing scientific about it, nothing formal about it. There is no formal

formal about it. There is no formal proof that

proof that the fuzzy stuff is over here and the

the fuzzy stuff is over here and the hard science facts are over here.

hard science facts are over here. There's no formal proof of that.

See, just to say non-scientific questions do not matter is itself a

questions do not matter is itself a non-scientific

non-scientific bad form of sensemaking. Do you see

bad form of sensemaking. Do you see that? And just to say everything

that? And just to say everything important is scientific,

important is scientific, that is not science.

that is not science. You can't say that because that's not

You can't say that because that's not science.

And yet scientists say that kind of stuff and believe that kind of stuff all

stuff and believe that kind of stuff all the time. They make those kind of

the time. They make those kind of arguments.

So the key for you to understand here is that making sense of science requires

that making sense of science requires more than science.

Rationalism tries to dodge ontology and metaphysics because it would reveal

metaphysics because it would reveal nebulosity and doom the rationalist

nebulosity and doom the rationalist project.

project. But epistemology and ontology cannot be

But epistemology and ontology cannot be separated because we have a unity.

separated because we have a unity. If objects are nebulous, then statements

If objects are nebulous, then statements about those objects must also be

about those objects must also be nebulous.

nebulous. Rationalism tries to solve this

Rationalism tries to solve this nebulosity by reduction of everything to

nebulosity by reduction of everything to atomic physics. But atomic physics

atomic physics. But atomic physics doesn't apply to macro objects and it

doesn't apply to macro objects and it doesn't deal with the actual sensemaking

doesn't deal with the actual sensemaking world that humans live in. All the

world that humans live in. All the things that humans reason about are at

things that humans reason about are at the macro scale where uh physics does

the macro scale where uh physics does not apply. And so in this way,

not apply. And so in this way, rationality and rationalism creates a

rationality and rationalism creates a flat land.

flat land. And when confronted with this problem,

And when confronted with this problem, rationalists double down and try to add

rationalists double down and try to add more logical structure to try to fix it

more logical structure to try to fix it because they think that something like

because they think that something like this must work, but it will never work.

this must work, but it will never work. That's the point. The entire domain of

That's the point. The entire domain of concept is nebulous. mind is is is a

concept is nebulous. mind is is is a nebulous implicit thing.

Here's a long quote from David Chapman. He says, quote, "The hope of rationalism

He says, quote, "The hope of rationalism is that some mechanical criterion or

is that some mechanical criterion or procedure could provide certainty,

procedure could provide certainty, understanding, and control by

understanding, and control by eliminating non-rational factors. This

eliminating non-rational factors. This is not possible because rationality by

is not possible because rationality by itself can't deal with the nebulous

itself can't deal with the nebulous macrosized world at all. abstract formal

macrosized world at all. abstract formal reasoning cannot reach into that realm.

reasoning cannot reach into that realm. It requires reasonable activity as a

It requires reasonable activity as a bridge.

bridge. End quote.

So higher order phenomena cannot be reduced to atomic facts and you cannot

reduced to atomic facts and you cannot say that higher order phenomena

say that higher order phenomena are unreal, untrue, unimportant and

are unreal, untrue, unimportant and unscientific

because they're crucial to human life. and also even crucial to science as

and also even crucial to science as well.

well. Even crucial in your application of

Even crucial in your application of logic and your reasoning about

logic and your reasoning about mathematics.

Crucial aspects of reality are not atomic facts. For example, what is

atomic facts. For example, what is truth? That's not an atomic fact. What

truth? That's not an atomic fact. What is the self or the ego? That's not an

is the self or the ego? That's not an atomic fact. What is consciousness?

atomic fact. What is consciousness? That's not an atomic fact. What is

That's not an atomic fact. What is corruption? What is love? What is

corruption? What is love? What is intelligence?

intelligence? the understanding of survival the way

the understanding of survival the way that I teach it. What is insight? How

that I teach it. What is insight? How does self-deception work? What is a

does self-deception work? What is a paradigm? What is an orgasm? What is

paradigm? What is an orgasm? What is sanity? What is relativity?

sanity? What is relativity? What is good? What is bad? These are not

What is good? What is bad? These are not atomic facts. And yet, these are

atomic facts. And yet, these are fundamental to your sense of self and to

fundamental to your sense of self and to everything you understand, including

everything you understand, including science.

science. Science and rationality themselves are

Science and rationality themselves are plagued with higher order questions and

plagued with higher order questions and issues. That's the performative par

issues. That's the performative par paradox here or contradiction

paradox here or contradiction of this uh rationalist project.

of this uh rationalist project. What is rationality? You can't define

What is rationality? You can't define it. Is rationalism the best worldview?

it. Is rationalism the best worldview? That's not an atomic fact. Does

That's not an atomic fact. Does scientific method capture all of

scientific method capture all of reality? That's not an atomic fact. Is

reality? That's not an atomic fact. Is that thing pseudocience? That's not an

that thing pseudocience? That's not an atomic fact that you find out in the

atomic fact that you find out in the world. You can't look through a

world. You can't look through a microscope and discover that the

microscope and discover that the scientific method captures all of

scientific method captures all of reality. See, is science true? Is not an

reality. See, is science true? Is not an atomic fact.

atomic fact. People just think that science is true

People just think that science is true is scientific. No, it's not. To say that

is scientific. No, it's not. To say that is not scientific.

[snorts] Or to say something like everyone should be rational. That's not

everyone should be rational. That's not an atomic fact and that's not a

an atomic fact and that's not a scientific statement.

scientific statement. But people who are deep into scientism

But people who are deep into scientism and rationalism are not conscious enough

and rationalism are not conscious enough to understand this. They lack the

to understand this. They lack the self-reflection

self-reflection and the objectivity

and the objectivity as they are professing to be objective.

as they are professing to be objective. That's the irony of all this. That's the

That's the irony of all this. That's the twistedness of it and the absurdity of

twistedness of it and the absurdity of it.

it. So sensemaking cannot be reduced to

So sensemaking cannot be reduced to atomic facts.

atomic facts. Natural

Natural language is loose and informal precisely

language is loose and informal precisely because it needs to be.

because it needs to be. Or over formalizing it would lead to a

Or over formalizing it would lead to a severe limiting of the mind and

severe limiting of the mind and oversimplification of reality and to

oversimplification of reality and to falsehood and error not to truth and it

falsehood and error not to truth and it would stifle mental creativity. Your

would stifle mental creativity. Your mind needs to be loose to handle reality

mind needs to be loose to handle reality because reality is onlogically nebulous

because reality is onlogically nebulous and fluid.

And an even deeper point here is that rationalism doesn't merely assume a

rationalism doesn't merely assume a rigid ontology.

rigid ontology. It actually creates that reality through

It actually creates that reality through projection and self-limitation of the

projection and self-limitation of the mind. See what you have is you have an

mind. See what you have is you have an infinite mind as a rationalist. This

infinite mind as a rationalist. This infinite mind then gets limited by the

infinite mind then gets limited by the fact that you want mind and real. You

fact that you want mind and real. You want the world to be rigid,

want the world to be rigid, ontologically rigid and simple to fit

ontologically rigid and simple to fit into these categories. So what happens

into these categories. So what happens is that you take an infinite fluid mind

is that you take an infinite fluid mind and then you compress it down into the

and then you compress it down into the rigid categories that you think should

rigid categories that you think should be out there that you want to see

be out there that you want to see that your ego mind wants because it's

that your ego mind wants because it's just easier to deal with these kind of

just easier to deal with these kind of rigid categories.

rigid categories. And so what ends up happening is that

And so what ends up happening is that you end up creating it and then

you end up creating it and then projecting it and then seeing it. You

projecting it and then seeing it. You see it. You see the rigid categories out

see it. You see the rigid categories out there and then you tell yourself, "Oh,

there and then you tell yourself, "Oh, look, it's exactly the way that I

look, it's exactly the way that I thought it was." The world is made out

thought it was." The world is made out of rigid objective categories.

of rigid objective categories. How do I know that? Because I see it out

How do I know that? Because I see it out there. But then what you're not

there. But then what you're not conscious of is that you projected that

conscious of is that you projected that and you created it out of a larger

and you created it out of a larger infinite mind.

infinite mind. You don't even recognize the world as a

You don't even recognize the world as a mind anymore because what all you see is

mind anymore because what all you see is a world out there. You don't see your

a world out there. You don't see your own self or your own mind. You just see

own self or your own mind. You just see the objective world.

Like Leo, that cat and that dog, that man and that woman, that's not my mind.

man and that woman, that's not my mind. That's not myself. That's the objective

That's not myself. That's the objective world. And then my mind is in here. But

world. And then my mind is in here. But see, but you created that different. You

see, but you created that different. You created that

created that and you're not seeing that you created

and you're not seeing that you created it. That's the tragedy of this thing.

it. That's the tragedy of this thing. You have to see this profound paradigm

You have to see this profound paradigm lock that you've created for yourself.

lock that you've created for yourself. If you insist on it deeply enough, then

If you insist on it deeply enough, then it it'll become your reality in a sense.

Of course, there's limits to that. You can't just imagine unicorns and have

can't just imagine unicorns and have them materialize. But um when it comes

them materialize. But um when it comes to projecting conceptual categories,

to projecting conceptual categories, you're very very good at that. When when

you're very very good at that. When when it comes to projecting your own paradigm

it comes to projecting your own paradigm onto the world, you know, a Christian

onto the world, you know, a Christian literally feels like he's in a Christian

literally feels like he's in a Christian world. And a Muslim feels like she's in

world. And a Muslim feels like she's in a Muslim world. And a scientist feels

a Muslim world. And a scientist feels like they're in a material world. Why?

like they're in a material world. Why? Because you projected and created it.

Because you projected and created it. And it's entangled with your sense of

And it's entangled with your sense of self insanity such that when we when we

self insanity such that when we when we start to deconstruct it, you're going to

start to deconstruct it, you're going to feel like you're losing your mind.

feel like you're losing your mind. That's not a mistake. That's exactly

That's not a mistake. That's exactly correct.

See, rationalism is not conscious that the mind is creating distinctions and

the mind is creating distinctions and that reality is made out of

that reality is made out of distinctions. The distinction between

distinctions. The distinction between the objective and subjective cannot hold

the objective and subjective cannot hold as rationalism assumes.

Physical objects do depend on the subjective ideas you have about them.

subjective ideas you have about them. Unlike rationalism assumes,

Unlike rationalism assumes, rationalism does not see how it projects

rationalism does not see how it projects and constructs rigor

and constructs rigor onto mind at large, consciousness and

onto mind at large, consciousness and reality at large. Uh rationalism doesn't

reality at large. Uh rationalism doesn't understand that the world is the mind.

understand that the world is the mind. Rationalism underestimates the degree to

Rationalism underestimates the degree to which the mind mediates reality.

which the mind mediates reality. Rationalism assumes that the mind is not

Rationalism assumes that the mind is not central to understanding reality, which

central to understanding reality, which it is.

This is why rationalism thinks that you can make a computer that will just like

can make a computer that will just like plug away mechanically and understand

plug away mechanically and understand the world. That you can't do that

because not only is mind central, mind is reality. There is no other reality

is reality. There is no other reality but mind.

but mind. And rationalism doesn't take this

And rationalism doesn't take this possibility seriously. It cons it calls

possibility seriously. It cons it calls it woo. That's called woo.

it woo. That's called woo. And as soon as rationalism can label

And as soon as rationalism can label something as woo, it doesn't need to

something as woo, it doesn't need to take it seriously anymore.

All because rationalism assumes mind and reality are objectively distinct things,

reality are objectively distinct things, which they're not. See, once you start

which they're not. See, once you start to understand what I'm saying here, this

to understand what I'm saying here, this now opens up the door to legitimate

now opens up the door to legitimate mysticism.

All that mysticism ultimately is is just the realization that reality and and

the realization that reality and and mind physical reality and mind are one.

mind physical reality and mind are one. That's what mysticism is ultimately.

That's what mysticism is ultimately. That's not woo. That's literally what's

That's not woo. That's literally what's true.

Rationalism also assumes that the self is objectively distinct from reality.

is objectively distinct from reality. But you are reality. The self is

But you are reality. The self is reality. There's no other reality but

reality. There's no other reality but the self.

Rationalism takes definition for granted as though everything just has a

as though everything just has a definition. Right? There is a definition

definition. Right? There is a definition for a cat, a dog and so forth.

for a cat, a dog and so forth. This definition question is is central

This definition question is is central because to the to this problem of

because to the to this problem of demystification. See the reason that

demystification. See the reason that rationalists want to demystify

rationalists want to demystify everything is because they think

everything is because they think everything has a crisp definition.

everything has a crisp definition. Mysticism is a recognition that you

Mysticism is a recognition that you can't define infinity. Infinity is

can't define infinity. Infinity is literally undefined.

literally undefined. But the rationalist mind doesn't

But the rationalist mind doesn't understand this. It thinks that it can

understand this. It thinks that it can define everything through analysis

define everything through analysis because it ultimately assumes that

because it ultimately assumes that reality is finite.

And so the rationalist minds ends up projecting its definitions onto the

projecting its definitions onto the world. And the rationalist mind looks

world. And the rationalist mind looks out into the world. It sees finite

out into the world. It sees finite objects. It doesn't see infinity. It

objects. It doesn't see infinity. It can't see infinity because it insists

can't see infinity because it insists that the only things that are real are

that the only things that are real are those things that have definitions. But

those things that have definitions. But infinity can't have a definition. But if

infinity can't have a definition. But if it's it has no definition, then it's not

it's it has no definition, then it's not real according to the rationalist. See,

real according to the rationalist. See, this is a paradigm lock.

But the definition of any object is never fully known because every object

never fully known because every object is actually infinite and part of

is actually infinite and part of infinity.

infinity. Every object is a sub infinity of

Every object is a sub infinity of infinity.

infinity. which is why you can't define anything.

which is why you can't define anything. Ultimately,

all your definitions are just vague attempts

attempts to somehow um reduce the complexity,

to somehow um reduce the complexity, infinite complexity down to something,

infinite complexity down to something, you know, some manageable thumbnail that

you know, some manageable thumbnail that your mind can can work with.

See, what you need to start to recognize is that you use concepts to think

is that you use concepts to think without knowing what anything is in

without knowing what anything is in full. Your own mind does not know the

full. Your own mind does not know the primitives that it thinks in.

primitives that it thinks in. All the key primitives are undefined,

All the key primitives are undefined, unknown, and implicit. For example,

unknown, and implicit. For example, I'm going to give you a list of words

I'm going to give you a list of words here. You're going to know in general

here. You're going to know in general what all these words are, but at the

what all these words are, but at the same time, you don't know what any of

same time, you don't know what any of them are. So, here we go. Game: Man

them are. So, here we go. Game: Man alive. Electron, particle, energy, time,

alive. Electron, particle, energy, time, force, truth, concept, rationality,

force, truth, concept, rationality, science, intelligent, object, objective,

science, intelligent, object, objective, matter,

uh, physical, consciousness, mind, formal, quantity, quality, woo,

formal, quantity, quality, woo, irrational, sanity.

irrational, sanity. Technically,

Technically, none of you know what any of these

none of you know what any of these things are.

things are. On the other hand, you kind of know what

On the other hand, you kind of know what I'm talking about when I say these

I'm talking about when I say these words. You're not that deeply confused.

Yet, even though you don't have definitions for any of these terms, you

definitions for any of these terms, you use them all the time to make sense of

use them all the time to make sense of the world. And you use them all the time

the world. And you use them all the time in science, too. You couldn't do science

in science, too. You couldn't do science without knowing any of these words.

without knowing any of these words. So that's the situation that we're in.

So that's the situation that we're in. So what I what what the rationalist

So what I what what the rationalist needs to notice is that his own process,

needs to notice is that his own process, his own mental process is not formal or

his own mental process is not formal or rigorous. It is inherently fuzzy,

rigorous. It is inherently fuzzy, sketchy, and intuitive.

And your mind couldn't work any other way. Or if it did, you'd be very stupid.

way. Or if it did, you'd be very stupid. And you certainly couldn't do science or

And you certainly couldn't do science or math or logic or anything sophisticated

math or logic or anything sophisticated like that. You'd basically be retarded

like one of those robots caught in a logic loop.

See, because think of it, when a child is born, how does a child make sense or

is born, how does a child make sense or understand anything at all?

understand anything at all? Because the child doesn't have

Because the child doesn't have definitions in its own mind. The child's

definitions in its own mind. The child's mind is not operating on formality of

mind is not operating on formality of any kind. How does a child know when you

any kind. How does a child know when you point at an apple that that's an apple?

point at an apple that that's an apple? Not formally in any way. The child

Not formally in any way. The child grocks it. The child intuitits it

grocks it. The child intuitits it through fuzzy, you know, intuitive

through fuzzy, you know, intuitive process.

process. How does a child know the difference

How does a child know the difference between a cat and a dog? How does a

between a cat and a dog? How does a child know what for example uh you know

child know what for example uh you know abstract things are? You might tell a

abstract things are? You might tell a child you know happiness. How does a

child you know happiness. How does a child learn what happiness is? How does

child learn what happiness is? How does a child learn what suffering is? How

a child learn what suffering is? How does a child learn what a what color is?

does a child learn what a what color is? These are gross abstractions. How does a

These are gross abstractions. How does a child's mind figure this out? Through a

child's mind figure this out? Through a very nebulous intuitive process.

Uh, and in fact, I'm going to go one step

and in fact, I'm going to go one step further for you here. And this is where

further for you here. And this is where your mysticism allergy, you know, your

your mysticism allergy, you know, your woo allergy, watch out.

woo allergy, watch out. What I want to claim is that the child's

What I want to claim is that the child's process of learning the difference

process of learning the difference between a cat and a dog is actually a

between a cat and a dog is actually a mystical process.

entertain that idea. I want you to seriously entertain that idea

seriously entertain that idea that without a mystical process, without

that without a mystical process, without a mystical intelligence, the child

a mystical intelligence, the child literally could not understand the

literally could not understand the difference between a cat and a dog

difference between a cat and a dog or what a color is or what happiness is.

or what a color is or what happiness is. And that your child would just be like

And that your child would just be like an animal. It would be like a like a

an animal. It would be like a like a baboon which doesn't know these higher

baboon which doesn't know these higher abstract concepts. So here's the here's

abstract concepts. So here's the here's the thing that I'm trying to teach you

the thing that I'm trying to teach you is that

is that you have a baboon, you have a human

you have a baboon, you have a human child, then you have a human adult, then

child, then you have a human adult, then you have, let's say, a highly rational

you have, let's say, a highly rational MIT scientist. And what's the difference

MIT scientist. And what's the difference between all these? Well, the the baboon

between all these? Well, the the baboon understands some stuff. Of course, a

understands some stuff. Of course, a baboon can differentiate between a cat

baboon can differentiate between a cat and a dog. Not in a conceptual way but

and a dog. Not in a conceptual way but just you know in a in a perceptual way.

just you know in a in a perceptual way. The child the human child has now more

The child the human child has now more advanced concepts. It has think of it

advanced concepts. It has think of it this way. Imagine that a baboon.

It's like a baboon lives in a um in like a purely sensory kind of world with no

a purely sensory kind of world with no higher concepts, no abstractions, right?

higher concepts, no abstractions, right? The child gets some abstractions. It

The child gets some abstractions. It learn it learns concepts like happiness,

learn it learns concepts like happiness, cat and dog, color. It learns about

cat and dog, color. It learns about science and so forth. And then as you

science and so forth. And then as you move up in human development, you know,

move up in human development, you know, you learn more advanced abstractions.

Now, the human scientist tells itself, well, we're just being rational and

well, we're just being rational and scientific. There's no mysticism going

scientific. There's no mysticism going on. But really, think of it this way.

on. But really, think of it this way. Here's a recontextualization for you.

Here's a recontextualization for you. To go from baboon to child in terms of

To go from baboon to child in terms of mental understanding, that is a step up

mental understanding, that is a step up in mysticism. The child is more mystical

in mysticism. The child is more mystical than a baboon because it's able to

than a baboon because it's able to understand abstract concepts like color.

The scientist is able to understand even more abstract concepts

more abstract concepts like you know relativity,

like you know relativity, spaceime and all sorts of fancy

spaceime and all sorts of fancy scientific jargon concepts

scientific jargon concepts that is actually a step up in mystical

that is actually a step up in mystical intelligence. You need more

intelligence. You need more intelligence, more abstract capacity,

intelligence, more abstract capacity, more intuition to do that because you

more intuition to do that because you couldn't get there through a formal

couldn't get there through a formal process. Just like a baboon cannot use a

process. Just like a baboon cannot use a formal process to get to the child's

formal process to get to the child's level of understanding of anything. And

level of understanding of anything. And likewise beyond the scientists here, you

likewise beyond the scientists here, you can open your mind so so deeply that you

can open your mind so so deeply that you you expand to a level beyond the

you expand to a level beyond the difference the difference between a

difference the difference between a baboon and a child. There's an equal

baboon and a child. There's an equal level difference between a child and a

level difference between a child and a scientist and an equal level difference

scientist and an equal level difference between a scientist and me.

between a scientist and me. my understanding of reality

that does not compute from the lower paradigm. So a baboon cannot understand

paradigm. So a baboon cannot understand anything that it's missing from what the

anything that it's missing from what the child understands. And a child can't

child understands. And a child can't understand what it's missing from what a

understand what it's missing from what a scientist understands. And a scientist

scientist understands. And a scientist can't understand what it's missing from

can't understand what it's missing from what I understand. And what I'm trying

what I understand. And what I'm trying to teach you is what I understand.

to teach you is what I understand. [laughter] Which is why we're having

[laughter] Which is why we're having this whole conversation.

this whole conversation. Right?

Right? The problem here is that you're so

The problem here is that you're so paradigm locked in each one of these

paradigm locked in each one of these cases that you think that there's you

cases that you think that there's you can't even imagine anything above you.

So if you're a scientist, if you're an MIT scientist, I want you to imagine

MIT scientist, I want you to imagine that there's something above you that's

that there's something above you that's more above you than the difference

more above you than the difference between you and a baboon.

between you and a baboon. And you can't imagine what that is,

And you can't imagine what that is, but I know what that is because I have

but I know what that is because I have it and I can teach it to you. but only

it and I can teach it to you. but only if you're extremely open-minded.

[sighs] That's where we're at.

That's where we're at. So,

So, fundamental to what intelligence is

fundamental to what intelligence is is the ability to handle vagueness,

is the ability to handle vagueness, fuzziness, nebulosity, uncertainty, lack

fuzziness, nebulosity, uncertainty, lack of information, ambiguity,

of information, ambiguity, perspective.

You ask, "Well, Leah, where's the mystical stuff?" The mysticism is just

mystical stuff?" The mysticism is just in your ability to understand the

in your ability to understand the difference between a cat and a dog.

difference between a cat and a dog. That's already mystical.

Your ability to count from one to two to three to four is already mystical.

three to four is already mystical. You're just not grasping it because you

You're just not grasping it because you take it for granted.

take it for granted. If a baboon got the ability to count

If a baboon got the ability to count numbers,

numbers, it would think it has a mystical p

it would think it has a mystical p superpower.

superpower. But you, because you just take

But you, because you just take everything for granted because you're

everything for granted because you're just like a fucking baboon in human

just like a fucking baboon in human form. You take everything for granted.

form. You take everything for granted. Even as a scientist, you take it all for

Even as a scientist, you take it all for granted. All of your intelligence, all

granted. All of your intelligence, all of your understanding capacity, all of

of your understanding capacity, all of your intuitive abilities, all of it, you

your intuitive abilities, all of it, you take for granted. because you're so

take for granted. because you're so fucking stupid.

That to you that's just like it's nothing. It's nothing. It's just normal.

nothing. It's nothing. It's just normal. It's just atoms. All it is is atoms and

It's just atoms. All it is is atoms and neurons.

neurons. You don't understand the insane mystical

You don't understand the insane mystical intelligence that is inside of you. Just

intelligence that is inside of you. Just understand just to understand this

understand just to understand this episode required such crazy levels of

episode required such crazy levels of intelligence that no other animal on

intelligence that no other animal on this planet can do it other than humans.

this planet can do it other than humans. And even most humans won't understand

And even most humans won't understand what I'm talking about.

Mysticism is not about seeing crazy fucking unicorns and shit flying around

fucking unicorns and shit flying around you and ghosts and whatever and Jesus.

you and ghosts and whatever and Jesus. It's about recognizing that all of the

It's about recognizing that all of the ordinary stuff that you thought was just

ordinary stuff that you thought was just Adams is not actually Adams. It's a

Adams is not actually Adams. It's a profound mystical experience. Your

profound mystical experience. Your entire life is one giant incredible

entire life is one giant incredible mystical experience and you're just

mystical experience and you're just sleepwalking through it as a scientist,

sleepwalking through it as a scientist, as a materialist, as an atheist.

as a materialist, as an atheist. That's all that's all we're talking

That's all that's all we're talking about here.

about here. [snorts]

So, let's wrap it up here. We still have a ton of content. All the most

a ton of content. All the most interesting content is still yet to

interesting content is still yet to come.

come. But before we get to there, um, just let

But before we get to there, um, just let me give you a homework assignment.

me give you a homework assignment. You must, if you like this content, you

You must, if you like this content, you must go read metarrationality.com.

must go read metarrationality.com. A lot of the examples and information

A lot of the examples and information that I pulled was from that website.

that I pulled was from that website. That website is like a book. It'll take

That website is like a book. It'll take you weeks of of reading. There's a lot

you weeks of of reading. There's a lot of dense material there, technical

of dense material there, technical material to read through all that stuff.

material to read through all that stuff. Go read it.

Go read it. Uh, credit again to David Chapman for

Uh, credit again to David Chapman for for a lot of me borrowing his insights

for a lot of me borrowing his insights here and quoting from him and all that.

here and quoting from him and all that. He did some great work. However, his

He did some great work. However, his work is still limited. It is still very

work is still limited. It is still very bounded within rationality and there's

bounded within rationality and there's something beyond his work and in order

something beyond his work and in order to understand that that's what we need

to understand that that's what we need part two and part three for. So, we're

part two and part three for. So, we're going to get that to that uh quite soon.

going to get that to that uh quite soon. So, we're done here. Uh, that's it for

So, we're done here. Uh, that's it for part one. Please check out my life

part one. Please check out my life purpose course. Check out my book list

purpose course. Check out my book list if you're looking for profound books to

if you're looking for profound books to read. I compile a list of the best books

read. I compile a list of the best books that I've read um in my book list. Um

that I've read um in my book list. Um check out my blog. I'm going to fix that

check out my blog. I'm going to fix that soon and keep updating it more. That's

soon and keep updating it more. That's coming soon. And um let me just end on

coming soon. And um let me just end on this.

this. Part two is coming in the next two

Part two is coming in the next two weeks. I know sometimes when I do these

weeks. I know sometimes when I do these series, I can take a long time between

series, I can take a long time between episodes. I'm being very careful not to

episodes. I'm being very careful not to do that because all these parts need to

do that because all these parts need to go together. So, in about two weeks,

go together. So, in about two weeks, I'll release part two, and another two

I'll release part two, and another two weeks I'll release part three. So, don't

weeks I'll release part three. So, don't worry. All that's coming in the next

worry. All that's coming in the next month. You'll have the whole three-part

month. You'll have the whole three-part series. All of it will be one one

series. All of it will be one one seamless um you know, body of work. Um

seamless um you know, body of work. Um make sure that you don't quit halfway

make sure that you don't quit halfway through here.

through here. Uh like I said, most people who watch my

Uh like I said, most people who watch my videos only watch for 25 minutes.

videos only watch for 25 minutes. Imagine finding this information and

Imagine finding this information and then only watching for 25 minutes and

then only watching for 25 minutes and missing all of it.

missing all of it. How tragic is that, right? How tragic is

How tragic is that, right? How tragic is that? Um,

that? Um, so you're only going to get from this

so you're only going to get from this work what you put into it. I I expect

work what you put into it. I I expect you to

you to spend at least a thousand hours watching

spend at least a thousand hours watching and listening to my content. At least

and listening to my content. At least you need at least a thousand hours to

you need at least a thousand hours to understand what I'm trying to teach you.

understand what I'm trying to teach you. And so it's very important that you

And so it's very important that you found you got so lucky that you found

found you got so lucky that you found this material basically by accident. you

this material basically by accident. you stumbled upon it through some YouTube

stumbled upon it through some YouTube algorithm or whatever.

algorithm or whatever. Um, but see, the saddest thing is that

Um, but see, the saddest thing is that people find this content by accident.

people find this content by accident. They're like one in a million to find

They're like one in a million to find this content. You find it, but then you

this content. You find it, but then you get lazy and complacent, as we usually

get lazy and complacent, as we usually do, and then you fall off track. You

do, and then you fall off track. You forget about it. You only watch halfway.

forget about it. You only watch halfway. I say this because whenever I release

I say this because whenever I release one of these deep series, part one, part

one of these deep series, part one, part two, part three, I get like a 100,000

two, part three, I get like a 100,000 views on part one, 50,000 views on part

views on part one, 50,000 views on part two, and then 25,000 views on part

two, and then 25,000 views on part three, which is the most important part.

It's baffling just how complacent people are with this kind of information.

are with this kind of information. This information will change your life.

This information will change your life. I spent 20 years trying to understand

I spent 20 years trying to understand this. Seriously,

this. Seriously, this is like all of my philosophical

this is like all of my philosophical contemplations boiled down into 10

contemplations boiled down into 10 hours. You think 10 hours is a lot to

hours. You think 10 hours is a lot to ask? It's nothing. It's nothing compared

ask? It's nothing. It's nothing compared to the 20 years I've spent thinking

to the 20 years I've spent thinking about this stuff. Hundreds of hours,

about this stuff. Hundreds of hours, thousands of hours went into just this.

And with my work, we're always building towards something bigger.

towards something bigger. Everything is interconnected. We're

Everything is interconnected. We're interconnecting more and more stuff

interconnecting more and more stuff together, so the best is always yet to

together, so the best is always yet to come. So, make sure you stick around. Do

come. So, make sure you stick around. Do not quit halfway through.

テキストまたはタイムスタンプをクリックすると、動画のその場面に移動できます

ほとんどの文字起こしは5秒以内に完了

ワンクリックコピー125以上の言語内容を検索タイムスタンプにジャンプ

YouTube URLを貼り付け

任意のYouTube動画リンクを入力すると、完全な文字起こしを取得できます

ほとんどの文字起こしは5秒以内に完了

Chrome拡張機能を追加

YouTubeを離れずに文字起こしを瞬時に取得。Chrome拡張機能をインストールすると、動画視聴ページで任意の文字起こしにワンクリックでアクセスできます。

Chromeに追加 — 無料

YouTube、Coursera、Udemyなど主要な学習プラットフォームに対応

文字起こしをすばやく取得：アドレスバーのドメインを変えるだけ！

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube文字起こし結果を準備しています…

YouTube文字起こし：Deconstructing Rationality - Part 1

AutoDub

動画の文字起こし

Summary

Core Theme

YouTube URLを貼り付け

文字起こし取得フォーム

Chrome拡張機能を追加

文字起こしをすばやく取得： アドレスバーのドメインを変えるだけ！

YouTube文字起こし：
Deconstructing Rationality - Part 1

文字起こしをすばやく取得：アドレスバーのドメインを変えるだけ！