If God exists, unicorns, Thanos and Superman exist too. What the fuck is brave about saying that the sky is blue if in fact it is?

@@paulo.8899 it wouldn't do any good to discuss this with you. You are uncivil even in this response and are obviously unhinged and angry as well. God is real, you will meet him one day.

He really is. Most interviewers are kinda cringe, but his enthusiasm for exploring all these topics is contagious.

Robert tends to not let someone finish what they are saying a bit.

+ Not a single question from Kuhn, like "why do you believe this?" 😳

I'm with you on that one, Steve. I didn't watch the whole thing, but he struck me as an old-fashioned materialist. Comparing the number two to a unicorn was odd.

Similar to a person who "knows what's best for you"

The gospel is historical fact. When someone comes back to life from the dead and ascends into heaven, you believe what they say.

@@DiggitySlice So, you're saying if anyone writes something it automatically becomes historical fact? I'm not sure that's how it works.

Unicors are real, they are horses with Horn without body

I was going to say the same thing!!! lol

Same. Except I then thought, after positing abstract and immaterial concrete objects, are angels and demons that much of a stretch ?

Right? Many years ago I watched a lecture on ancient alien intervention. For over an hour the lecturer made tremendous point after tremendous point. He really had me thinking and then it happened...he started going in on how Sasquatch's are real and remained hidden in the Pacific northwest to this very day. I turned it off immediately

@@bigol7169 angel on my right shoulder and the demon on my left. They both look like me...the younger me.

​@@patricksmith3376 Have you ever investigated Sasquatch?

😂 "Angels and demons" Uhhh do you mean aliens, my guy??

@@paulo.8899 how does aliens make this more of a realistic conversation

Can you show us as in explication mode what isn't imagination? Because I was to make fun of you.

@@S3RAVA3LM The Schrodinger equation, maybe, for starters.

​@@Ed-quadF nice👍

Exactly. Neat, lively and interesting SPECULATION.

He is actually low-key dangerous.

It is evidence if you belive it hard enough, tho.... Or if you're an idiot 🤷

yes, the mechanical view of the world was gone as stated by newton much to the dismay of everyone during that period, and was never recovered. but whats much worse still is chomskys explanation that modern philosophers and intellectuals have horribly degenerated and lost contact with the true meaning of the knowledge surrounding the enlightenment period.

any source where he mentioned that

Chomsky is correct -- since Descartes no one has seriously looked at the mind-body problem. As a student of Philosophy decades ago, Descartes really shook me as he grappled with the mind-body problem, and Chomsky picks up the lost tangent. Today we are again at the doorstep of this mystery again and cannot walk away from it. From Donald Hoffman's ideas, QM vs Relativity and the closer we get to scientifically and philosophically comprehending consciousness we are banging at the door of the self and how it perceives and acts in this world.

Lawrence keeps playing around with malformed questions, luckily for us sometimes the interviewees decide to answer a different question and something of value is conveyed in the video. Obviously not the case for this funny guy today

Material is what something is made of. Matter is what something consist of. Physical means that applies a force over an area of space.

@@kos-mos1127 "Material is what something is made of. Matter is what something consist of." - These are circular definitions.

Physical objects such as electrons, photons and such are objects that can interact with and affect other physical objects. For something to be physical it must participate in the network of interactions by which the processes we observe in the world play out. Putting aside solipsism for now, as with all theories you start with axiomatic statements about things you take as starting points that you assume are physical, such as particular physical objects, chemicals, etc. The physicality of anything else can then be determined by whether it can affect or be affected, perhaps indirectly, by these things you take to be physical. So step by step science expands the scope of what we consider to be physical as we follow the evidence.

@@bierdlll The world for matter and material are derived from the Latin term materia which means stuff, real and reality. So by definition matter always references itself. Everything we see, touch, taste and hear are different layers of matter.

Wow… you have clearly read absolutely nothing on philosophy of mind.

Are the emotions bigger than the self that experience them? Where we not taught what it means to be angry, happy, sad or any of the other emotions before we had the capacity to fully express and understand these emotions through cognition and introspection. The values and limits of which emotions and how they can be expressed are reinforced by cultural norms lifetimes older than we are. This combined with aspects epigenic evolution and the emotions we experience would have been expressed for longer than we could be defined as human beings. When your sense of self and rational thinking is overwhelmed by an emotional state are we not in way being possessed by something larger than ourselves, hence their power. As human beings it seems we have a tendency to attribute qualities like good and evil to the way the different emotional states are expressed in action and sentiment. I cannot see where the emotions have any agency of their own until we give them power to the point they take over. When we are out of control or overwhelmed by an emotional state is it in control?

if love were essences or fields, you would need to perceive all individual such instance before you could know love. on the other hand, if love were a particular such as the love for your wife, then you would not be able to love your son since that particular differs to the original. dont worry, noone has figured out set theory, except dignaga and dharmakirti.

@@5piles "if love were essences or fields, you would need to perceive all individual such instance before you could know love." What would be the mathematical representation of such a statement? It would necessarily be a wave function with the particle representing how you feel at this instance, and the wave representing all the possible states. Corollary: the particle DOES NOT need to be everywhere at once, it suffices to know that the particle could be anywhere. Same with feelings. You do not need to feel ALL of them at once, only that you are capable of such feelings. I fail to grasp your disputation.

@@CarlosElio82 you are saying that one particular whether in 19th century physics or as one in a collapsed wave function is love, then any other particular of either type cannot be love since it is other than that given particular which is love. on the other hand, if we assert that it is the collection of all 19th century instances or all collapsed functions instances that are love, then we necessarily must perceive each of them before we could understand what love is.

no, matter has a limit on the micro scale. its like 10^32 or something and the energy required to produce it collapses it into a black hole. the micro scale to spacetime is quite coarse.

Just because you can't think of it doesn't preclude it from possibility. Indirectly, you make known that you believe things give themselves there own form and 'being'. Human beings often think first, and then manifests. Building a bridge is always first thought over in the mind, and then on paper, with physics and math, acknowledging the laws only to a small degree, and then manifest. Why should we believe otherwise concerning GOD? I think you're afraid to be true to yourself.

@S3RAVA3LM *NAPOLEON HILL said, "Thoughts are things". That's logical. I won't argue that. Thanks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn @ 10:39 "I can conceive of there being no God [angels and demons], but I cannot conceive of there being no numbers". I agree that abstract thoughts are real. But, as devil's advocate, tell me the purpose of these so-called "angels and demons" J.P. Moreland speaks of. Those are thoughts that sound cool but aren't necessarily real.

​@Kathy ok, I see. Yeah. Example: what the Philosopher's term as 'Intellect', the Theologians acknowledge as the 'Word' or Christ. Intellect or course being Light, the very light within man, and too, that which is all things. They are only modes. I've realized that whether it's feild theory, metaphysics or mysticism, ultimately we are discussing the same thing only in different modes and approaches. Mysticism being a personal modes, contemplation, thus truly is 'Mimesis' or union or self realization. Metaphysics of course acknowledging the Principles, that which is, opposed to that of samsara or birth, life, death, cycle. What is real. It surely can not be that which is ephemeral, transient. We could call all this real, and then, what would we call that which is beyond samsara?

The job of religion is to give you answers to meaningless questions.

@@bobs182 Religion pretends to do all the thinking so you won't have to any.

As I like to say the universe functions without humans measuring and counting it.

As much as Australia if you have never been there.

Unicorns and Multicorns

energy being something of unknown nature.

some people equate arguments with evidence... usually religious ones

@@dfmc001 The catch is "Your" reality.

@@dfmc001 Who are YOU, by the way-I am YOU and YOU are I. Ah. So. Grasshopper. WE are ONE wearing SOUL of EARTHLOVE. If YOU have seen ONE, YOU have seen ALL. NOW, Whatyagonnado?🙊🙈🙉

@@mut8inG Who am-I

The preposition that snow is white comes from observations. The idea of demons, angels and god come from imagination of elite people in politics during the near eastern Iron Age.

I think I agree with your world view overall, but you’re using the term exist in two different ways. Yes descriptions are physical things. The descriptions unicorn and horse both exist in our memories, as text, etc. However some descriptions correspond to things that physically exist, and some do not. Unicorns do not exist in the same sense that horses exist though. The former description does not correspond to anything in the physical world, while the latter does. I think therefore it is reasonable to say that unicorns do not exist, understood in the sense that the description does not correspond to anything real that fits that description. When you say abstract objects exist, that’s a different use of the term exist. We can only really say that about abstract object descriptions that have been encoded in matter. The description exists, but the description may or may not correspond to anything. There are infinite potential abstract objects, such as books and computer programs that will never be written, ideas that will never be thought. These are all abstract objects, they are possible concepts in the ‘realm’ of the abstract, but they will never be imagined or thought. Does it make and sense to say that these exist in any real sense?

@@simonhibbs887 Yes, I was using exist in two different ways, which I was trying to explain, but I am not sure I did a good job. Note, to make it easy /shorter to write I am equating (self-aware conscious mind) = (pilot). The thing is, our pilot's perception of actual reality is an abstract illusion, a virtual reality, presented to us by parts of our whole swarm mind which are subconscious to our pilot selves. This virtual reality has two layers of real existence (1) the actual real matter/energy system which contains the information and (2) the informational abstract meaning of the the information itself like the qualia of what the color red looks like or the qualia of the taste of chocolate or the meaning and qualia of socially caring for someone. So, the virtual reality which is an abstract pattern of information dependent upon and directly tied to the actual matter/energy existence is real and has a type of immaterial reality very different from the actual matter/energy existence from which it is emergent from. The illusion is what we experience our lives through it while it is strongly related to the actual reality we live in... it does not need to be. This can create some difficult to grasp situations. How do we know what immaterial illusory patterns of information really reflect the actual reality we exist in and which do not? Right now we can test this to some extent by seeing what things we can find that we can experience which remain the same between virtually all people regardless of their beliefs. Through that we can and have built a strong relatively common view of what the actual matter/energy world is, but part of that has also showed us that many things core to our experiences are purely abstract subjective relative patterns of information NOT directly representing the actual matter/energy existence we live in, but is part of a built in programmed pattern common to virtually all humans. We also know that, unless we cease to exist first, it is only a matter of time before we can build supportive structures within which we can move whole human minds into and out of and inside which we can design and run our own virtual realities that those who are inside them will not be able to distinguish them from actual reality or not. This gets into another point of the reality of the immaterial part of patterns of information. Everything clearly indicates that even within our existing biological minds, our mental patterns of information move around inside our brains. This means that the informational patterns of our minds, while 100% dependent upon and tied to the physical structures giving rise to them, there is no reason they cannot move between supportive matter/energy structures. Thus, our minds are immaterial patterns of information that really exist. Then, when we realize our minds and all other minds are "Swarm Intelligences" and subconscious swarm intelligences form between groups of humans whose subconscious minds give rise to collective subconscious minds... these subconscious collective minds which appear immaterial and in ways are immaterial which our pilot selves are unconscious of originating, they can appear to our pilot selves as spirits, Gods, demons and such with real powers over those who strongly believe in them and those collective subconscious minds can believe themselves to be spirits, Gods, demons and such. Of course they are not, but they are real immaterial patterns of information which while 100% dependent upon the physical matter/energy brains giving rise to them, they can move between humans to grow and shrink and last potentially across many generations of humans. The kinds of real power they do have is not supernatural, but the power a subconscious mind can have over a human individual who strongly believes in it.

But i like hurting others

You are correct, you can be good and still look for meaning in life. It is fascinating even if it is futile. Its a search for immortality, that is the final question in all of them, what does it mean for us when the physical body stops functioning. Does our "Soul" go into a gut maggot and eat the body or to "Heaven" or is it immediately put in another machine and memories are almost wiped clean. Are memories the only part of our identity/personality that is external and "we can't take it with us" to paraphrase a famous quote. Are they imbedded in the Body and when the electricity goes off they disappear for ever.

Is running material ? 🏃‍♂️

@@tonyatkinson2210 Whether running is material or spiritual depends on the runner's intentions.

@@PaulHoward108 “spiritual “ is definitely not material . It’s a feeling /state of mind .

God exists becase a book says he does? No evidence required? How about Superman?

The laws of physics exists because a book says it does? No evidence required? How about Superman? Consciousness exists because a book says it does? No evidence required? How about Superman? The bible in layman terms is about faith and not about science or theory, so no evidence is needed. faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians" h Similar: trust belief confidence conviction credence reliance dependence optimism hopefulness hope expectation h Opposite: mistrust 2. *strong belief in God* or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "bereaved people who have shown supreme faith" h Similar: religion church sect denomination

I'm still waiting to learn what is dark matter and dark energy that comprise the bulk of the universe and "reality".

Most theoretical physicists when questioned will say they don't know what was before or outside the big bang. The idea of something from nothing is a product of the way the human mind works as we think in terms of events with beginnings and ends but when you add up all of our packets of time, they aren't an event.

Science does not say the universe came from nothing.

Proving the supernatural with the natural world is an oxymoron.

Science doesn't care about what you "believe". By definition.

Most people are I am afraid. Thing is they don't want to be woken up.

@@TurinTuramber they are just playing there game, getting lost in all this.

No body is ever lost although it may appear so.

​@@TurinTuramber 500+ comments and you haven't once displayed erudition. There's no way you're a real person.

Did it bring a bottle of wine like a proper guest? 🤣

The human mind, the final frontier. We have little awareness of our subconscious that dictates much of our decisions. The supernatural comes from our subconscious.

@@whitefiddle No, it was an evil spirit and brought fear to the point where I shouted, "Go away! Go away!" It gave me a new appreciation for both demonic spiritual possession and religious ecstasy. At the same time I was observing myself and knew it was brain chemistry doing it -- not actual spirit beings. But it sure felt like it.

@@bobs182 We have _incomplete_ awareness of our own subconscious and we have precious little knowledge of the unknown/spiritual/subliminal/paranormal, etc. Hearing two blowhards like this talk about these things is just comical. They are not talking sense, they are merely trying to harmonize their presuppositions and prejudices. Then to make things even more preposterous they try to do it using the vocabulary of science. It's funny to watch, but extremely unenlightening. Maybe in another 13.7 billion years they will get their first clue. Here's hoping. 🍷

Snoopy is real because I saw him in the image on a window that many people thought looked like the virgin Mary.

Trust me bro

Then you have middle eastern cultures that are stagnant and dead.

The way I see it non material things exist as descriptions. A circle is a description of a geometric relationship, the rules of chess are a description of transformations of the game board state. There are infinite possible rules for possible board games, all are abstract but only a few have been encoded physically in rule books and human neurons. There are infinite possible geometric shapes, but some have had their descriptions encoded in books of mathematics, architecture, human minds, etc. So I don’t believe there is any realm or world of abstract entities. There are simply descriptions of relationships that have been imagined or generated and recorded in physical patterns such as writing, a computer memory, etc, and others which have not.

Hmmm. Would help if you clarified the difference between abstractions and the non material .

@@tonyatkinson2210 I’m not sure there is a difference, I think for the most part they’re two different ways of saying the same thing. Personally I think the only abstract or non material things we can really talk about are information. There’s information that could exist hypothetically, such as all the possible variations of board game rules. Then there’s information that is encoded physically in some material substrate, such as the rules of all the board games that actually exist.

@@simonhibbs887 The question was for the guy who wrote the opening comment . I think I agree with you . The only things that are non material are ideas. I’m not sure what else there could be

@@tonyatkinson2210 Software, music and trigonometry are some more example of non-material things. And a personal favourite, The News.

I really really really hope he does it to make fun of them exposing their delusions

I think RLK does this to expose their delusion.

"and there it goes, what a marvel! Oooh, Noo..!" 😂

@@FalkFlak We'll call this CTT's Lakehurst Episode. Or maybe a Fireside Chat. 🔥

Why not? God is in us. We are all one!

He seems like he has an incoherent and inconsistent worldview.

@@bobs182 I’m curious. In what way?

@@deanodebo He asserts the supernatural as other than being a product of the mind.

@@bobs182 What is that inconsistent with or how is it incoherent?

@@deanodebo It is inconsistent with what we know about the world and the human mind. It is only coherent if you first believe in the supernatural. To believe in the supernatural you must first believe in a natural world to determine what is unnatural. And if you believe everything is unnatural, you have made the term meaningless.

Precisely. Only coherently communicable things are real. Conceivability is infinite. It's a thin line between the 2 when you factor in logic & mathematics, and the ever-evolving nature of knowledge.

Pseudo-intellectual ramble 👍

@@SamoaVsEverybody814 *"Conceivability is infinite."* ... Negative. You cannot conceive a square-circle. That demonstrates a limitation to conceivability. End of story.

@@Mageblood *"Pseudo-intellectual ramble"* ... Then educate me, please.

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC. The problem of a square circle is not that it is not conceivable. The circle by definition is 360 degrees where all point are equal distance from the center. A square is made up two horizontal and vertical lines at 90 degree angels. That has to do more with the meaning of symbol then conceivability.