Latest Joe Rogan ting

[GrahamB]

Interesting video, good points made on both sides, but interesting that Rogan changed the subject when the Aikido guy said he had actual experience of controlling violent patients. I think if he'd have said that at the start then the conversation would have been very different.

http://youtu.be/yXIBi_lszsg

[shawnsegler]

Yeah, my respect for Rogan has grown over the years. I've always had a problem with his opinion of CMA which, from what he says, comes mostly from his interaction with or opinion of Novell and Maoshan...whether or not it has any validity. It strikes me that he just hasn't actually come across any good CMA in a way that allows him to see that it has merit.

Though not related to martial arts this is one of my fave podcasts of his. He's talking with Sam Harris and discussing Free Will and the fact that as far as modern science has been able to tell through various experiments with FMRI that Free Will is actually an illusion. Just as the buddhists say everything is empty of "self"..and we can prove it now. Anyway, I remember working it around in my own head and it being difficult and it's really amusing to watch Joe go through the same process of denial, shock and by the end acceptance. Anyway, it's worth the time if you feel like blowing an hour watching it.

[Taste of Death]

.

[shawnsegler]

Just because you're not bright enough to understand what Sam is talking about doesn't make him an asshole. On the contrary IME he's one of the most driven compassionate human beings I've ever encountered. He spends his time actually trying to work through the problems facing us as a species to the benefit of everyone. Even you.

S

[Spncr]

I wish you would have titled that "Joe Rogan talks shit about O'sensei." That way I could have skipped it altogether rather than skimmed it looking for the "good points made on both sides". Rogan talking to himself about how piss-poor TMA is, interests me not. FWIW I think it would make more sense to post this trash in off-topic or BTDT...

Joe Rogan should ask Mike Tyson why he went to see Gozo Shioda, I'd be interested to watch that conversation...

[Taste of Death]

.

[shawnsegler]

Sigh...You don't know a fucking thing about me and you're unlikely to have ever met a person as fine and kind and as myself...so keep your opinions on my level of compassion to yourself.

As to your Derp, derp, derp-ing...well, what can I say? All I know about you is your classy homophobe talk in the stupid "Bjj is lame" thread in the main board and this. You say, unequivocally that Harris is an asshole. Why? If you had a reason for thinking that you surely would have brought it up in either your first or second post so I'm going to assume you heard that he was an asshole somewhere. Maybe in one of the hit jobs Reza Aslan or Glenn Greenwald has put out against him or maybe you saw him get into it with a coked up Ben Affleck on Bill Mahers show, and if you think from those things that he's an asshole, well then you're just not very smart. Did you look further than that? If not, you're not very smart.

I'll say it again. Sam Harris is a truly GOOD person and as far from being an asshole as it's possible to be in my opinion. I've read most of what he's written and seen a good chunk of the videos he's been on on youtube and he's never less than polite, even in the face of real assholes slandering him in a way that threatens his social standing and even his life considering some of the things he's working on. These are real problems he's helping to face down and yet you choose to call him an asshole? Seem pretty stupid to me.

Have a nice day. Derp, derp, derp.

S

[Steve James]

The question of individual free-will is a deep one. I don't know enough about Sam Harris to offer an opinion of him, personally. and it'd be irrelevant anyway. I can say that, if the opposite of free-will is pre-determination, then any argument that questions "free-will" must either be pre-determined or the result of freely chosen thoughts. Otoh, free-will can also be seen as the existence of "chance," which is also the opposite of pre-determination. I.e., our (human) free-will is simply the fact that we tend to vary or go against pre-existing patterns. Other animals, other living things, tend to repeat patterns. Of course, our human tendencies are also genetically pre-determined. But, then the debate becomes a matter of semantics. The point is that I, or anyone, can choose to agree or disagree with Harris. That strongly suggests the existence of "free-will" per se.

[shawnsegler]

I can say that, if the opposite of free-will is pre-determination, then any argument that questions "free-will" must either be pre-determined or the result of freely chosen thoughts. Otoh, free-will can also be seen as the existence of "chance," which is also the opposite of pre-determination. I.e., our (human) free-will is simply the fact that we tend to vary or go against pre-existing patterns. Other animals, other living things, tend to repeat patterns. Of course, our human tendencies are also genetically pre-determined. But, then the debate becomes a matter of semantics. The point is that I, or anyone, can choose to agree or disagree with Harris. That strongly suggests the existence of "free-will" per se.

It is a deep subject, but right from the start you're heading in the wrong direction. There's no reason to say that if you don't have free will that there's "pre-determination". We have any number of variables running our interior hardware and and that is always subject to outside agencies that effect it yet further, but in no way is any of it "pre-determined" any more than any thing else doing what it does. You can choose to agree or disagree but the choosing happening isn't "you". It comes out of nowhere as he points out in the vid (which I recommend you watch by the way) you can do this however you want, you could take a week or a month or 10,000 years to decide whether to pick your right or left hand or to agree or not to agree with Sam Harris but when you do that choice will come out of nowhere and they can map that with magnetic resonance technology up to several seconds before "you" do. Repeatably and reliably.

This doesn't in any way change the way we feel or think about things at all it simply changes the driving force to a large number of agents rather than the assumption of a single agent "you".

It also changes, very importantly, how we deal things like "retributive justice". It doesn't change a thing about the way we live our lives except for giving us a better understanding as to the truth of how things work and a better way to make choices as far as how to set our world up for desired results.

Best,

S

[Taste of Death]

.

[shawnsegler]

Wow, thanks for supporting my statements about you and your ignorance about Harris.

Do you have any thoughts of your own or do you base all your opinions off of internet headlines?

Here's the original talk your link bases its reflex jump on Harris about: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/15/sam-harris-racial-profiling-muslims-airports_n_8140318.html

Here's a recent one for those who use the ridiculous term Islamophobe on him:

I'd ask you to watch them and see how well founded your assumptions are but I'll assume you wouldn't get it even if you did.

As to the homophobe thing, maybe you're right but if not, you're just not very funny.

I'll be done with you now since you've been nice enough to paint a picture of yourself with your online discourse.

Good luck with being you.

S

[chud]

Shawn, I feel the same way about Rogan (hated him at first due to his bashing of traditional arts, but grew to like him).
This is a pretty interesting episode of his podcast, with Graham Hancock.
They start off talking about ancient Egypt and other civilizations, and then get into DMT, consciousness, alternate realities, etc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygWxXphYRos

[shawnsegler]

Shawn, I feel the same way about Rogan (hated him at first due to his bashing of traditional arts, but grew to like him).

Yeah, I have a lot of respect for his intellectual honesty. It takes stones to realize you're wrong and adjust your opinion to line with new info.

Best,

S

[Gringorn]

Just because you're not bright enough to understand what Sam is talking about doesn't make him an asshole. On the contrary IME he's one of the most driven compassionate human beings I've ever encountered. He spends his time actually trying to work through the problems facing us as a species to the benefit of everyone. Even you.

S

+1

Well said, sir.

Vegard

[Steve James]

You can choose to agree or disagree but the choosing happening isn't "you". It comes out of nowhere as he points out in the vid (which I recommend you watch by the way)

It can't come out of nowhere if "We have any number of variables running our interior hardware and and that is always subject to outside agencies that effect it yet further.." So, "It" (whatever decision we make) may come from somewhere we can not explain or know. And, it's possible to come to the conclusion that the idea of "free will" is an illusion. Okay. However, as you say,

This doesn't in any way change the way we feel or think about things at all it simply changes the driving force to a large number of agents rather than the assumption of a single agent "you".

Fair enough, but you go on

It also changes, very importantly, how we deal things like "retributive justice". It doesn't change a thing about the way we live our lives except for giving us a better understanding as to the truth of how things work and a better way to make choices as far as how to set our world up for desired results.

Hmmm. Nah, I don't think it helps at all in terms of how we deal with retributive justice (or justice). At any rate, it'll still get into semantics if I say that the perception of what is just is inherent in human beings, but being "just" is a choice.

Hey, I haven't said anything about Harris, only about the ideas. I have to see specific examples in order to decide whether my perception of free-will would affect my decisions when it comes to justice or morality in general. I'm working, so I don't have the time to find out what Harris means by "not free-will." I might agree to some extent.