Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

More of a discussion than a right to respond but nonetheless I think we cover a lot of ground.

Long discussion on consciousness and then Ukraine/Russia conflict and the nature of apologetics.

Feedback welcomed!

Files

Guru 'Right to Respond' with Robert Wright

Not our typical 'right to respond' this is more of a discussion/debate with Bob that revolves around 1) the nature of consciousness and 2) the Ukraine conflict and cognitive empathy. Let us know what you think!

Comments

Protagonist Science

On the issue of consciousness, Chris is right. There is no magic sauce of subjective experience, there is no unknowability inherent to it that science cannot fathom because it is outside its purview, and there is no doubt that science will eventually have the right descriptions to deal with all the processes we now collectively assign to consciousness, probably leading to the break-up up of the concept of consciousness into more apt descriptions of what is going on 'under the hood'.

Tim Tripp

Poor Bob. It was evident Bob was running out of steam. I appreciated the clarification because the framing in the Nonzero newsletter obscures Bob’s fulsome position.

Decoding The Gurus

Think this is a glitch on your side, we haven’t heard this anywhere else.

Geoff Whiting

This was a wild ride. Not being familiar with him before this, it was pretty surprising to hear him call himself left-of-center. Also very easy to see how he has hung the albatross of whataboutism around his neck.

collapsing

best pushback on Bob's position i've heard and appreciate it very much as i've found all things you brought up so frustrating having liked him and his stuff for so long. bizarrely similar at times to Sam - ' i'm not that familiar with their work' when cherry picking and thank god someone brought up hid gliding over atrocities and equivalence. i think problem is he can't bring himself to explicitly state where his realpolitik ends up and eventually he began to go quiet as you pointed it out and even stopped defending / cog empathising with Putin.Think you both not being American meant he also had to deal with non-us consequences of his view and where it leads. It's fine if he holds these views but hopefully but his glossing over, cherry picking and taking agency away from everyone was at least called out. i did feel a bit sorry for him at end whether caffeine or his difficulty defending against reasonable people. He remains very likeable and i'll still listen to him though- especially on non- Ukraine stuff. Again like Sam and Chris what are the odds he'll modify at least his presentation on Ukraine though...😶

TheRick

I really enjoyed the discussion. I've been reading/listening to Bob on and off since the early '90s so no big surprises for me. Regarding US foreign policy, I tend to share Bob's jaded view. He referenced Dulles Brothers in the '50s, but having studied US diplomacy from the Spanish-American War (1898) forward, I've counted well over 70 US foreign interventions, by which I mean either overt or covert interference with a nation's sovereignty and attempts at regime change. It's a spectacularly unsuccessful record, with even short run successes tending towards eventual blowback. Only sorry you didn't get the time to jointly make fun of Sam Harris more.

Kat

I think Bob came across very well, aside from being a little testy at the end.

Sue Sutton

I really enjoyed this one. The subject matter, but also simply the relatively rare phenomenon of watching people who like each other navigating strong disagreement. Too often we see people either in total accord (which can be fine), or yelling over each other without pausing to think beyond their talking point.

Mike Nelson

Thank you so much for the push back on his views on Putin and NATO. His political naivete reaches Neville Chamberlain levels.

Giovanni

Great episode. Will have to support Chris in his view of consciousness.

Sian Gibby

Came here to watch this because Bob said in the Parrot Room that y'all (and esp Chris) gave him the business on Ukraine.

Jesse Hodges

When I was a kid I decided that every night while we’re sleeping, we transpose into another persons consciousness. We never know it because lived experience is also transposed, so you would never have the memory of being anyone else. I entertained this idea for a while, somewhat amused that I was building it for others to witness as “they” rotated into “my” consciousness. I came to understand that this concept was not falsifiable (perhaps obviously). I also came to realize that entertaining the possibility was a good recipe for severe anxiety.

Wouter Vermeyen

It was not a bad conversation, but I am always left with the feeling that people talking about NATO expansion always seem to forget that the Russians never really gave up on their claims to their empire or accepted the crimes of the Soviets. The president of Estonia, Lennart Meri, laid this out quite clearly during a speech in Hamburg in 1994. Furthermore depending on your view in 2008, Putin had already brutally subjugated Chechnya. In a way NATO caused the War in Ukraine works mostly because Americans don't really pay attention or know much about Eastern Europe and if they do it is mostly a Russianized perspective like giving credence to Crimea not really being Ukrainian. Also waffling on the clear cultural and linguistic genocide in progress in the occupied areas feels rather weak. Anti-imperialist Americans seem generally underinformed when looking at Russia so they pivot to what they know 'West does bad things.' and fit the situation in that mold. Good on Chris for voicing the obvious when stating that regardless of neighbors, the right of the Ukrainians to choose is paramount and as long as they want to fight on the west should provide them with the means.