Actually, it's trivially easy to ignore, when that statement doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you can elaborate on it somewhat? What do you mean by language being emergent everywhere? Obviously there are vast spans of our universe that have never experienced or been subject to the concept of "language."

Wasn't to me, but I'll take a stab...


Meaning is only subjective to the person experiencing it. A big ball of spinning fusing gas is meaningless. Some carbon-water bag hundreds of thousands of miles away is meaningless to the big ball of spinning fusing gas. But that ball of gas is quite important and meaningful to the carbon-water bag. So everything is generally meaningless to everything else, and only has relative subjective meaning to some...


I would ignore that proof as irrelevant, and simply point out that "mental" involves chemical and electrical signals perceiving and reacting to the already existing universe. The universe would continue to exist whether there are brains with sensory organs around to sense and react to it. And that's what separates us from the rest of the universe: we react to what exists, and what exists will exist with our without our reaction. For example, people who are wheel chair bound consider their chair as a part of them - as a part or extension of their body - despite it not actually being a part of their body. That's because the chair is such a part of their life and under their control that it might as well be a part of their body. The rest of the world they live in is not.


I'll let you know when I realize it. So far I'm nowhere near that.


Fantasy v.s. things supported by empirical evidence and logic.


Good for them. Their experience is irrelevant to me, and everyone else, since their experience is singular and theirs alone. It's like if I was to say, the second pea in every pea pod makes me break out in hives and gives me allergies. Not all peas, just that one. That's meaningless to you, and doesn't mean you should start avoiding those peas, or giving them any consideration. So, it's great that you had an experience with god, but it has no effect or relevance to my life, no matter how much you yourself may be convinced that it does (also, there is more evidence to suggest you are crazy than to suggest that God is real).

Simply because our overall effect on the universe is so close to zero it might as well be zero. At most only about 200,000 light year radius around us is even aware of our existence, and that's a teeny tiny insignificant part of the universe, too.

None of the YouTube videos are the official ones yet. We have way better sound.

Received this in my pm:

Agreed, and I was wondering about that, too. Though he did sort of address it by saying that government is by nature aggressive, and if we slowly change the psychology of people to reject violencenand practice the NAP, that things like government will not only be too costly to implement, but will be viewed as just violence, not as "it's government, so it's OK."



Peter doesn't understand that the reason we have competition in the first place is due to limited resources, be they commodities, food, or even skilled labor, time, and proximity (the tons of food we grow here in the states are no good for Africa that is thousands of miles away). So, I think I get what he is trying to achieve, but, as I said, I just don't see any way of getting from where we are to where he wants us to be without either a lot of very rich people giving a lot of their money, time, and resources away on building this, or without a government or so,e authority forcing everyone to pay to build this infrastructure, and then forcing everyone to conform to it...

Not meaningless, insignifiicant. In the same way that guessing a private key to a Bitcoin address has a chance that is so insignificant that it's almost meaningless. It has a chance, just like our communication has meaning, but it exists in such a vaste space of probabilities that it might as well be meaningless.

Thing is, I don't actually know that his intentions are good. Like I've seen with all other seitgeist proponents, they have a general (or specific) goal that they want to achieve, but never any actual steps needed to take to achieve it. And the only steps I can see towards their goal involve basically forcing people to act and do things in a more socialist and economically-planned manner, which, when asked about, they always inevitably deny wanting to do. In a way it's like saying my intention to send you on a trip to Italy is good, but leaving out the part where the method of me sending you to Italy involves stuffing you into a cannon and firing you across the world (obviously not good for you).


I understood is as pretty much taking care of the poor and those in poverty to make sure they have all their basic needs always taken care of. His claim, and the claim of all zeitgeise followers, is that it is already possible with today's technology. Personally I'm not so sure. Plus the resources for the basic needs will have to come from somewhere, and thus from someone...



I understood it as Peter insisting that the state and the free market are one and the same, despite being repeatedly told that the state is the opposite of a free market, since it is only able to exist through coersion, not through trade/production, while Stefan consistently poiinted out that things like exploitative corporations are actually a product of the state, and wouldn't exist without state support either. Not sure why you understood that as Sefan treating corporations as a nonissue...



Right, that's what I got from that too. Peter, just like our local zeitgeister here, keeps insisting that the solution to the environment being destroyed by government regulations/subsidies is to have more government regulations/subsidies...


I didn't see the follow-up videos yes, but considering the first followup is titled "Peter Joseph v Stefan Molyneux Debate Analysis," which was followed up by a response video that in the title calls Stefan's analysis "The Art of Nonesense - Pathology or Con Artistry," I kinda doubt Stefan would bother giving Peter any more time. Considering the level of jackassery and disrespect Peter was showing in their initial debate, if I was Stefan, I would have written him off as a lost cause right after that.

funny we're arguing about this crap, while living on a tiny spec of dust in an enormous universe that doesn't know or care about anything we do.

Regulation is almost always done by those who have the most money to buy politicians. In financial regulations, those are banks. So banks are the ones writing and establishing regulations, and then paying politicians to pass it through lobbying and campaign contributions. I kind of doubt that banks will be willing to create nice regulations for bitcoin and bitcoin exchanges. On the contrary, I suspect any bitcoin regulations will likely be of the sort that will make it as difficult as possible for Bitcoin to compete with the established financial system.

TL;DR f*ck regulations. They're primarily used by the powerful to continue to keep themselves in power.

I found that before posting here. Sadly, that's not the last Saturday of the month

I wondered if maybe I could contact the people on the meetup (though it would require me to join and be approved into their group), but then I'm not sure if I wanted something like a big meetup. More of a, "Hey, anyone wants to meet and hang out at a restaurant or something?"

Just watched the initiial debate, and, with apologies to Stefan for relying oon adjectives, but WOW is Peter Joseph an asshole.

Memorable moment btw, when Stefan pointed out that Peter hasn't really explained his claim yet, Peter retorts with, "But I have explained it, in detail, with many examples." That reminded me so much of our LightRider here, as that has frequently beed his answer to a question or a point. Hint, if someone is asking that, it means you either haven't explained it, or done a terrible job at it. Just saying that you have, even saying you have many times, doesn't actually prove or support anything 

Uh... why? It's trivially easy to get 1% of all LTC right now, since it's so much cheaper than BTC.

I learned that "urination rituals" is a thing.

I'll be traveling to Toronto for the weekend of November 30th. I heard there is a fairly large Bitcoin community there. I'm wondering if anyone feels like meeting up someplace to discuss Bitcoin things, and maybe conference/convention planned for some time in May?

Ah, nice, thanks!

I'm looking forward to the videos, too. I missed most of the first day, due to jetlag. You may have seen me sleeping on the floor upstairs in the back behind the chairs 
(Hotel wouldn't let us check in until 3pm)

No Adam and Steve? 

So, um, sorry for not keeping up with the last 200 pages, but is there no more merged mining? Or is merged mining there by default now?

I think you may have these backwards, as I have often heard others on here refer to "morality" as something defined by governments and religious types (Moral majority, godly morals, etc), and "ethics" be something that is more objective and logical, without caring what someone's opinion of it is at the time.