Joe Rogan and Terrence Howard
John Clark
Terrence Howard insists that 1x1=2.
Terrence Howard insists that the very idea of the square root of 2 is nonsense.
Terrence Howard insists that 2 is not a prime number even though the definition of a prime number is a number that is only divisible by itself and the number 1.
Terrence Howard insists that the Luminiferous Aether exists, even though it's a theory that Einstein put out of its misery 120 years ago and that had been in intensive care for 50 years before that.
Terrence Howard insists scientists introduced uncertainty and "all this bullshit" because they were only thinking in 2-D but he found the truth because he was thinking in 3-D.
Terrence Howard insists that "cartesian space don't allow curvature".
Terrence Howard insists that "Gravity is just electricities draft".
Terrence Howard insists that he was not the one who came up with all this stuff " I didn't invent it, an angel gave that to me".
Giulio Prisco
the signal. Terrence Howard is noise. But I hope you agree with me
that Roger Penrose - a top level scientist who has been praised for
decades despite some unconventional ideas , eventually winning the
Nobel Prize in Physics - is signal.
The noise is the price that one has to pay for the signal. I think
this is a fair deal, and I prefer to hear more noise if I can find
important signals hidden in the noise.
Joe Rogan brings to the attention of the public the ideas of some
scientists who do excellent work (think of our own Ben Goertzel) but
might not reach the public at large otherwise. In these days of
thought policing, cancel "culture" and forced political correctness, I
think the Joe Rogans of the world are very much needed.
Back to Terrence Howard, I didn't watch the episode with him and don't
intend to. I think what he says is BS, and why should I want to waste
my time with BS? But given the choice between Howard AND Penrose, OR
no Howard and no Penrose, I choose the former. And I think if many
people want to listen to a person then, regardless of what you and I
think of that person, that person must be given a platform .
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv1ueHH%3DEJV-jQLYbEs5gHfqx6nAA8x7W4Hk-UBXz3ZtCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
John Clark
> So in Joe Rogan's show (like everywhere) there's some noise besides the signal. Terrence Howard is noise.
PGC
Giulio's argument highlights the tension between the trade-off of noise for signal in public platforms like Joe Rogan's podcast, which undeniably wields significant reach and influence. While I agree that public access to figures like Roger Penrose and other scientists with unconventional but valuable ideas is crucial, I think the broader implications of the platform’s framing, curation, and biases need to be examined critically.
Joe Rogan's platform frequently reinforces reductionist and popular trends, where complex issues are stripped of context and presented as binary conflicts. This reductionism risks doing more harm than good, particularly when it allows misinformation or opportunistic ideologies to dominate public attention. The presence of noise might be an acceptable price for signal if the audience were uniformly equipped to discern the difference. However, such platforms often exploit cognitive biases—like confirmation bias and emotional appeal—leading to a conflation of the noise with the signal. When voices espousing bad faith arguments are amplified (without sufficient critique or framing) the consequences can skew public discourse toward division and obfuscation, as has been the case.
Your defense of Rogan as a counterbalance to "thought policing" and "cancel culture" raises valid concerns about freedom of expression. However, equating critique of harmful ideas with suppression is a dangerous oversimplification. Platforms like Rogan's must recognize their curatorial responsibility: the act of amplifying voices and framing their ideas is not neutral. Without providing the tools for audiences to evaluate content critically, the "noise" becomes more than a harmless cost; it becomes a mechanism for reinforcing pseudoscience, disinformation, and divisive ideologies.
Take Penrose as an example. His notable contributions to physics, for which he earned a Nobel Prize, do not make his ideas on Gödel’s theorem and Mechanism infallible. His Gödelian critique against computationalism misinterprets Gödel’s theorem, which highlights epistemic limits for possible machines and humans alike, rather than proving humans transcend mechanistic processes. While there’s some indication Penrose has reconsidered the validity of this argument, assuming correctness on the basis of accolades is unscientific. Science demands critical engagement with arguments, not deference to authority or committee decisions.
This brings us to the broader problem: the value of figures like Penrose and Goertzel is undermined when presented without proper framing. Public discourse shaped by popular platforms needs rigor and context to avoid reducing valuable ideas to fodder for opportunistic or ideologically motivated narratives. While I understand the appeal of exposure through a platform like Rogan’s, the ethical weight of curation cannot be ignored. Popularity does not equate to merit, nor does it justify giving any voice a platform without scrutiny.
While I appreciate the importance of platforms for diverse voices, the balance between noise and signal must be more carefully managed than Joe sitting there and asking his minion for context by googling some issue, reading the first responses, going on reddit/twitter and proclaiming "true/false". Rogan conflates online opinion snapshots on context eliminating platforms with truth, as evidenced by his recent statements regarding the X community vetting ideas with the help of a couple of specialists posting "the truth, so everybody knows, which is why X is so great". How scientific is that? Platforms like Rogan’s could serve as powerful venues for public education and discourse, but only if they accept their responsibility to uphold intellectual rigor and ethical framing. Without this, the signal risks being drowned out by the very noise it claims to correct. Instead of amplifying popular reductionisms, public platforms must prioritize fostering informed, critical engagement, elevating not just voices, but the discourse itself.
Popular internet is a context free zone, almost by discursive necessity: how else would "copium" taste so good to so many?
spudb...@aol.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAKTCJyde1qo43xdqJnbsNnZZp8U_V8wBYTq3JSJJqW%3DJP01Z3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Giulio Prisco
with thoughtful arguments. But I disagree (and very strongly so) with
what seems to be one of your premises: that the public (aka the little
people or the unwashed masses) is too stupid and must be protected by
some elites that know better. I very much disagree.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ed92fa9f-abf8-46e3-a85d-778679d36eb2n%40googlegroups.com.
PGC
Your critique of my position as elitist misses the mark and oversimplifies the argument I’ve made. Let me clarify: the problem I outlined is not about withholding "objective truth" from the public or assuming the "masses" are incapable of discernment. It’s about recognizing the real dangers of disinformation and the responsibilities that come with the power to curate influential platforms like Joe Rogan's. I want that discernment to rise to the level where every non-violent person would have access to building any technology/weapon they wish; but would see in historical context how odious and self-defeating raising arms against people is. We've done so millions of times because we lack arguments; and it has never brought the lasting peace it was supposed to.
Use of gun against fellow people = lack of ability to argue. And seeing how amenable and vulnerable everybody is to left vs. right tribalisms makes comprehensive transparency and free access to all information irresponsible. If you disagree and find this elitist, then equip everybody with the most powerful weapons known to man. Including the neighbor of yours dislikes you. Total transparency and freedom is both utopian and naive in this historical context, as we can see from the frequent mass shootings and assassinations (and their attempts) in USA and from weapons history in general.
It is disingenuous to suggest that my concerns stem from a belief that the public is "too stupid." Rather, the issue lies with the simplistic framing and curation of Rogan’s platform and the online world more broadly, which gives disproportionate weight to certain narratives while obscuring or oversimplifying others. This isn't about protecting the public from themselves but about holding accountable those who wield influence over public discourse. For instance, by amplifying certain voices—be they pseudoscientific, conspiratorial, or aligned with particular ideological interests, right or left—Rogan shapes narratives in ways that are neither neutral nor without consequence.
Moreover, the suggestion that the only way people can be exposed to unconventional ideas is through platforms like Rogan’s is deeply cynical and, ironically, elitist in its own way. It assumes that individuals lack the curiosity or capacity to explore challenging ideas without a messianic intermediary. Anybody with a library card—or even a basic internet connection—can access the works of Roger Penrose or Ben Goertzel; or visit some university course online or in person. Elevating Rogan and popular figures like him to godlike status as the sole gateway to these ideas, while ignoring the problematic framing and biases inherent in their platforms, is itself an argument rooted in the very elitism you claim to oppose.
Your assumption about my arguments reflecting progressive or liberal elitism is misplaced. My positions are more nuanced and cannot be neatly categorized into such labels. For example, I support a fiscal union in Europe—a stance that angers my conservative/nationalist friends—because I believe it is essential for remaining globally competitive. At the same time, I advocate for substantial investment in renewables, not through traditional state-led models but through state-of-the-art private-sector-driven financial engineering, incentivized by performance measures controlled by taxpayers and paid for by ECB or EIB. I see nobody proposing this, as everybody is too busy defending their biases. This is an original argument that illustrates what we could do, if we let go of "right vs left" pointlessness. This often puts me at odds with progressives because they don't trust bankers and hedge funds; I don't trust them either, but I know of the efficacy/sophistication of their risk management tools regarding investments. Furthermore, I criticize the EU's opaque and disingenuous technocracy, advocating for reforms that prioritize efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and democracy while strengthening Europe’s geopolitical and economic position. EU governance should be comprised of more figures representative of diverse demographics that include farmers in Italy, workers in failing industries of the north, artists in Paris etc. instead of technocrats.
Being pro-reform EU is not about symbolic gestures or abstract ideals like diversity, equity, and inclusion for its own sake, but about pragmatic geopolitics and economics: a reformed, unified Europe is better positioned to address global volatility and risks. In an increasingly multipolar world dominated by major powers like the U.S., China, and a resurgent Russia, Europe has the potential to act cohesively to protect its economic interests, secure energy independence, and enhance its defense capabilities. I also disagree with my progressive friends here. Without reform, inefficiencies and disunity weaken its ability to navigate global challenges, leaving it vulnerable to external pressures and internal instability.
My positions challenge both sides because I reject simplistic, tribal solutions. I’m not defending liberal platitudes or promoting conservative/nationalist nostalgia and utopias of the past; I’m calling for a more sophisticated approach to tackling complex challenges. By reducing my critique to this elitist stereotype, you sidestep the substance of my argument. It’s not elitist to demand accountability and thoughtful curation from those shaping public discourse—it’s responsible.
Finally, it’s worth emphasizing that curatorial responsibility is not about silencing dissent or policing thought; it’s about providing the framing and context necessary for critical evaluation. If we’re serious about fostering a more informed public discourse, we cannot overlook the biases, reductionism, and opportunistic oversimplification that dominate platforms like Rogan’s. The alternative isn’t “no Rogan,” but rather a Rogan—or any other influential platform—held accountable to the standards of the public discourse they claim to facilitate. My argument is about elevating, not diminishing, the quality of the conversation for everyone, regardless of political leaning or intellectual background. And of course we can agree to disagree.
PGC
Your critique of my position as elitist misses the mark and oversimplifies the argument I’ve made. Let me clarify: the problem I outlined is not about withholding "objective truth" from the public or assuming the "masses" are incapable of discernment. It’s about recognizing the real dangers of disinformation and the responsibilities that come with the power to curate influential platforms like Joe Rogan's. I want that discernment to rise to the level where every non-violent person would have access to building any technology/weapon they wish; but would see in historical context how odious and self-defeating raising arms against people is. We've done so millions of times because we lack arguments; and it has never brought the lasting peace it was supposed to.
Use of gun against fellow people = lack of ability to argue. And seeing how amenable and vulnerable everybody is to left vs. right tribalisms makes comprehensive transparency and free access to all information irresponsible. If you disagree and find this elitist, then equip everybody with the most powerful weapons known to man. Including the neighbor of yours dislikes you. Total transparency and freedom is both utopian and naive in this historical context, as we can see from the frequent mass shootings and assassinations (and their attempts) in USA and from weapons history in general.
It is disingenuous to suggest that my concerns stem from a belief that the public is "too stupid." Rather, the issue lies with the simplistic framing and curation of Rogan’s platform and the online world more broadly, which gives disproportionate weight to certain narratives while obscuring or oversimplifying others. This isn't about protecting the public from themselves but about holding accountable those who wield influence over public discourse. For instance, by amplifying certain voices—be they pseudoscientific, conspiratorial, or aligned with particular ideological interests, right or left—Rogan shapes narratives in ways that are neither neutral nor without consequence.
Moreover, the suggestion that the only way people can be exposed to unconventional ideas is through platforms like Rogan’s is deeply cynical and, ironically, elitist in its own way. It assumes that individuals lack the curiosity or capacity to explore challenging ideas without a messianic intermediary. Anybody with a library card—or even a basic internet connection—can access the works of Roger Penrose or Ben Goertzel; or visit some university course online or in person. Elevating Rogan and popular figures like him to godlike status as the sole gateway to these ideas, while ignoring the problematic framing and biases inherent in their platforms, is itself an argument rooted in the very elitism you claim to oppose.
Your assumption about my arguments reflecting progressive or liberal elitism is misplaced. My positions are more nuanced and cannot be neatly categorized into such labels. For example, I support a fiscal union in Europe—a stance that angers my conservative/nationalist friends—because I believe it is essential for remaining globally competitive. At the same time, I advocate for substantial investment in renewables, not through traditional state-led models but through state-of-the-art private-sector-driven financial engineering, incentivized by performance measures controlled by taxpayers and paid for by ECB or EIB.
Giulio Prisco
Your critique of my position as elitist misses the mark and oversimplifies the argument I’ve made. Let me clarify: the problem I outlined is not about withholding "objective truth" from the public or assuming the "masses" are incapable of discernment. It’s about recognizing the real dangers of disinformation and the responsibilities that come with the power to curate influential platforms like Joe Rogan's. I want that discernment to rise to the level where every non-violent person would have access to building any technology/weapon they wish; but would see in historical context how odious and self-defeating raising arms against people is. We've done so millions of times because we lack arguments; and it has never brought the lasting peace it was supposed to.
Use of gun against fellow people = lack of ability to argue. And seeing how amenable and vulnerable everybody is to left vs. right tribalisms makes comprehensive transparency and free access to all information irresponsible. If you disagree and find this elitist, then equip everybody with the most powerful weapons known to man. Including the neighbor of yours dislikes you. Total transparency and freedom is both utopian and naive in this historical context, as we can see from the frequent mass shootings and assassinations (and their attempts) in USA and from weapons history in general.
It is disingenuous to suggest that my concerns stem from a belief that the public is "too stupid." Rather, the issue lies with the simplistic framing and curation of Rogan’s platform and the online world more broadly, which gives disproportionate weight to certain narratives while obscuring or oversimplifying others. This isn't about protecting the public from themselves but about holding accountable those who wield influence over public discourse. For instance, by amplifying certain voices—be they pseudoscientific, conspiratorial, or aligned with particular ideological interests, right or left—Rogan shapes narratives in ways that are neither neutral nor without consequence.
Moreover, the suggestion that the only way people can be exposed to unconventional ideas is through platforms like Rogan’s is deeply cynical and, ironically, elitist in its own way. It assumes that individuals lack the curiosity or capacity to explore challenging ideas without a messianic intermediary. Anybody with a library card—or even a basic internet connection—can access the works of Roger Penrose or Ben Goertzel; or visit some university course online or in person. Elevating Rogan and popular figures like him to godlike status as the sole gateway to these ideas, while ignoring the problematic framing and biases inherent in their platforms, is itself an argument rooted in the very elitism you claim to oppose.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3ec02afc-3321-4e33-b3c3-6f7cc508a9f3n%40googlegroups.com.
PGC
On 2024. Dec 6., Fri at 15:27, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Moreover, the suggestion that the only way people can be exposed to unconventional ideas is through platforms like Rogan’s is deeply cynical and, ironically, elitist in its own way. It assumes that individuals lack the curiosity or capacity to explore challenging ideas without a messianic intermediary. Anybody with a library card—or even a basic internet connection—can access the works of Roger Penrose or Ben Goertzel; or visit some university course online or in person. Elevating Rogan and popular figures like him to godlike status as the sole gateway to these ideas, while ignoring the problematic framing and biases inherent in their platforms, is itself an argument rooted in the very elitism you claim to oppose.
Touché! This is a good point.
This highlights why reducing political discourse solely to pragmatism is dangerous as history continues to demonstrate. Pragmatism alone evaluates actions by their outcomes but neglects the underlying metaphysical assumptions driving those actions. Politics cannot be judged merely on "what it does"; it must also be scrutinized for the implicit models of reality, human nature, and society that it operates from. Without this clarity, we risk normalizing a form of pragmatic cynicism that absolves opportunistic actors of accountability while enabling destructive policies to persist.
An atomic bomb, for instance, may be an incredible feat of engineering, but the central question is who these engineers and decision-makers think they are, what they think reality is, and how they perceive others. Without interrogating these metaphysical assumptions, the decisions surrounding its use become unmoored from ethical accountability. Justifying everything in the name of self-defense for example... who defends the selves who will die as a result? Will you pay their families compensation? Why are you entitled to self-defense, but not your soldiers, their extended families etc. on both sides? It’s not just about what we do or whether it “works” but whether those wielding such power have the epistemic and moral clarity to act responsibly.
The same applies across the board. When media, politicians, or institutions fail to make their assumptions explicit (and therefore keep them shielded from criticism), we enable a culture where opportunistic cynics, who always have easy answers, dominate; their actions excused by appeals to allegedly the best outcomes, rather than principles. We cannot afford to remain passive in this regard; scrutinizing the metaphysical clarity—or lack thereof—in politics and media is not a luxury but a necessity for safeguarding democratic and ethical governance. Hold them accountable for what they assume and see if they can explain it to children and adults without deflecting.
Giulio Prisco
On Friday, December 6, 2024 at 6:15:36 PM UTC+1 Giulio Prisco wrote:On 2024. Dec 6., Fri at 15:27, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Moreover, the suggestion that the only way people can be exposed to unconventional ideas is through platforms like Rogan’s is deeply cynical and, ironically, elitist in its own way. It assumes that individuals lack the curiosity or capacity to explore challenging ideas without a messianic intermediary. Anybody with a library card—or even a basic internet connection—can access the works of Roger Penrose or Ben Goertzel; or visit some university course online or in person. Elevating Rogan and popular figures like him to godlike status as the sole gateway to these ideas, while ignoring the problematic framing and biases inherent in their platforms, is itself an argument rooted in the very elitism you claim to oppose.
Touché! This is a good point.We agree on one point. Strangest thing to ever happen on this list. Everybody, it can be done!
I can kill some "woke" nonsense: The same critique of platforms like Joe Rogan’s applies equally to establishments like The New York Times or other influential media.
The claim of fact-checking as a safeguard is insufficient. Facts/proofs are always relative to some theoretical framework, and the failure of all sides—whether left, right, green, establishment, outsiders —to make their frameworks explicit is deeply unscientific and intellectually dishonest.This highlights why reducing political discourse solely to pragmatism is dangerous as history continues to demonstrate. Pragmatism alone evaluates actions by their outcomes but neglects the underlying metaphysical assumptions driving those actions. Politics cannot be judged merely on "what it does"; it must also be scrutinized for the implicit models of reality, human nature, and society that it operates from. Without this clarity, we risk normalizing a form of pragmatic cynicism that absolves opportunistic actors of accountability while enabling destructive policies to persist.
An atomic bomb, for instance, may be an incredible feat of engineering, but the central question is who these engineers and decision-makers think they are, what they think reality is, and how they perceive others. Without interrogating these metaphysical assumptions, the decisions surrounding its use become unmoored from ethical accountability. Justifying everything in the name of self-defense for example... who defends the selves who will die as a result? Will you pay their families compensation? Why are you entitled to self-defense, but not your soldiers, their extended families etc. on both sides? It’s not just about what we do or whether it “works” but whether those wielding such power have the epistemic and moral clarity to act responsibly.
The same applies across the board. When media, politicians, or institutions fail to make their assumptions explicit (and therefore keep them shielded from criticism), we enable a culture where opportunistic cynics, who always have easy answers, dominate; their actions excused by appeals to allegedly the best outcomes, rather than principles. We cannot afford to remain passive in this regard; scrutinizing the metaphysical clarity—or lack thereof—in politics and media is not a luxury but a necessity for safeguarding democratic and ethical governance. Hold them accountable for what they assume and see if they can explain it to children and adults without deflecting.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21af2501-efbe-4a4c-ad49-5e072028ffa4n%40googlegroups.com.
PGC
On 2024. Dec 7., Sat at 15:10, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:I can kill some "woke" nonsense: The same critique of platforms like Joe Rogan’s applies equally to establishments like The New York Times or other influential media.Exactly. At this moment I consider the flaws of the “right” a necessary counterbalance to those of the “left.” Of course we can negotiate, but there must be fairness and concessions on both sides.
Your suggestion that the flaws of the right are a necessary counterbalance to those of the left rests on a flawed premise: the assumption that political ideologies can be reduced to a binary system where one side perpetually balances the other, like weights on a scale. This reductive framework fails to account for the complexities of history, governance, and human behavior, ultimately obscuring more than it clarifies. While the right is often associated with stability and tradition, its historical track record includes the preservation of oppressive systems such as monarchies, apartheid, and segregation. Conversely, the left’s efforts to redistribute power and resources have led to transformative changes like the abolition of slavery and the expansion of civil rights but have also faltered when overzealous policies disregarded individual freedoms. Neither side inherently balances the other, and both possess the capacity for flawed thinking. What is missing from your analysis is the recognition that clear principles, not reactionary balancing, are necessary for meaningful progress.
Without a transparent metaphysical framework—a set of principles about human nature, society, and governance—political discourse devolves into tribal competition. Leaders and movements justify any action, no matter how self-serving, by comparing themselves favorably to the "other side" rather than holding themselves to consistent standards. For instance, the 20th-century Cold War arms race relied on the logic of counterbalancing, resulting in a precarious world built on mutual threats of annihilation rather than long-term ethical reasoning. Similarly, modern populist movements weaponize "us vs. them" narratives to frame complex societal challenges in simplistic, emotionally charged terms. Right-wing populists stoke fears of cultural erosion without addressing systemic causes of inequality, while left-wing populists may frame opposition as oppression, neglecting the importance of dialogue. This tendency toward reactionary thinking on both sides demonstrates why accountability must rest on principles, not tribalism.
The most catastrophic events in history have arisen not from efforts to achieve equality but from the tribalistic "othering" of human beings. World wars, colonialism, and apartheid were all rooted in the belief that some groups were inherently superior, leading to exploitation, violence, and cultural destruction. By contrast, movements for equality—despite occasional overreach—have advanced society without the catastrophic costs of tribalistic ideologies. The push for equality may stumble in implementation, but its errors pale in comparison to the devastation wrought by those who kill or oppress in the name of national, cultural, or tribal pride. Recognizing our shared humanity should guide us toward solutions that transcend ideological divides.
Both right and left operate from implicit models of reality, yet they often leave these assumptions unstated. The right may lean on hierarchical models that emphasize competition and tradition, while the left focuses on systemic models that prioritize equality and collective responsibility. Clarity about these assumptions is essential for progress. For example, a left-leaning policy to address income inequality must consider the right’s concerns about preserving individual incentives, while a right-leaning push for deregulation must address valid concerns about environmental and social costs. Articulating these foundations allows us to move beyond ideological combat and toward problem-solving grounded in shared principles.
Game theory illustrates the danger of rigidly adhering to one strategy, whether perpetual aggression or constant compromise. Success requires adaptability, and politics is no exception. Prescribing a blanket approach of counterbalancing assumes a static landscape, but political and social systems are dynamic. Simplistic “right vs. left” thinking prevents the adaptability needed to address challenges on their merits and align strategies with long-term goals. The idea that the flaws of one side balance the flaws of the other ignores this reality and perpetuates cycles of reactionary conflict.