Kastrup crybabies out of debate

[Hojo]

big ego

you are there to debate and entertain and educate kurts viewers on potentially god. cant believe he let that hurt him.

just laugh or forget about it. big let down for his buddy kurt

he a baby

Edited October 5, 2023 by Hojo

[Carl-Richard]

13 hours ago, Sigrun said:

@Carl-Richard What do you think "grotesque" means? As in, what context would you use it in, and what is it synonymous with in your mind?

"Very ugly". In the context of scientific theories, and given that scientific naturalism relies on some form of empirical evidence to validate theories, a theory that makes empirical claims and has absolutely no evidence to show for it, could be described as grotesque.

[Sigrun]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Very ugly". In the context of scientific theories, and given that scientific naturalism relies on some form of empirical evidence to validate theories, a theory that makes empirical claims and has absolutely no evidence to show for it, could be described as grotesque.

Sure, it's quite a stretch, but it can, just like Chernobyl could be described as "an oopsie"...

However in reality it's much more fitting to use it when things like very ugly/disgusting just doesn't cut it, for example necrophilia/gore porn, hell, it's even the name of a horror movie where a sadistic doctor kidnaps a couple on a date and methodically tortures them to death with no explanation to them whatsoever, but I guess you could also use the word "mean" to describe his actions...

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Sigrun said:

Sure, it's quite a stretch, but it can, just like Chernobyl could be described as "an oopsie"...

However in reality it's much more fitting to use it when things like very ugly/disgusting just doesn't cut it, for example necrophilia/gore porn, hell, it's even the name of a horror movie where a sadistic doctor kidnaps a couple on a date and methodically tortures them to death with no explanation to them whatsoever, but I guess you could also use the word "mean" to describe his actions...

I think "extremely ugly" would also be fitting for what Bernardo was describing. You can't get any more extreme than zero empirical evidence.

[Sigrun]

21 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think "extremely ugly" would also be fitting for what Bernardo was describing. You can't get any more extreme than zero empirical evidence.

Be that as it may, to not expect it to be perceived as provocation is "just silly"

Edit: You can go as much into semantics you want, but if you simply read the first post I made, you'll see that all I'm talking about here is the social aspect of this debate. Kastrup was a fool for not expecting Tim to see that as a provocation, and an even bigger fool in how he reacted.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Sigrun

[Carl-Richard]

24 minutes ago, Sigrun said:

Be that as it may, to not expect it to be perceived as provocation is "just silly"

Edit: You can go as much into semantics you want, but if you simply read the first post I made, you'll see that all I'm talking about here is the social aspect of this debate. Kastrup was a fool for not expecting Tim to see that as a provocation, and an even bigger fool in how he reacted.

I mean, Bernardo routinely says stuff like that in all of his live appearances. It was only Tim that responded that way. So you can flip it around that way too.

[Sigrun]

11 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I mean, Bernardo routinely says stuff like that in all of his live appearances. It was only Tim that responded that way. So you can flip it around that way too.

Can you dig up some examples contextually similar to this? Meaning ones where Kastrup insinuates that the person he's talking to has a worldview based on grotesque theoretical fantasies, time stamped too please, it's your claim so the burden rests on your shoulders.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Sigrun said:

Can you dig up some examples contextually similar to this? Meaning ones where Kastrup insinuates that the person he's talking to has a worldview based on grotesque theoretical fantasies, time stamped too please, it's your claim so the burden rests on your shoulders.

As he said in his blog post, he wasn't referring to or insinuating anything about the person in the conversation. He was responding to the ideas of his intellectual opposition in response to the question Curt asked him. It was Tim that took it personally. He didn't know anything about Tim's work before the discussion. He didn't know he was such a fan of the theories he was criticizing, and you shouldn't just assume that, as not everybody is a fan of those theories (even among real physicists, which he is not by the way ?). If anybody is being social inept, it's you guys ?

But sure:

18:07

"[...], and probably, it's a flat-out appeal to magic". What is more insulting to a naturalist than that? And again, he gives a principled reason for calling it that (this time explicitly). But do you care? I mean, if it just comes off as insulting, it surely must be socially unaware behavior, right?

Edited October 7, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

On 2023-10-05 at 1:15 PM, Carl-Richard said:

The New Yorker energy probably threw him off. It's not always what is being said, but how it's being said that can determine the perceived civility of the discussion. Bernardo said (after a long string of civil argumentation) "[...] willing to entertain sometimes grotesque theoretical fantasies [...]" in a very calm and laid-back tone, while Tim opened with "that's silly!" as if he had been coming off a sprint and went on to say things like "what do you even mean by physical realism?! ". Of course, on a purely analytical level and stripped from all contextual nuance, what Bernardo said in the beginning was pretty much equivalent to what Tim responded with. You can say that the pure substance of what was said by both was not civil (and that Bernardo started it), but the emotional tone and general presentation was completely different. Bernardo did of course get (overly) emotional in response, but that's because Tim was additionally not being civil in the emotional sense. A part of the point of being civil is to not create excess noise that clouds the underlying points, and the emotional tone is a big part of that.

   I agree, as I've analyzed both people's body languages, tonality, and word choices, certainly an underlying emotional attacking going off. Yes technically verbally Bernardo Kastrup's 'willing to entertain sometimes grotesque theoretical fantasies', verbatim as a statement is pretty aggressive yet the tonal delivery is calm, and aligns with his intro and his opening statements. Yes, that New York tonality can be felt like aggressive, so when the last 2-3 minutes escalated. Personal note it's nice seeing scientists get mad, get mad, get in touch with your humanity, good! I wished Kastrup went harder against that energy and attacked him a bit more, trigger him more. 'Grotesque theoretical fantasies', what a nice attack line!

   I felt like they did a switch, Bernardo exchanged the calm tone for aggressive wording, and the science guy kept the calm statements but aggressive energy. An asymmetrical swap of tone and word style.

   If anything, it's another example of how egoic scientists and rationalists are. Also, the elephant in this room, curt, half the video of advertising and pimping himself up like come on. His tone doesn't add up. It's my same feeling and intuition with Lex Fridman, maybe these rationalist and scientist types with their monotone communications isn't attracting me.

[Danioover9000]

   In all seriousness, why did Curt Jaimungal pimp himself for half the video, advertise himself for 15 minutes?! Just close the video in under 5, why call to actin so hard?

[Danioover9000]

  @Carl-Richard and @Scholar, I think I have a favorite line and theory and dad joke: GTFO! GROTESQUE THEORETICAL FANTASIES ONLINE!(Or ON-MIND)

   Get it?

[UnbornTao]

Haha, he's rationalising his emotional reaction. He could have said "I reacted like a child", and that would be it. I guess there are other social interests at hand such as reputation and the like, so apologising is appropriate. I just find it funny.

Edited October 7, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

@UnbornTao Of course he got emotional. That is conceded territory. He is explaining why.

[Princess Arabia]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

   In all seriousness, why did Curt Jaimungal pimp himself for half the video, advertise himself for 15 minutes?! Just close the video in under 5, why call to actin so hard?

Ever considered maybe he had a time limit for the video and it was scheduled to end at a particular time. A lot of these podcasts do have a certain time frame that they allot for filming.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Princess Arabia

[UnbornTao]

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@UnbornTao Of course he got emotional. That is conceded territory. He is explaining why.

 I suspected you were going to be the first one to respond. I've noticed you admire his work. 

In the moment, he likely got hurt -- ouch! -- and wanted to run away from the situation.

His explanation for having acted childishly may be misleading; I think that it is mostly a clever rationalization. Like a kid who tries to justify to his mother why he didn't make his bed, making his case with smart and convincing arguments.  

Not saying he's a childish individual btw. This game is amusing to me, nothing serious.

Edited October 7, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

37 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Just found the situation funny.

Also I'm suggesting it was an emotional reaction, the reasons he's giving are not actually what happened -- they're a pretext or clever justification.

In the moment he probably got hurt by what he heard, and that's the gist of it -- "Ouch!"

You can see this when a kid tries to justify to his mother having done something wrong, making his case with intelligent arguments for why he didn't make his bed.   His mind is trying to get away with it.

Of course. Everything is irreducible non-duality for you  

 

37 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Haha, I also suspected you were going to be the first one to respond.  I've noticed you admire his work.

I'm very aware that I'm defending somebody I like.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Of course. Everything is irreducible non-duality for you  

Nahh.

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm very aware that I'm defending somebody I like.

Of course. Just pointing out something I noticed.

[Danioover9000]

@Princess Arabia 

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

Ever considered maybe he had a time limit for the video and it was scheduled to end at a particular time. A lot of these podcasts do have a certain time frame that they allot for filming.

   I did, maybe I wasn't clear, let me elaborate. I just found it strange for Curt to do a 15 minute motivational speak ad for his podcast after the catastrophe that is Bernardo Kastrup rage quitting a debate because Tim said 'it's so silly', to Kastrup's 'Grotesque theoretical fantasies', it's just funny to me, maybe he shouldn't have posted the video if it turned out bad, I don't know, I can't see myself filming this and go 'Yeah, it's pretty bad but I'm gonna share it and plug my Channel at the end!'. To me it shows me in also a bad light because I just hosted a train wreck, and who wants to be perceived as hosting a train wreck? Maybe most people, maybe someone who values excellence and excellent coverage.

   It could be I have problems relating to people like Curt, or Lex Fridman, the more left brained people, just little empathy and click there. I swear, the last thing you'll see me doing is some cringe, corny, whack rap song or diss track, and I value excellence so production, sound quality, and bars will at least be decent, not Emcee or Eminem/Kayne West level rapping and music, but at least decent to hear.

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

  @Carl-Richard and @Scholar, I think I have a favorite line and theory and dad joke: GTFO! GROTESQUE THEORETICAL FANTASIES ONLINE!(Or ON-MIND)

   Get it?

My brain melted.

[Scholar]

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

"[...], and probably, it's a flat-out appeal to magic". What is more insulting to a naturalist than that? And again, he gives a principled reason for calling it that (this time explicitly). But do you care? I mean, if it just comes off as insulting, it surely must be socially unaware behavior, right?

It absolutely is different.

But even if it was the same, just because some people don't react the same to your provocation does not mean you should be surprised when eventually someone does. You, similar to Kastrup, are way too logical about this, and you are just missing how human beings work, it's just completely obvious if you are not so stuck in your mind.

 

The hypocrisy is, if you are going to be so logic brained as to not admit to the obvious thing that is happening here, then you can't also at the same time be an emotional cry baby whose voice shakes from anger because the other person reacted in an arrogant manner. If you want to be the hyperrational robot then at least be consistent about it, otherwise you just seem childish.

 

 

Leo is also provocative with his speech, but imagine if Leo were to debate someone, make the statements he usually does, and then get completely furious at his opponent at the first glance of hostility. That would be mindblowingly immature.

What Kastrup did was socially clumsy even if nothing had happened.

 

Kastrup, if he had sufficient emotional maturity, could have easily laughed the arrogant response off, and cheekily apologizes to calling his opponents position groteqsue and moved on. If the other person were still this upset, he could have at some point said "Okay we clearly are not able to have a conversation here anymore, I don't know if it makes sense to continue.".

 But his ego got so riled up he immediately locked up and even refused any sort of explanation or attempt of reconciliation, even though the other person attempted to do so once he realized how absurdly upset Kastrup got, trying to explain himself "I only did this because you started it with the insulting language!".

The mature thing at that point is to recognize the miscommunication and try to move on, instead of being a stubborn crybaby.

 

The reality is, Kastrup takes himself way too seriously, he has a huge ego, and the sad thing is people even encourage it in him, praising him in conversation as if he was the second coming of Christ. The guy is not that special, he is arguing against an untenable position. This isn't the type of thing that requires genius.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Scholar