Episode 2159 Scott Adams: Happy 4th Of July, Americans, Let's Talk About Some Fun Stuff & Sip Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Fun stuff & sipping
Politics, President Trump, VP Biden, Instagram Threads App, Insolvent Insurance Companies, Insolvent Banks, Ukrainian Drones, California Reparations Taskforce, Soledad O'Brien, Joy Reid, Whitehouse Cocaine, Hunter Biden, George Soros, Free Will, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization and maybe even American history.
Happy Fourth of July to all Americans and people who like Americans.
I don't know why, but you do.
And maybe you'll be an American someday, too.
Who knows?
Could happen.
But today, if you would like to take your Fourth of July experience to levels that have never been seen by anybody in the entire world, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, gels, or styne, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite Liquid, I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the 4th of July dopamine hit that you've been waiting for.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip and it happens... now.
Ah.
Delightful.
Alright, um, well...
The news is a little bit slow.
A little bit slow.
So if we run out of things to talk about and you still want to do a little more, I'll fire up spaces so that we can take some collars and talk about free will and is music a dangerous drug?
But that's only if we have time.
Let's talk about the news.
This is a big story.
It doesn't seem like a big story, but I like to get the stories early.
before they grow into something big, and that's really what I'm famous for.
I'm famous for identifying things earlier than other people identify them.
And here's one, I don't think anybody's called this out yet.
There was a study done on monkeys, and they gave them a natural substance called a clotho, or something, K-L-O-T-H-O, and they found that it substantially made the monkeys' cognitive abilities improve.
Their cognitive ability has improved.
I'm just going to say, let's stop there.
All right.
All right, we've improved the monkey's cognitive ability by, you know, X percentage.
Maybe we should just call that good.
You know?
I mean, you know, it could get out of hand.
Let's just say I've seen the movie.
And making monkeys smarter never works out well.
That never works out.
Don't make the monkeys smarter.
That's all.
Did you see the Trump rally?
There's a clip of President Trump, he's mocking Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
He was saying Joe Biden was bad at everything, but he was a good vice president because he kissed Obama's ass.
Big applause line.
Big applause line.
And you know, the thing that I say about Trump... There you go, Herbert, you're gone.
Thanks for being an asshole on the 4th of July.
That makes you a double asshole.
If you're an asshole on the 4th of July, you get a double.
All right.
The thing I love about Trump, and which binds him to his audience, is he says out loud the part that you are thinking.
He does that better than any politician.
You're thinking it, and then it just comes out of his mouth exactly the way you were thinking it.
I always thought that Joe Biden's vice presidency was entirely about kissing Barack Obama's ass.
That's what it looked like.
It looked like he was adding nothing but kissing his ass.
And, oh, we're so friends, and he's my friend.
Oh, my friend, he's my best friend.
We're friends.
We're such good friends.
And it just looked all creepy and weird.
And then Trump just calls it out.
It's like, he was only a good vice president because he kissed Obama's ass.
And I thought, OK, that's exactly what I thought.
That's not even slightly not what I thought.
That's exactly what I thought.
Anyway, it's just funny when he does that.
He's the master of that.
You know, I've said this before, but Trump will never get the credit he's due for being one of the best writers of our time.
Did you ever think about that?
I mean, I'm sure he had ghost writers for his books and stuff.
I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about, you know, when he ad-libs, when he gives a response to something, when he writes a tweet.
Just his phrasing and the points of, I don't know, the points of leverage he goes after are different from everybody's.
There's nobody who writes like him or talks like him.
Nobody.
And you'd think by now that people would, because it's obviously working.
So if you could imitate that, you would.
I mean, somebody would.
Not me.
But somebody would.
It's just, it's literally, you can't imitate it.
He's just operating in his own little zone of weird effectiveness that nobody even knows why it works in some cases.
But, you know, maybe someday he'll get his due.
His verbal command is just off the charts.
It's just crazy.
All right.
So it looks like Meta, once known as Facebook, is going to is going to announce its Twitter competitor product.
It's going to be called Threads, and it's going to come out on Thursday, they say, maybe.
And the pundits are saying it could be a big deal.
Now, what's different about it is that it's going to have some kind of connection with Instagram, so it can immediately take your Instagram traffic over to your other app.
Now, that's a really big deal.
That's like a really, really big deal.
But here's what I think they may have not thought through.
Twitter, correct me if I'm wrong, but Twitter attracts an entirely different kind of person than Instagram.
Now, most people have both.
If you're in social media, you probably have both.
But don't you use one way more than the other?
The people who have 4 million followers on Instagram, unless they're also a big star in another way, they don't have big Twitter, and vice versa.
I mean, I've got nearly a million people on Twitter, and last I checked, I think my Instagram was 15,000?
Something like that?
Now, I'm not really an Instagram person, meaning that there's nothing I could do to grow my Instagram by traffic.
Well, I suppose I could go full Andrew Tate.
That would do it.
But no, even that wouldn't work.
At my current age, you'd still have to have the physicality of a younger, good-looking guy.
So I couldn't match Tate in the younger, good-looking guy category.
So he's sort of an ideal Instagram personality.
He's got the visual persuasion.
He's got that lockdown.
I'm going to throw this consideration into the mix.
I don't think those two groups mix.
And I think that if you take the Instagram people and move them to something that looks like a Twitter, it's not going to be very interesting.
It will just be people having to repost the same thing they posted.
So your Instagram influencer isn't going to start coming up with a political game.
Because they got a new tool.
They're going to do what they're doing and then just repost it in the other place.
Now, that could be enough for lots of traffic.
I mean, that might be enough.
But I don't see it competing with Twitter for the political opinion stuff.
It might just get a lot of traffic of people showing naughty pictures in the food.
I've got a feeling that Twitter is where the people are going to go to debate, and this new thing is where they're going to go to see the second time that they see that same picture from that Instagram woman.
Well, I saw it over on Instagram.
Well, it checks threads.
Okay, same picture.
Same picture.
Because why wouldn't it?
The influencers are not going to do separate content.
They're just going to mirror their content in the other platform, because it's easy to do.
So, I don't know.
I don't see a dethroning Twitter in terms of influence.
It might be successful, but in terms of political influence, social influence, we'll see.
But Zuckerberg's got a good track record with this stuff, so we can assume that it's at least competently put together.
I was listening to a bunch of smart people scare the pants off me about insurance companies and banks all being insolvent.
Which apparently is true.
Our entire insurance industry and all of our banking, they're all worth nothing at the moment.
Like actually worth nothing.
If you were going to buy any big bank or any big insurance company, if you could get them to sell it to you for $1, they would.
If they could get rid of their debts and sell their whole business to you for $1, they can't, because they can't get rid of all their debts.
But if they could, they would.
They're actually worth nothing.
The entire both industries are worth nothing.
Actually nothing.
They're worth less than nothing.
And the credit or blame for that is being given to the Fed.
So the Fed, of course, set a... I'll give you the idiot's simple explanation.
You don't need the complicated one.
The simple explanation is that the Fed sets interest rates, and both insurance companies and banks had... they must have a number of business concerns and investments of their own, which were at lower interest rate returns.
So as soon as the interest rate was higher than their returns, They just can't make money.
It's basically impossible.
So the Fed put banks and insurance companies into non-existence in terms of their value.
They still function.
And I don't know exactly how this works.
You know, having a degree in economics isn't helping me here at all.
Because we've never been here.
There's nobody who can say, well, the last three times we were in this situation, we've never really been here.
But I'll give you my highest level, you know, assumptions.
When something's this big, usually there's plenty of energy to fix it.
So the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters should be enough.
You know, I always say that if you can see a problem coming from far away, if you've got enough time, you can do your workarounds and your fixes.
And we're very good at that.
We almost always succeed if we have time.
So the only thing I worry about are things I didn't see coming, such as a pandemic.
Right.
I know there were people in the world who were preparing, but generally speaking, the world wasn't ready for that at all.
I worry about the things I don't see coming.
But this one we do see.
All the smartest people are seeing it very clearly.
It's in the news.
We see it coming.
So probably there's a way to keep those things open long enough that interest rates adjust, and their pricing adjusts, and the market adjusts.
Probably.
Who knows?
All right.
Let's see.
I saw some... I didn't have this in my notes, but I just saw it.
I saw somebody speculating that Romania has already, probably, gotten control of the Tate brothers' crypto, their Bitcoin.
But they would not have been able to get anything that was on a physical wallet, you know, like an actual metal wallet.
But you would think that they might even be able to Coerce them to give up all their codes and passwords and stuff.
I don't know.
So remember when they first got picked up?
Do you remember my speculation?
Part of my speculation was that the entire play was just to steal their Bitcoin.
And it was just a corrupt government who was going to work them over until they gave up their Bitcoin.
And then they'd let them go.
Or put them in jail or something.
But to me it looked like government theft.
And I don't know if it is.
It's too early to say that.
But I'd be really surprised if the amount of Bitcoin that they had when they went into prison, or under custody, is the same as when they're done with us.
And I don't mean because they spent it or gave it away.
I just feel like the government's trying to claw some of that into their own pockets.
Just because it's Romania.
Don't know.
Pure speculation.
But I'd be real surprised if they come out of it whole.
All right.
Moscow says they've shot down five Ukrainian drones.
Do you believe that there were five Ukrainian drones over Moscow?
Do you believe that?
Now, there was the one reported one.
Reported.
I don't know.
I don't know about this.
And they got all five, right?
They got all five.
Yeah.
Now, you might say, I wonder if that's the Wagner Group?
Because I told you that what should be going on is decapitation efforts all over the place.
So you should assume that Putin is still trying to kill Zelensky if he can.
You should assume that Zelensky is going to try to take down Putin, if they can.
I mean, if they had a way to do it.
You can assume that the Wagner group probably has some people and some traitors who would take down Putin if they could.
Putin did his first public appearance, I guess, since some of the badness started.
His first one in a while, but it was on Zoom.
So the first time you see Putin, after a number of days since the last time you saw him, he's on Zoom.
Do you think Putin's worried about his own security?
Yeah, and those drones are all you need.
I mean, all it takes is one drone to get through, if they know where he is.
And do you think that if you're Putin, it's kind of hard to move around without people knowing where you are?
Don't you think there's always somebody who knows where Putin is?
I mean, you know, beyond his bodyguards.
So, you would think that he couldn't move anywhere without some number of people, and probably a big number of people.
I mean, there could be a hundred people, you know, maybe a hundred people at least, probably more than that.
I'll bet if Putin moves, let's say, from his Dasha to somewhere else, I'll bet there's closer to a few hundred people who are aware of it.
And you think that after all these years we don't have one, not even one, of those hundreds of people in our pocket?
Not one?
For an unlimited amount of money for that information?
All they have to do is, you know, they don't even have to make a phone call.
They just have to tell their friend.
Psst.
Hey.
Could you, you know, there's no connection between us.
Can you go drop a phone call to the American Embassy?
Something like that.
Now, that's not the way you do it, because all their communications to the embassy is, I'm sure, monitored.
All right.
Yeah, maybe the bodyguards wouldn't turn, but there's got to be somebody who works in food services or something.
Somebody, maybe the motor pool people.
I mean, if you worked in the motor pool for You know, the Putin entourage, you probably know where he's going, right?
Because you've got to get the stuff ready to go wherever it needs to go.
So, I think it's a big old decapitation game over there.
Everybody's trying to take out the other leaders, more so than ever.
All right, well, the California Reparations Task Force, also known as the most ridiculous organization ever created, Who perhaps still thinks anybody's going to take their recommendations.
They've upped their ask and now they want to ask for child support for black people to be suspended so that their child support debts would be wiped clean just for black Americans.
So they probably got done with asking for their millions of dollars.
And they're like, oh, shoot.
Did anybody think to throw in that child support thing?
Oh, it's not too late.
It's not too late.
So they threw that in there, too.
Do you think that in their minds they think some of this is going to happen?
Do you think that the reparations task force has created in their minds a little world in which some portion of what they're going to ask for is going to happen?
I'll bet they have.
Because they're acting like they think it's going to happen, and they're making sure the details are taken care of.
I can't even imagine it.
In my wildest imagination, I can't imagine this happening.
I mean, it would be the one thing that could turn California Republican.
Maybe.
I mean, I suppose anything's possible.
All right, let's talk about all the racists in the world.
So Soledad O'Brien's getting some heat on social media.
Because she didn't like the way that Asian Americans won their victory in affirmative action so that they were no longer discriminated against for higher education.
And this is what Soledad O'Brien said about this victory of fairness and equality.
Congrats on screwing over other people of color, ma'am.
Particularly those whose efforts in civil rights paved the way for your family to come to America.
So, social media is calling Soledad O'Brien a big ol' racist.
That would be based on the fact that she's saying big racist stuff.
So, I mean, that's pretty racist.
I don't know how you could see it any other way.
How would you see this any other way than racist?
I can't think of any other way.
I'll tell you my own Soledad O'Brien story.
Many years ago, I don't know, 25 years ago or something, I met her when she had a less famous job before she broke through.
She was on some local TV show.
And I hung out with her just like a little bit between scenes and stuff, between takes I guess, whatever it is, between something.
I got a weird feeling from her.
Which you don't get from everybody.
But I got such a weird creepy feeling from her.
So in person she's kind of creepy.
I don't know.
So I got a vibe like I can't explain but it stayed with me for decades.
All right, let's talk about our other racist, Joy Reid.
She may not have liked my Robots Read News comic that featured her, but MSNBC decided to retweet their article about me being a big ol' racist provocateur.
I don't know, I assume it was just some kind of revenge-y holiday thing that they were doing.
I love having MSNBC and Joy Reid go after me because I don't think anybody thinks she's not a racist, do they?
She's literally the world's most famous racist on TV.
Wouldn't you say she's the biggest racist on television?
If you were going to say, of people who are regularly on television, she would be the number one racist.
She's the one who's direct about it and consistent.
So, I don't know, I don't mind that at all.
So I reprinted, I republished my Robots Read News about Joy Read.
Anyway, this is just holiday stuff.
Of course, when I retweeted it, I had to remind people that there's no news about public figures, that's true.
I'm having a good time saying that.
Every time on social media somebody comes after me for, oh, you said that racist thing, all I have to do is say, you know that there's no news about public figures, it's true, right?
Or at least they leave out context.
And it basically makes the whole thing stop.
Because nobody wants to be so dumb that they believe the news in 2023.
There's no Republican, no Democrat, who's willing to say in public, I believe the news.
Think about it.
Just think about the fact that I could accuse people of believing news, and they'll back off immediately.
I'll just say it again, because that's so amazing.
We've gotten to the point where all I do is say, you believe the news.
The news.
So you believe the news is giving you the full story there.
And people would just be embarrassed that they ever believe the news.
Now, I make it more persuasive by limiting it to about public figures.
Because obviously, if the news says there's a war in Ukraine, well, yeah, there's a war in Ukraine.
They might get the details wrong, but there's a war in Ukraine.
But when they talk about public figures, they might get one or two facts right.
For example, if there's a divorce, they might get that right.
But they're not going to know anything about why there was a divorce, or who did what, or how the people feel about each other, whether or not any third party was involved, any of that stuff.
They don't know that.
And they would never know that.
But it won't stop them from running the story.
So yeah, Joy Reid is the most ridiculous figure in the media, but I love the fact that she's getting, that she actually made the best argument against affirmative action anybody ever made, which is she said she would not be where she is without it.
To which I say, okay, We probably should have prevented her from being on TV.
Because I'm not opposed to her because she has different opinions than I do, just to be clear.
I'm not saying she has, oh, those left-leaning Democrat opinions.
I'm not even sure what her opinions are, except, I mean, I'm sure they're left-leaning.
I have no quibble.
Or quarrel with her about her opinions.
There are tons of Americans who have different opinions.
I don't dislike them in any way.
But she's a ridiculous racist.
She's a ridiculous racist.
And she's just on TV every day like it's not happening.
So that's sort of a whole different situation.
Anyway.
Favorite story of the day is that cocaine was found in the White House, so they immediately evacuated the White House.
Why would you evacuate the White House?
I guess they had to figure out if it was cocaine first.
Maybe they thought it was poison.
But here's the best part of the story.
Now obviously, can we just say, Hunter, Hunter, Hunter, Hunter?
It's too irresistible to connect Hunter visiting recently the White House, and also recently some cocaine was found in the White House.
So I get it, I get it.
Can we all just say, can we stipulate that Hunter Biden was there, cocaine was there, and that's a funny coincidence?
I just wanted to get that established so that you don't yell Hunter, Hunter at me in the comments like you are right now.
I got it.
I got this.
I got this.
You don't need to be saying Hunter, Hunter in the comments anymore.
Got it.
Cocaine, Hunter.
Connected.
The dots are connected.
I got it.
You can stop now.
Alright, alright.
But here's the funniest part of the story.
Is that some are suggesting that there's so many staffers on cocaine that it could have been anybody.
Not anybody, but there's so many people it could have been.
My favorite is that it was Joe Biden.
Because have you ever wondered how they pump him up with something just before he speaks in public?
Do you imagine that he's not getting a little extra, a little extra energy right before he goes in public?
You don't think that's happening?
You don't think there's any kind of little, just a little extra?
You don't think the doctor's there with the needle or the pill like an hour before he speaks?
I don't think there's any chance he's going up there naturally.
I don't.
I mean, I'm sure it's legal, whatever it's doing.
I don't think it's illegal.
But it's funny to imagine that they had to give him cocaine every time he talked.
And now I'm replaying all of the Joe Biden speeches recently, and I'm asking myself, is that how you'd act if you were on cocaine?
Because cocaine is not anything I have experience with.
So I don't know exactly how you act, except, you know, More energy, more talkative, maybe more alive, something like that.
But that seems like it'd be the perfect drug for Joe Biden, doesn't it?
Just wake him up enough to get some confidence, give his little speech and stuff, and then go back to sleep.
I don't know.
Well, we'll never know whose cocaine it was, but it's a fun story.
Get the cocaine out of the White House and Trump back in.
All right.
So we heard that the younger Soros, who's taking over the Open Society for his dad, George Soros, he's going to cut 40% of his staff, but not change what he's doing.
He's still going to go after election integrity and abortion, or the right to choose, I guess you would call it.
So he wants to support those things.
And he'll support liberal politicians still, he says.
But he didn't say anything about prosecutors.
Is a prosecutor a politician?
Technically, right?
I mean, they're elected.
If they're elected, they're a politician.
You don't really think of them that way, do you?
So I feel like he keeps getting a pass by the media, not asked about the DAs.
Because that's the big thing, the prosecutors.
So here's a big old news story about him that doesn't mention prosecutors.
Big old news story.
Doesn't mention that.
Seems like that would be the biggest thing to mention.
All right.
I'm going to start a Spaces.
So if you want to hear it you could listen to just the audio on Spaces.
I'll start it in a moment.
But you can watch it right where you are.
So I'm going to.
So here's what the Spaces will be.
The title of it is Free Will and Illusion, and is music a dangerous drug?
Talking about hip-hop in particular, but music in general.
So I'm going to start it now.
All right.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Spaces.
I'm doing this also on YouTube and also on the Locals platform.
And the topic is, is free will an illusion?
And is music a dangerous drug?
They're sort of related topics, but you could take either one.
Now, I warn you in advance that whenever I talk about free will being an illusion, What normally happens is when people argue that it exists, they argue with what I call word thinking.
Now, word thinking is where there's no logic there, but it's like the new AI.
It's just looking for word patterns, and it confuses that as thinking.
So, for example, if I say, free will doesn't exist, the most common response I'll get is, well, I can choose things.
So it does, I choose.
But that's not an argument, that's just putting a different word in there.
Right?
So what you're going to watch for is when I bring some people up to argue that of course free will does exist.
And by the way, I only want to talk to people who say that free will does exist.
If you agree with me that it doesn't exist, I'm going to cut you off.
Because I don't want to hear from you.
If you agree with me, there's no fun.
We'll just be like, okay, we agree.
I got it.
Got it.
All right.
So only disagreers.
And I'm not going to be rude when I cut you off, but I'm just going to turn off your microphone if you start agreeing with me.
Okay?
Got the rules?
If you agree with me, I'm just going to turn off your microphone and drop you.
All right?
Everybody up for that?
All right.
Let's see who looks like they're full of spit and vinegar.
Is that a thing?
All right, how about Jacqueline?
Jacqueline, I'm going to add you as a speaker, so get ready to unmute yourself.
All right, Jacqueline, unmute.
Do you have a comment on either of those things?
Yes.
Hi, Scott.
Hi.
I think my position comes from the perception that each of us is made up of three Things.
One being the body.
And of course, if we cut off part of the body, such as our hand, we still exist.
So we are not our body.
Right.
Okay.
And then I can perceive that my mind is thinking, and it often goes on, you know, I'll call That thinking mind, my ego.
Do your mind and your ego depend on your body or are they separate?
Do they exist?
Separate.
So they just float out there, your mind?
So your mind is sort of separate from your body?
My mind is separate from my body.
And because I can perceive my mind, that implies a duality.
I am something that perceives my mind thinking and I can also perceive my body.
So we're three things.
I am a being that's hard to describe.
I do have an ego or a mind and that my mind thinks I have free will.
So my mind will act Does your mind survive your body's death?
experiences and direct my body so it thinks it has free will.
Does your mind survive your body's death?
Does your mind go on after your body is gone?
No.
No.
What I am, in essence, is my being.
It's that spark of life that's hard to describe.
And if we can stop thinking for moments, if we can be aware and in the present moment, we can perceive that I am that being that's not being driven by the ego mind we can perceive that I am that being that's not being driven by the ego mind that Wouldn't you say that the only thing you can perceive is that you exist?
Everything else you don't know if it's true or not.
Thank you.
I've won another one.
All right.
Thank you, Jacqueline.
You're welcome, Scott.
Nice talking with you.
All right.
All right.
Bye-bye.
All right. - Right.
Who else will we take?
Let's see.
I think Paul looks like he's got something to say.
Paul, if you... Well, we get people connected.
Paul, yes, what would you like to say on this topic?
Well, when I started music college, I was really a big heavy metal fan.
But since I was studying jazz a lot, I forced myself to listen to it.
And now, 20 years later, I gotta say I'm a very big jazz fan.
Also, in your book, How to Fail at Everything and Still Win Big, you talk about how you managed to program yourself not to like snicker bars anymore.
So isn't that a form of free will?
No, that's just what happened.
What do you mean?
Well, let me give the example.
If I were to hold an object above the ground and let go of it, does the object have a choice of going up or does gravity just always take it down?
No, it takes it down.
Well, and would you think that the rules of physics stop once they're inside your skull?
Or is the brain, just like everything else, it can only do one thing in one situation?
Oh, so what you're saying is that we can force kind of We can will ourselves to do certain things, but we've got to use science.
No, when you say we can will ourselves, you're substituting words for logic.
You stopped eating Snickers, I started listening to jazz, because we made a conscious effort to do these things.
Yeah, and watch, I'm holding up a little ball of wadded up napkins.
Now I'm going to let the napkins decide when I let them go if they're going to go up or down.
Okay, napkins, decide, make a decision.
Oh, it always went the same way.
You and I would have always done the same thing.
We did things, that's the part we can be sure of.
I did a thing and you did a thing.
The reason we did the things is because the situation that happened in our brains was exactly the way it was.
If I had had a different brain, I would have made a different decision.
So it has nothing to do with my sensation of decision making, Because that's just an illusion.
I have a sensation of decision-making.
So likewise, where I held up the bottled-up napkins and dropped them from my hand, if the napkins had consciousness, they would have thought, oh, I choose to go down this time.
And then the one time it didn't, you know, they said, I choose to go up, but they don't.
They would say, oh, something must be broken.
There's something wrong with the system, or maybe I didn't really want it.
In other words, they would rationalize why it didn't happen that they didn't go up.
So consciousness is a rationalizer.
It's not something that's giving you truth.
It didn't evolve to tell you what's real.
It evolved to keep you from being crazy and allowed you to reproduce, which is the only thing evolution cared about.
Well, you know, it's just that what you're saying does make sense.
It's just like that.
But if we follow your logic, doesn't that mean that certain people are just meant to be drug addicts and certain people are just meant to be morbidly obese?
Yes.
And there's nothing they can do about it to change it?
That's correct.
But they do live in a world in which the variables influencing them are also changing all the time.
So one of the variables that influences people is me.
So I've got a lot of viewers who used to enjoy drinking more than they drink now.
And when I said alcohol is poison, it programmed a number of them, they tell me anyway, that they almost immediately stopped drinking.
And they're happy that they did.
Now, those are people who went from drinkers to non-drinkers without any free will whatsoever.
There was just an outside force that was good news for them.
All right.
Thanks a lot, Scott.
All right.
Thanks, Paul.
Take care.
Bye.
All right.
All right, let's see.
Who else looks like they would...
You know, I'm so influenced by the names that people choose on Twitter, and I have to pick Lord Pepsi.
So, Lord Pepsi, with that name, you are added.
Lord Pepsi, as soon as you unmute your microphone, we'll be hearing your question.
Lord Pepsi, speak to us.
Lord, are you not ready?
Now, this is why I used to drink.
Diet Coke.
There's Lord, oh, Lord Pepsi.
Hey.
Scott.
Yes.
What would you like to say?
How are you doing?
I'm good.
What would you like to say?
Okay, you spoke on these drug centers that where people could be like as a commune.
I was at one of those in Mexico.
I could talk to you a bit about it.
Oh, did it work?
Yes, I've been cleaning for 20 years.
I came to the realization that my life could drastically change.
I could basically become a homeless.
Or fix it and change it.
It was like one of those hardcore decisions, like almost like an epiphany where, well, I could become this person asking for change at the coming off the freeway side of the road, or I could just go clean.
How do I go clean?
And basically, yes, we're just all working with each other, building the place.
And our resources came from like basically outreach.
Hey, we're gonna Go out and ask for support very basically, right?
I'm just I mean there's details involved but and would get building materials and build up a kitchen and build up a dormitory and office and over the years it developed into what it is now as any commune would function and we'd have AA meetings there all morning, midday, and then night.
Rice and beans and some kind of a soup was like our main meal.
Nothing fancy.
So it was like hardcore farm style living with a bunch of druggies living with each other.
And we're kind of sort of voluntarily there because we knew we had messed up lives.
Can you hear me well?
Yeah, yeah, keep going.
People are fascinated.
Okay.
Okay, so Yeah, I listen a lot more, so I'm thinking, I'm trying to speak with my thinking thoughts, like, try to convey them well.
Um, okay, so, uh, my parents took me when I was, like, 13.
Uh, I got into drugs, like, I lived in the hood, I guess you could say.
Like, I was just exposed at a young age to drugs and alcohol, and got too deep into it too quickly.
And I feel fortunate that because of that, I was still at a young enough age to end it or stop drugs early enough in my life to not develop my life around drugs, so to speak.
So tell us more about the facility, though.
So there was a place you went in Mexico with just addicts and you basically built a commune and that experience of just not having any drugs around and having something to do that you all joined in on, you think that was enough to keep you off drugs?
When you live with druggies, they know what they're about.
Like, they know their lives are messed up, for lack of a harsher word.
You know, I'm being very kind about that.
You know, like, there's no BS.
Some of it's mental illness in regard as, like, when you're living in such a way, it's like, um...
You can't lie to yourself and say, I could be doing living a low life.
You know, some people, they conform like they're satisfied with that.
And there's some problem in their mind saying, well, wouldn't you like a better life?
No, I'm homeless because whatever, like some people make this, some people decide to get clean and say, you know, I do actually want a better life, but how do I do this?
What do you think of the suggestions that Trump made and also RFK Jr.
made separately about creating, I guess, using government land and creating basically a city or a campground or something where the addicts can go and just be away from the rest of the people and try to get healthy?
Oh, that'd be fantastic, I'll support that.
Great.
Let me give you the name of the place.
I'll spell it out for you, because it's an acronym.
Okay.
C-R-R-E-A-D.
C-R-R-E-A-D?
Yes.
And it's Center Recovery Rehabilitation for Enfermos, which is sick, people that are sick, Enfermos.
Okay.
Alcoholism and drug addiction.
Alright, great.
Hey, Lord Pepsi, thanks for the call and big congratulations from the entire audience and from me for your success.
When people get off drugs and they stay off drugs for 20 years, I swear there's nothing that impresses me more.
That's like the ultimate personal accomplishment.
So, good job for you and thanks for calling.
Oh, thanks.
Yeah, reach out to me if you want any details.
Great, thank you.
Oh, that was interesting.
Didn't expect that.
All right, let's see.
What is it?
I'll fight you naked, you racist.
That's the name of the account.
All right.
I'll fight you naked.
As soon as you unmute your microphone, you can ask your question.
Come on.
I hear you.
Music is in fact a dangerous drug.
Speak up, please.
Music is a dangerous drug.
You agree?
Yes, I agree.
All right.
Because, as I think Peterson has told us, he believes it speaks to a part of the human being that is incapable of sin.
Yeah, we're having a little audio problem, so I'm gonna...
I'm going to have to drop you off because of audio.
But I think I got the point.
Jordan Peterson also said that music touches sort of a non-rational part of the brain, which it does.
All right.
Let's see.
News for what?
News for friends.
Let's try you.
News for friends.
Unmute your speaker, your microphone, and ask your question, please.
Oh, I see I'm the speaker, so you must be talking to me.
I am.
Thank you for letting me speak.
My main thing is to thank you for everything you've had the nerve to come out and say.
Too many people are afraid to say the uncomfortable things.
And I think it's very important to be able to do so.
That in itself is a lesson that more people need to follow.
More people need to emulate that behavior.
Well, thank you.
Did you have a question or comment on the topic, free will and delusion?
Yes.
As far as the music, I do believe it can be a dangerous thing because most people are Listening to music that's not tuned properly.
The way you listen to it makes a big difference.
And I saw it with friends of my kids when they were growing up.
And especially during that rap era and watching the behavior of the young teenagers while listening to this music, it was very distracting.
It had them focus on the wrong things and I made a point in my home to pipe in music.
I was fortunate to have a nice speaker system that went throughout the home and I calmed them down at night with very nice music.
Got a lot of harp and violin.
All right, well, it sounds like you're agreeing with me.
When I started this, I said I wouldn't let anybody on who agreed with me.
You may have missed that, because I said that at the front.
So I'm going to look for somebody who disagrees with me, but thanks for calling.
Okay.
All right.
Bye-bye.
Yeah, I announced at the beginning I only wanted to be disagreeers, because it's just more fun.
So let's see if I can find a disagreeer.
All right, I'm going to go with somebody named Chris Ratt.
I don't know if that's his real last name or he just likes calling himself a rat.
Chris Ratt, are you there?
Yes, I'm here.
That's my actual name because I'm a foreigner.
It's your actual name.
Alright!
I'm sure you don't get any trouble with that last name at all.
Dad, did you have a comment on the topic?
Yeah, but I can't disagree much.
I would just say that when I was young and I would dress in black and I'd be super edgy, I'd listen to sad music and I think it just made me even more sad and probably not very fun to be around.
Yeah, I don't see how that could not be the case.
If you're sad and you listen to sad music, how is that going to help you?
It doesn't make sense.
Did you disagree with me?
I'm only looking for the disagreeers today.
No, sorry.
All right.
All right.
Thanks.
Thanks for joining.
And thank you.
All right.
Bye bye.
All right.
Chris, we'll remove you.
Well, it's hard to get anybody who disagrees.
So how about Zara?
Zara, you look like you've been to the gym.
All right, Zara.
Hey, how's it going?
I'm going to disagree with you.
I'm going to disagree with you a ton, but I can't possibly do that without doing the Rush Limbaugh ditto thing first.
So I want to thank you for being awesome and one of the greatest people on the planet and for paying whatever price is necessary to try to make the world a better place.
I really appreciate all the stuff that you do.
Well, thank you.
Let's get to the disagreeing.
The audience is like, disagree, damn it, disagree!
Let's do it!
Okay, there is such a thing as free will, and I can't give you a knockdown argument for it, because if I did, you wouldn't be free to believe in determinism anymore, and I think we're free to do that.
So, here's what I want to suggest.
The scientific language is really good for a number of things, but it has to objectify the world in order to do those things.
Fair.
Okay, so that means it can get you to the moon and build an iPad, which mythopoetic thinking and philosophical thinking and metaphysical thinking will never be able to do.
Good words.
Okay.
The only way it can do those sorts of things is by first banishing all consideration of things that are subjective, which means there's certain questions that it doesn't really, it's not really appropriate to use that language to discuss those questions.
For instance, Look, pinch your arm and you feel a message.
And the message isn't, hey, something negative for your reproductive ability is happening at your left arm, so pull it away.
The message is, hey, you're in pain right now, and that pain feels like something.
But science has nothing to say about why it feels like something to feel pain, or why it's like something to see red.
All subjective quality of life is something that science can't say anything about.
It doesn't mean that we don't have evidence that it's real.
It's as real to each one of us as anything else could possibly be.
It's just that the proper language for discussing those sorts of things are music and poetry and philosophy and just different vocabularies.
So what happens is I'll be short and wrap it up but the gist of the point is what science does in order to be powerful is it banishes all consideration of subjective things and then sometimes scientismists turn around at the end of that and they say oh my goodness I found nothing subjective there's no such thing as consciousness or free will or what it's like to be something Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Did you define consciousness and free will as subjective experiences?
So are you saying that it's just something that you feel and the feeling is real or that it's real in the real world?
What's real?
I'm saying subjective in a non-pejorative sense.
It's only pejorative to the objectivist scientific approach.
Well, no, I'm not talking about anything pejorative.
I'm just trying to understand.
Yeah, no, I understand.
So when I say subjective, I mean subjective things are just as real as objective things, unless you're a scientist, in which case you're not allowed to think that way.
No, it's subjective to you.
So it's real to the one person, but it's not real to the other people.
Right?
So, so like the problem of other minds is a philosophical problem.
You're not going to settle it scientifically, right?
Is that what you're getting at?
Well, certainly if your reality is a subjective reality, and your subjective reality includes your subjective feeling about free will, then I would think of that more like a, that's more like a fiction which you created to live in.
Which you might enjoy, but it wouldn't have anything to do with free will.
It would be just you deciding that you wanted to ignore the I see why you think that.
Here's an argument though.
I'm going to suggest that the objectification of the world is itself a fiction that we've known as a fiction for millennia.
The idea that there's little bits of hard stuff out there that I can make measurements on and make predictions about what they're going to do next is something that even our scientific experiments are now showing us is not a sustainable way of conceptualizing the world around us.
There's other ways of thinking about who we are in relation to the cosmos and culture and nature and the divine and all those other things that don't use the objectivist fiction to start out.
And they have an ability to make progress in areas that science can't make progress, even though science can make a kind of progress that they could never dream of making.
Are you doing better than I was expecting?
All right, so let's see if this is compatible with your thinking.
This is different, but it might be compatible.
If we are a simulation, meaning that we're just software and bits who imagine that we're real and imagine the objective world, Which I do believe, by the way, which is a version of what you're saying, the subjective world.
So I call it a simulation, but calling it a subjective world isn't too far off.
I mean, they seem to overlap a lot.
I've been wanting to tell you that forever, because I've loved your simulation thing as soon as you brought it up, and I recognized it as, well, similar to a lot of other metaphysical conceptions of the universe, including the Hindu and some other perspectives.
So anyway, I'm going to shut up and let you finish.
Well, if we're a simulation, or indeed some kind of subjective world, then the rules of physics are also an illusion.
So when I say that as long as you believe in the rules of physics, the rules of physics work the same outside of your skull as inside your skull.
Just stuff's going to happen the way it's going to happen.
There's nothing you can do about it.
But if our entire world, this objective world of skulls and things that are inside and out and even physics, if that's all imaginary, then all bets are off.
So I'm not an anti-realist.
I mean, I understand that you can be an anti-realist in looking at it that way, but here's another way of approaching it, which is to say that the objectivist fiction and the subjectivist descriptions like the mythopoetic or some a priori philosophical approaches are like two rails that the train rests on, right?
So it doesn't have to become an anti-realist thing where you deny that there's a world around you just because it's like something to be you and that world is in relationship with you and you're in relationship with it.
The fact that it's subjective doesn't mean it's just arbitrary or chaos or all illusion.
So I think we're kind of of one mind when we, I think, when we say that the same thing is true of the scientific conceptions of the universe, but maybe it's an attitudinal difference where I feel like you can embrace that and just say that's what it's like to be and it's exciting and there's truth and meaning in all of that.
Well I think what you're going for is there might be more than one reality or at least our little brains might only be able to see one but there could be others.
And under that framing I have no argument because it imagines the unimaginable.
So in an unimaginable world, free will could exist, because I can't imagine anything in that world.
So actually, good job.
Good job, Zahra.
I'm going to shut up now, but I will just say that that isn't what I think I was trying to get at, but that's OK.
This is awesome and keep being awesome, and I'll talk to you later.
Oh, yes.
I didn't mean to, that that would characterize your view.
That was more my summary of myself.
But thank you.
Gotcha.
All right.
Well, that was interesting.
That was more, that was a little deeper than I thought it would get.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, how about one more?
One more?
Let's go with Matt.
Oh, I was talking to him on Twitter, so this will be good.
Matt, you will be on as soon as you unmute your microphone.
Hey, Matt.
I can't hear you Matt.
There you are.
Thanks for having me on.
It's a pleasure to listen to you live.
My work schedule usually makes it so you're my workout entertainment.
Today I get to say something.
So I believe that people do have free will and I really don't think it's that complicated a concept because without free will I think humans would devolve into complete chaos.
You have an internal sense about you about what's right and wrong.
And to say there's no free will would be simply to say that a drug addict chooses to be on drugs, which is of course true once they're addicted.
But the original decision had consequences of taking drugs.
It's also to say that a pedophile...
Can't help themselves and therefore we should excuse them.
So I think a fundamental concept in human nature is that we do have a free will, particularly free will to make subjective or moral choices.
No, yeah, well, hold on.
But I think your argument is we do.
Like there's no argument there.
You're just saying it exists.
I don't think it's an illusion.
I think it's an actual part of human existence.
Alright, so Matt, do you think that the rules of physics stop inside your skull?
No, of course not.
So, do you believe that if you could magically know everything about a brain's condition, we can't, but if you could know everything about its situation, would you be able to predict the next thing you did with 100% accuracy?
Yeah, maybe, but that's an unrealistic scenario because I don't believe that we're ever going to know that.
I'm not saying that we could do it.
I'm asking you how much you believe in the, let's say, the reach of physics.
Does physics reach into your brain chemistry down to the electrical signals?
And therefore, with your specific experience, You're specific, you know, how much you ate that day and how your brain is feeling and its exact structure that day.
Wouldn't you agree that the next decision is guaranteed to be only one thing?
No, I don't think so, because I think you live in an environment and conditions change, like one day you think something is good, the next day you don't.
No, hold on, hold on.
Matt, you're just describing the physical conditions changed.
So one day is different from the other because your brain is different the next day.
So that's agreeing with me.
So the fact that you would make a different decision in the morning than you would in the afternoon, It doesn't say anything about free will.
Because you're a different person in the afternoon.
Well, the circumstance can change and your understanding can change.
But I do believe that there's an inherent nature to free will that maybe transcends the physics.
Maybe it's a spiritual component that isn't about physics.
Do you believe that you have something with a mind that survives your body?
Truthfully, I don't know.
I don't know.
So I'm trying to find the mechanism that would give you free will.
If it's not coming from the physical world, and it can't, because physics is physics inside your skull.
Right.
If it's coming from someone else, wouldn't it be imposed upon you?
Let's say it came from God.
Let's say God said, all right, I'm going to nudge you toward this decision.
That's God's decision, not yours.
Yes, I understand, but God sets, if we sort of go down that path, God sets you in a place where you have the ability to make these decisions for right or wrong.
No, no, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Matt, you're substituting, instead of logic, you're just saying things are.
That doesn't work.
Well, I'm supposing that there could be something beyond physics that we don't understand.
Just like there was Newtonian physics and then Einstein came along and there was something different.
And so I'm supposing that there could be something different controlling it.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that there could be something controlling us outside of our domain.
I'm saying that if it did, that would not be an argument for free will.
It would just be something else's moving you that you didn't know about.
No, no, I'm not saying controlling.
I'm just saying something that exists that allows you to make these decisions that we can't... Well, who's you?
But who's you?
I'm my body.
I don't have any other part of me that's floating around somewhere.
Do you?
Is there a part of you that's floating around somewhere?
You know, we can talk about a soul and we can talk about your spirit and so on.
You know, whether they're real or not, obviously, it's very hard to prove one way or the other.
But I do believe that somewhere in there, there's a sense of what happens that isn't related to physics.
It isn't related to that.
And you can choose to go one way.
You can just choose to go one way or another.
And it's totally up to you.
Hold on.
You just substituted choose.
For a reason.
You just put a word in there.
I call that word thinking.
So word thinking is when you just say, I do have free will because I can choose.
All you did is just substitute a new word.
But you have to argue against the only arguments that work are that physics don't apply to your brain, or that there's some non-physical thing that we don't understand that is also you, so that you exist both as a body, But also as some other entity that's also you that can control your body.
Those are the only two choices I can see.
Yeah, right.
So it's more the latter.
I don't know if it's exactly the right description, but it's more the latter.
But that latter also is in your decision making.
It's in your choosing.
So let's say if science got to the point, and we know it can't, but let's say it could watch your brain so carefully and so completely that it can predict what the next thing is that will happen.
If science could predict the next thing that happened every time just by looking at your brain, Would you say that that rules out that there's some external source that's also influencing it?
Absolutely!
If it can predict, then you don't have free will, of course.
So if there's a prediction, if there's a prediction model, then there's definitely not free will.
Or, you know, it's chosen for you.
I think the point that it could be anything you want is what makes it free will.
So yes, your answer, In your theory, of course, if science could come up with a method or you could monitor it and sort of know what would happen with 100% certainty, then I agree.
There's no such thing.
But I don't think that's ever possible.
Well, it's not possible to do the actual science of it, but certainly it's more of a mental experiment.
Yeah, so I think that where we could agree, let's find our agreement point.
Our agreement point is that if free will exists, it's probably external or I couldn't agree more.
to the body, but it would have to be essentially you, because otherwise it would be an external force affecting you.
Right?
I couldn't agree more.
I think it's perfectly said, actually.
All right.
So that allows that in a world we can't completely understand, it could sort of exist in some unknown domain.
Right.
I think that's spirituality or religion or, you know, it's sort of implicit in there.
So, yeah, I guess I agree.
Yeah, yeah.
All right.
Thanks, Matt.
Appreciate it.
Thanks for having me.
Happy 4th.
All right, see you on Twitter.
Yeah, see ya.
I love talking to the people that I've talked to on Twitter.
You know, it just gives them that full personality thing.
All right.
Shalock says, and this is the interesting point, if there's no free will, then no man can be held responsible for their actions.
What do you think of that?
If free will is an illusion, let's say everybody agreed it's an illusion, that people cannot be held... Do you know why that's ridiculous?
Because the people who are holding them responsible have no free will.
They're going to do it.
They don't have a choice.
Of course they're going to do it.
And the reason they're going to do it is because you don't have free will.
What you do have is the ability to weigh costs and benefits and to do the thing which you think is the best thing for you.
So if they increase the cost of doing something like stealing, it does change your likelihood of doing it.
So your lack of free will is why you have to be punished.
Do you understand that?
You have to be punished because you don't have free will.
Does that make sense?
Because without the punishment, you would choose the wrong things.
It's the punishment that makes you choose correctly.
It's not you.
It's not you.
I'm making you choose.
I'm putting a gun to your head and saying, don't do it.
Don't do it.
You're like, but I want to do it.
Don't do it.
So no, if you don't have free will, you have to have laws.
It's the only thing that makes people act in a way where we can all survive.
So everybody who's using the word choosing or choice, you're not part of the logical argument.
Because I see people trying to weasel.
This always happens in this conversation.
People try to word-think their way around.
I just saw that in Locals.
Well, maybe there's something external, but once it reaches your brain, you still get to choose.
That's not an argument.
You just said that free will exists because choice exists.
In other words, you just gave it a different name and then declared victory.
All right.
Let me prove to you Let me prove to you that my telephone is really a cantaloupe.
You're a cantaloupe.
Done.
If you don't think my phone is a cantaloupe, I just argued that it is.
It's a cantaloupe.
Do you like my argument?
That's the same argument I just saw.
Somebody says I have free will because I can choose.
My phone is a cantaloupe because it's a cantaloupe.
Same thing.
All right, Spaces, thanks for joining.
I'm gonna end the Spaces, and I appreciate it.
I forgot the Spaces was still on.
I was just talking away like it wasn't on.
Life changed when you realize there's no free will.
You have no choice how to define it.
Emergence is the key.
So you think choice is an emergent property?
I don't know.
That's a stretch.
Randomness is the key?
No, randomness simply exists.
It's not the key to anything.
Online philosophy lectures.
Free will is an emergent of biology. - Okay.
No, the illusion of free will is emergent from biology.
The illusion of free will.
All right.
How about assigned opinions?
Assigned opinions are just mechanical.
Free will is a contested term.
Yeah, I guess it is.
So, to me, the only way that free will can exist is if we're a simulation.
And that we steer the simulation by authoring it, but it isn't so much our own choices we're changing.
Alright, here's how you can have free will.
Let me give you a version of free will that I would believe in.
I can program myself to make different decisions in the future.
I can program myself now to make different decisions in the future.
For example, I can use my lack of free will now.
All right, so let's say I don't have free will.
But I can use my lack of free will, which is driving me to avoid listening to negative movies and music.
Right?
So I'll use my lack of free will to make sure that I don't expose myself to negative media.
Now, project myself into the future, will my decision be the same as if I had not done this now?
Probably not.
I would make different decisions in the future if I had exposed myself to those things.
So basically, I'm using my non-free will now, because I'm just doing what I'm doing, But it is creating a situation where my future decisions will be different than they would have been today or under a different situation.
So that's sort of like a minor version of free will.
I can set myself up to make a different decision in the future without having the choice about it at the moment.
I mean it's not really free will but sort of ish.
All right.
That's choice.
Yeah, you're right, that's choice.
but it's not free will.
Yes, if the Big Bang...
Created a chain of cause and effect that was determined by the physics of the time, then nobody had any free will.
And everything from the first moment of creation determined everything else exactly, with no deviation.
If physics is real, and there's nothing else influencing it.
That's all I got for today.
It's a weird kind of holiday day.
I don't know if anybody else is working.
Am I the only one working today?
Is anybody else working today?
Anybody?
Oh, we got some workers.
All right.
All right.
Then I don't feel alone.
I work every day, even on vacation.
You know, I'll just get up earlier and work.
And I don't know if anybody has this, does anybody else have this feeling?
That if you take time off, it's really, really hard to work again.
Have you had that experience?
Like, I almost never take time off unless it's forced, you know, like I'm in the hospital or something.
But yeah, if I take two days off from writing a comic, I feel like I don't know how to do it anymore.
So it's actually, it sort of helps my mental state to always do a little work every day, then I feel like I'm in the game.
Now I'm gonna make a claim that I think it's too early to know, but you can observe this over time.
I believe that not retiring is making me smarter.
Because every day I wake up, I'm 66 now, and at 66 I wake up and I make insanely complicated decisions every day, like really complicated decisions about a lot of stuff, every day.
And I don't know how that could be anything but good for my brain.
And I was reading an article about how people who've accomplished things, you tend to do things at age 25, People seem to be pretty good at age 25.
Chess players max out at 35.
But there's recognition that some people pick up skills as they go and in some cases they could be more effective as they get older.
How old is Jordan Peterson?
Is he 60 yet?
He's 60, right?
Is Jordan Peterson doing his best work?
I would say he is.
I would say he's doing his best work.
I don't even know if he's peaked.
He may not have peaked.
Because his life is studying all kinds of stuff.
Until you get to this age where all the stuff starts coming together into one coherent point of view, and then he shares it with us.
And we say, oh my god, it looks like you've been thinking about that for 61 years.
And he was.
And so he helps you out.
Now, I feel like my positive impact is the greatest now that it's ever been.
Dilbert was its own thing, and probably I couldn't create a Dilbert You know, from scratch if I started today.
It had to be the right time and the right place and all that other stuff.
But I don't feel that my effectiveness is less than it was when I was 25.
I feel like I'm at my highest effectiveness right now.
Yeah, George Carlin was still killing it into his 60s.
A lot of examples of that.
J.K.
Rowling?
I don't know.
How old was she when she was writing her best, doing her best work?
40s?
Well, Charlie Munger-- yeah, Charlie Munger's 99.
And he still makes sense, doesn't he?
Charlie Munger's not retired, is he?
He's 99?
Yeah, he's not retired.
Have you ever heard Charlie Munger talk?
Does he sound like a 99-year-old?
Well, a little bit, but you can tell that the brain is still there.
Still working fine.
Maybe a little degradation, but still working fine.
Thomas Sowell?
How old is Thomas Sowell?
I keep thinking he passed away, but he's still around, right?
He's 91.
You just don't see him because of his age, I guess.
