正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

And here Brian Greene gets from David Deutsch his latest view on free will. He says it exists - and is about knowledge creation. A thing wasn't there, then it was, and we can't explain that by "the Big Bang" or any other prior state of the universe. People... show more

Brett Hall

39,013 subscribers

11,290 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

.David Deutsch: "I've come to think of free will in terms of creating knowledge. So we have free will if we can bring something objectively new into the universe. Prof. Brian Keating: Will computers have free will? David Deutsch: It's not computers, it's computer programs. Computer programs will have free will when the problem of AGI is solved. Of course, if we destroy ourselves before we solve that, then they won't. But I expect that we won't destroy ourselves, and I expect that the problem of AGI will be solved, and the resulting programs will have free will."

.David Deutsch: "I've come to think of free will in terms of creating knowledge. So we have free will if we can bring something objectively new into the universe. Prof. Brian Keating: Will computers have free will? David Deutsch: It's not computers, it's computer programs. Computer programs will have free will when the problem of AGI is solved. Of course, if we destroy ourselves before we solve that, then they won't. But I expect that we won't destroy ourselves, and I expect that the problem of AGI will be solved, and the resulting programs will have free will."

Deutsch Explains

13,709 次观看 • 10 个月前

Aravind Srinivas says a sign of higher intelligence in AI will be when it can explain a truth about the world that we don't know and create new knowledge

Aravind Srinivas says a sign of higher intelligence in AI will be when it can explain a truth about the world that we don't know and create new knowledge

Tsarathustra

88,094 次观看 • 2 年前

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,949 次观看 • 2 年前

MARCO RUBIO: THERE WILL BE A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH ✨ I found it interesting that, in Marco Rubio’s video released on Easter Sunday, it ends with the promise of Christ's return, the renewal of creation, and eternal reunion. It is exactly what the Pleidians said will happen. The message says: "...Then he (Jesus) rose to the heaven but he promised he would return and he will ….and when he returns, there will be a new heaven and a new earth and we will all be together again with him forever. He is Risen." 🌟💫✨

MARCO RUBIO: THERE WILL BE A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH ✨ I found it interesting that, in Marco Rubio’s video released on Easter Sunday, it ends with the promise of Christ's return, the renewal of creation, and eternal reunion. It is exactly what the Pleidians said will happen. The message says: "...Then he (Jesus) rose to the heaven but he promised he would return and he will ….and when he returns, there will be a new heaven and a new earth and we will all be together again with him forever. He is Risen." 🌟💫✨

Sheila17

20,953 次观看 • 4 个月前

The country was told Peter Lynch was a violent right wing extremist thug. Watch this video. Listen to what he says and how he says it and you will see that he was in fact just a softly spoken grandfather with concerns about the governance and future of his country that are shared by millions. He was put in prison and now he is dead. Shame on the state and the media that is supposed to protect people from tyranny, not facilitate it. RIP Peter.

Sensitive content

The country was told Peter Lynch was a violent right wing extremist thug. Watch this video. Listen to what he says and how he says it and you will see that he was in fact just a softly spoken grandfather with concerns about the governance and future of his country that are shared by millions. He was put in prison and now he is dead. Shame on the state and the media that is supposed to protect people from tyranny, not facilitate it. RIP Peter.

Andrew Bridgen

771,989 次观看 • 1 年前

"Classic Polymarket having a poorly worded thing that wasn't thought through" Kain on the Polymarket MicroStrategy Bitcoin question mess "The actual question is, will MicroStrategy sell any Bitcoin by 05/31/2026? Yes. But it wasn't disclosed until June 1. Because there never is" "If you're saying we would only resolve this yes if it was announced, then it should say will MicroStrategy announce that they sold Bitcoin by the thirty first. But it doesn't say that" "It says will they sell it? And they did, pretty clearly, but they didn't announce that. And so here we are"

"Classic Polymarket having a poorly worded thing that wasn't thought through" Kain on the Polymarket MicroStrategy Bitcoin question mess "The actual question is, will MicroStrategy sell any Bitcoin by 05/31/2026? Yes. But it wasn't disclosed until June 1. Because there never is" "If you're saying we would only resolve this yes if it was announced, then it should say will MicroStrategy announce that they sold Bitcoin by the thirty first. But it doesn't say that" "It says will they sell it? And they did, pretty clearly, but they didn't announce that. And so here we are"

Laura Shin

12,471 次观看 • 2 个月前

We asked Robert Greene (48 Laws of Power) for a story about 50 Cent, and he gave me one I can't stop thinking about. 50 was about to drop a single with Robin Thicke in 2006. It leaked to the internet before the rollout and blew up the whole marketing plan. His team wanted to sue and force it offline. 50 was calm. He told them not to fight it. He had his guys take the big screen TV off the wall and smash it on camera, then spread a story that he was so furious he threw his phone and said "heads are going to roll." None of it happened. He staged the whole thing so the only thing anyone talked about online was his reaction.

We asked Robert Greene (48 Laws of Power) for a story about 50 Cent, and he gave me one I can't stop thinking about. 50 was about to drop a single with Robin Thicke in 2006. It leaked to the internet before the rollout and blew up the whole marketing plan. His team wanted to sue and force it offline. 50 was calm. He told them not to fight it. He had his guys take the big screen TV off the wall and smash it on camera, then spread a story that he was so furious he threw his phone and said "heads are going to roll." None of it happened. He staged the whole thing so the only thing anyone talked about online was his reaction.

Sam Parr

120,101 次观看 • 1 个月前

NEW: Poilievre is asked about a local candidate’s view on abortion comparing it to Holocaust - he says there will no law restricting a woman’s right to choose and guarantees it will be in his platform. Doesn’t answer reporter Bill Sawchuk Q about the free vote.

NEW: Poilievre is asked about a local candidate’s view on abortion comparing it to Holocaust - he says there will no law restricting a woman’s right to choose and guarantees it will be in his platform. Doesn’t answer reporter Bill Sawchuk Q about the free vote.

Laura Stone

103,001 次观看 • 1 年前

David Deutsch calls it the Principle of Optimism. The principle of optimism says that anything not forbidden by the laws of physics is possible with enough knowledge, which can be acquired through trial and error.

David Deutsch calls it the Principle of Optimism. The principle of optimism says that anything not forbidden by the laws of physics is possible with enough knowledge, which can be acquired through trial and error.

Sean Kelly

249,762 次观看 • 1 年前

.David Deutsch: “There is an inherent conflict in the human condition—both individually and in society—between the need to preserve existing knowledge and the need to create new knowledge. For most of human history, preserving existing knowledge trumped any kind of attempt to improve knowledge. Because attempts to improve knowledge risk error. Or rather, to be exact, it risks error that has never occurred before. There were plenty of errors that had occurred before. Plenty of kings got overthrown because they couldn’t solve the problem of how to fend off the enemy. But they were in familiar territory conceptually, and they were afraid of changing culture. This fear of changing culture was built into culture itself. And this conflict exists to this day. The most extreme example known to me in the West, anyway, is the conflict in education between preserving existing knowledge and creating new knowledge. Even today, education—education theory—is conceived as the theory of how to decant existing knowledge from the brains that already know it to the brains that do not yet know it. And that’s what Popper calls the ‘bucket theory of the mind’—that the mind is a bucket and knowledge is a fluid. What he stressed, and what I always also want to stress, is that not only is that a mischaracterization of knowledge and of the use of knowledge, but it is the wrong way around. As a practical matter, even right back two million years ago, the transmission of cultural knowledge was not something done by the transmitter; it was something done by the receiver.”

.David Deutsch: “There is an inherent conflict in the human condition—both individually and in society—between the need to preserve existing knowledge and the need to create new knowledge. For most of human history, preserving existing knowledge trumped any kind of attempt to improve knowledge. Because attempts to improve knowledge risk error. Or rather, to be exact, it risks error that has never occurred before. There were plenty of errors that had occurred before. Plenty of kings got overthrown because they couldn’t solve the problem of how to fend off the enemy. But they were in familiar territory conceptually, and they were afraid of changing culture. This fear of changing culture was built into culture itself. And this conflict exists to this day. The most extreme example known to me in the West, anyway, is the conflict in education between preserving existing knowledge and creating new knowledge. Even today, education—education theory—is conceived as the theory of how to decant existing knowledge from the brains that already know it to the brains that do not yet know it. And that’s what Popper calls the ‘bucket theory of the mind’—that the mind is a bucket and knowledge is a fluid. What he stressed, and what I always also want to stress, is that not only is that a mischaracterization of knowledge and of the use of knowledge, but it is the wrong way around. As a practical matter, even right back two million years ago, the transmission of cultural knowledge was not something done by the transmitter; it was something done by the receiver.”

Arjun Khemani

10,523 次观看 • 1 年前

.David Deutsch: The future of civilization depends entirely on what we think and do. If civilization fails, that won't be something that just happens to us. It'll be the consequence of choices that people have made. And if civilization survives, then that will be because people have succeeded in solving the problems of survival. And that too will not have happened by chance.

.David Deutsch: The future of civilization depends entirely on what we think and do. If civilization fails, that won't be something that just happens to us. It'll be the consequence of choices that people have made. And if civilization survives, then that will be because people have succeeded in solving the problems of survival. And that too will not have happened by chance.

Deutsch Explains

11,927 次观看 • 1 年前

The NYC Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani is asked about the free busses agenda he ran on . He stated by the time his term is over New Yorkers will have free busses . Yesterday there was a fare hike that came in from Albany. The MTA is now $3 . The MTA is one big sinkhole when it comes to money and city and state officials are always scrambling on how to raise more money for the MTA .

The NYC Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani is asked about the free busses agenda he ran on . He stated by the time his term is over New Yorkers will have free busses . Yesterday there was a fare hike that came in from Albany. The MTA is now $3 . The MTA is one big sinkhole when it comes to money and city and state officials are always scrambling on how to raise more money for the MTA .

Leeroy Johnson

138,416 次观看 • 7 个月前

.Naval: Marxism, besides denying human incentives, also has a problem where it just assumes that everything is finite and we're all just dividing up the same small set of things. Well, the cavemen didn't have color TVs, computers, cars, antibiotics, or medicine. They were not sitting around dividing up the same few things. The knowledge grows, and we create more. It also tends to assume that we can freeze frame at some point in society and say, 'Well, we have enough different kinds of sneakers, enough different kinds of housing, we just need to allocate it better.' And that is not how anything works. David Deutsch has a great definition of wealth, which he says is the set of physical transformations that we can affect. So, when you think about it that way, you realize that knowledge is not just stored capital in the classic Marxist sense (capital vs. labor), but it's also knowledge on what to do with that capital. The cavemen or Palaeolithic ancestors had access to all the same resources we did. They were living on the same Earth, and by the modern environmentalist arguments, they had a better Earth—they had more to do things with. But yet, they couldn't do anything. They were not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Why? Because of knowledge. Life is not a zero-sum game, it's a positive-sum game. But we are hardwired to think it's a zero-sum game because, for millions or billions of years, there was no such thing as wealth. There was no such thing as persistent knowledge creation in the environment. What you had was a small amount of resources being divided up, and most of the games were status games—'Which monkey outranks which other monkey?' And that decides which monkey gets to eat first. We played that game for a billion years. Now, we come onto a recent game where, actually, we can all eat, and the big problem is obesity. It's no longer starvation. The big problem is boredom. It's not actually work. There's enough work. So, in this environment, switching your evolved mindset from a zero-sum game to a positive-sum game where we can all win, if we create knowledge together and use the resources that we have to create more resources and more wealth, that's the game we all need to be playing now.

.Naval: Marxism, besides denying human incentives, also has a problem where it just assumes that everything is finite and we're all just dividing up the same small set of things. Well, the cavemen didn't have color TVs, computers, cars, antibiotics, or medicine. They were not sitting around dividing up the same few things. The knowledge grows, and we create more. It also tends to assume that we can freeze frame at some point in society and say, 'Well, we have enough different kinds of sneakers, enough different kinds of housing, we just need to allocate it better.' And that is not how anything works. David Deutsch has a great definition of wealth, which he says is the set of physical transformations that we can affect. So, when you think about it that way, you realize that knowledge is not just stored capital in the classic Marxist sense (capital vs. labor), but it's also knowledge on what to do with that capital. The cavemen or Palaeolithic ancestors had access to all the same resources we did. They were living on the same Earth, and by the modern environmentalist arguments, they had a better Earth—they had more to do things with. But yet, they couldn't do anything. They were not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Why? Because of knowledge. Life is not a zero-sum game, it's a positive-sum game. But we are hardwired to think it's a zero-sum game because, for millions or billions of years, there was no such thing as wealth. There was no such thing as persistent knowledge creation in the environment. What you had was a small amount of resources being divided up, and most of the games were status games—'Which monkey outranks which other monkey?' And that decides which monkey gets to eat first. We played that game for a billion years. Now, we come onto a recent game where, actually, we can all eat, and the big problem is obesity. It's no longer starvation. The big problem is boredom. It's not actually work. There's enough work. So, in this environment, switching your evolved mindset from a zero-sum game to a positive-sum game where we can all win, if we create knowledge together and use the resources that we have to create more resources and more wealth, that's the game we all need to be playing now.

Arjun Khemani

163,525 次观看 • 1 年前

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

114,992 次观看 • 1 年前

here it is: Eric Adams asked live on MSNBC about how many non-students were arrested at Columbia Adams gets flustered then says it was...TWO individuals he refuses to name them but then references a person that the NYPD already confirmed wasn't arrested & wasn't even there

here it is: Eric Adams asked live on MSNBC about how many non-students were arrested at Columbia Adams gets flustered then says it was...TWO individuals he refuses to name them but then references a person that the NYPD already confirmed wasn't arrested & wasn't even there

Matt Binder

1,533,328 次观看 • 2 年前

NEW: A witness who was at the McDonald's where Luigi Mangione was caught, says he and a friend joked at Mangione that he looked like the New York sh**ter. McDonald’s customer, Larry, said he and a friend were joking so loud that Mangione could hear them. "One of my friends, and I thought he was kidding when the sh**ter... who they made the arrest on came in, he made a comment: 'Well, that looks like the shooter from New York.'" "But the group of us thought it was more of a joke and we were kidding about it. But then as it turned out, it was him." Larry says he didn't think much of it and left the restaurant to go to church. It wasn't until later that he realized he was joking about the actual sh**ter.

NEW: A witness who was at the McDonald's where Luigi Mangione was caught, says he and a friend joked at Mangione that he looked like the New York shter. McDonald’s customer, Larry, said he and a friend were joking so loud that Mangione could hear them. "One of my friends, and I thought he was kidding when the shter... who they made the arrest on came in, he made a comment: 'Well, that looks like the shooter from New York.'" "But the group of us thought it was more of a joke and we were kidding about it. But then as it turned out, it was him." Larry says he didn't think much of it and left the restaurant to go to church. It wasn't until later that he realized he was joking about the actual sh**ter.

Collin Rugg

8,120,205 次观看 • 1 年前

[WATCH] IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR. If Mmusi wants to chair the committee he must put his ambitions forward and not create his own rules. There is no rule that says the ANC is excluded from putting forth a candidate to chair the committee. We are not going into the impeachment process to defend, we are going into it guided by the ruling of the constitutional court and follow all matters step by step as expected of us. Even in the Ad Hoc Committee we have acted without fear or favour, even against our own. Maimane must not create rules that are non existent and he has ambitions to chair the committee and we will not support it. We have had an Ad Hoc Committee chair by Cde Soviet who is an ANC member, it was fair and he was unbiased even against his fellow members who appeared. So this allegation that the ANC will defend its President is unfounded and the example of the Ad hoc Committee proves that. The ANC like any other party in parliament is not excluded from chairing. #TheYearOfDecisiveAction

[WATCH] IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR. If Mmusi wants to chair the committee he must put his ambitions forward and not create his own rules. There is no rule that says the ANC is excluded from putting forth a candidate to chair the committee. We are not going into the impeachment process to defend, we are going into it guided by the ruling of the constitutional court and follow all matters step by step as expected of us. Even in the Ad Hoc Committee we have acted without fear or favour, even against our own. Maimane must not create rules that are non existent and he has ambitions to chair the committee and we will not support it. We have had an Ad Hoc Committee chair by Cde Soviet who is an ANC member, it was fair and he was unbiased even against his fellow members who appeared. So this allegation that the ANC will defend its President is unfounded and the example of the Ad hoc Committee proves that. The ANC like any other party in parliament is not excluded from chairing. #TheYearOfDecisiveAction

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

66,077 次观看 • 2 个月前