Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

So when you perceive an object, you perceive the object in relationship to its embodiment or incarnation of the ideal. So every object is platonic. It's a platonic idea, but it actually seems to be literally the case. This is actually how you perceive. You perceive every pillow, or there's a pillow in this room that I'm looking at. You perceive every pillow.

as a reflection of the ideal central form of pillow, which is something like an amalgam of its practical function and its objective qualities. It's both of those. And every perception has that element. There's a center and a fringe around every perception. And that's That's not a matter of opinion. That's how the large language models work.

as a reflection of the ideal central form of pillow, which is something like an amalgam of its practical function and its objective qualities. It's both of those. And every perception has that element. There's a center and a fringe around every perception. And that's That's not a matter of opinion. That's how the large language models work.

as a reflection of the ideal central form of pillow, which is something like an amalgam of its practical function and its objective qualities. It's both of those. And every perception has that element. There's a center and a fringe around every perception. And that's That's not a matter of opinion. That's how the large language models work.

And they've modeled human linguistic cognition far better than anything we've ever created by like many orders of magnitude. So we can map out the symbolic world objectively now, but the best way to think about it is just the symbolic world is the weighting of ideas. So for example, I use this example in the book. If you hear the word witch,

And they've modeled human linguistic cognition far better than anything we've ever created by like many orders of magnitude. So we can map out the symbolic world objectively now, but the best way to think about it is just the symbolic world is the weighting of ideas. So for example, I use this example in the book. If you hear the word witch,

And they've modeled human linguistic cognition far better than anything we've ever created by like many orders of magnitude. So we can map out the symbolic world objectively now, but the best way to think about it is just the symbolic world is the weighting of ideas. So for example, I use this example in the book. If you hear the word witch,

There are, you instantly know which W-I-T-C-H, there are a plethora of images and words that co-occur with that. Like it's witch and swamp. It's not witch and glass enclosed, high rise penthouse apartment.

There are, you instantly know which W-I-T-C-H, there are a plethora of images and words that co-occur with that. Like it's witch and swamp. It's not witch and glass enclosed, high rise penthouse apartment.

There are, you instantly know which W-I-T-C-H, there are a plethora of images and words that co-occur with that. Like it's witch and swamp. It's not witch and glass enclosed, high rise penthouse apartment.

Now, you could play with that, like you could play with the witch representation by having a witch who was witchy in all regards, except she lived in a penthouse, you know, and that would be an interesting twist. But you have to stay within the realm of the symbolic representations in order for the portrayal to make sense.

Now, you could play with that, like you could play with the witch representation by having a witch who was witchy in all regards, except she lived in a penthouse, you know, and that would be an interesting twist. But you have to stay within the realm of the symbolic representations in order for the portrayal to make sense.

Now, you could play with that, like you could play with the witch representation by having a witch who was witchy in all regards, except she lived in a penthouse, you know, and that would be an interesting twist. But you have to stay within the realm of the symbolic representations in order for the portrayal to make sense.

And so, and I think I asked one of the world's top neuroscientists flat out, can I remember his name off the top of my head? Anyways, it'll come to me. I asked him if every perception was a micro narrative and he said, yes. right? And so that's very interesting.

And so, and I think I asked one of the world's top neuroscientists flat out, can I remember his name off the top of my head? Anyways, it'll come to me. I asked him if every perception was a micro narrative and he said, yes. right? And so that's very interesting.

And so, and I think I asked one of the world's top neuroscientists flat out, can I remember his name off the top of my head? Anyways, it'll come to me. I asked him if every perception was a micro narrative and he said, yes. right? And so that's very interesting.

This is revolutionary because, of course, the atheist reductionist materialists like Dawkins assume that there is a self-evident fact level somewhere and that you can reduce everything that's value predicated to this level of incontrovertible self-evident fact. That level doesn't exist. It's interpretation all the way down. Now,

This is revolutionary because, of course, the atheist reductionist materialists like Dawkins assume that there is a self-evident fact level somewhere and that you can reduce everything that's value predicated to this level of incontrovertible self-evident fact. That level doesn't exist. It's interpretation all the way down. Now,

This is revolutionary because, of course, the atheist reductionist materialists like Dawkins assume that there is a self-evident fact level somewhere and that you can reduce everything that's value predicated to this level of incontrovertible self-evident fact. That level doesn't exist. It's interpretation all the way down. Now,

The weird thing about that is that, in a sense, that's what the postmodernists have been claiming. But what they got wrong was that that interpretation level itself, the weighting level, also has a structure. And one of the things I tried to tell Dawkins was that that's the structure of the meme world. That's a good way of thinking about it.