Guys there's so many great street epistemologists that are out doing the craft doing the hobby doing this wonderful thing of Asking people what they believe and why they believe it and I think Raul can do Raul Cardona is one of the best of the business and he has a YouTube channel called Street Knowledge We're gonna go over one of his latest videos see what tips and tricks I can learn because I think one of the coolest ways of learning how to do SE is watching other people do it and seeing what you can do From all these other people who are doing it what works what doesn't work what we can do to Hopefully inject ourselves into the method learn from Their advancements and and and sort of just like wrap your own personality into it and make it your own So that's what we're gonna do today Looking over this really cool video. So this one is called Street epistemology Joshua the reliability of feeling how about to witness the strength of street knowledge Oh Okay, my name is Raul Joshua nice to meet you Joshua. Can I ask you what you're studying here? She's just fine. Okay, how's that going? Okay, semester just starting up cool how far along you and the program Raul's one of the coolest people Okay, you're a freshman. Okay, so why business finance? Well, I don't want to do business in the future, but business will help you in the future I don't know how to run a business how business operates will help you in the future I want to do personally is sports medicine. And so if I go into like a sports medicine type field Because if they need someone who knows how to like run that's how business Okay, I first I was kind of confused it's like I want to run a business That's why I'm going to sports medicine. I'm like how do these things related But I think he's got a plan go for you go for it man. Go for it Joshua. Oh, okay sports medicine Like what would you be doing? What are you interested in doing as far as sports medicine? Oh? Like are you like thinking be a doctor type of thing or just yeah, okay? Wow interesting. Oh wow, that's so interesting But then my backup plan because I like I like biology in high school. Oh, yeah, that's cool Yeah medicine and then sports with that because I play soccer. Yeah, I joined sports and Cool cool. All right, so today. I'm doing an interview on epistemology. I have this hobby that's called Street epistemology and it deals with knowledge And that's like what people know beliefs that people so as he's doing this intro I always liked when I'm doing my intro I always like to gauge the initial body language of the person that I'm talking to do they seem to be guarded and Like you know closed off maybe facing away from you because it's always weird when you start the conversation and then From time to time. I have a lucid moment. I try to check in on that body language See is this person getting more relaxed? Is it? Is he becoming more comfortable or she becoming more comfortable whatever may have you anyway cold and How they develop those beliefs how you established that this this belief is true And so you pick the topic I interview people about some basic belief. They have some foundational belief and we talk about how did you get there? So something that you're really certain of some foundational belief that you you're really you have a real conviction of Some high degree of certainty and the questions will revolve Mostly around the how question how did you get there? How did you establish that this thing is true? What what method? What route did you take to get there? Yeah, so just some deeply held belief that you're fairly certain of it's And I like anything here anything Some examples I've talked to people about God. I've talked to people about other religious claims. Sometimes it's politics for some people sometimes it's Paranormal slash like spiritual Karma ghosts You know just something these are the kind of things that people are convinced of a lot of times You know I think it might be worthwhile for street epistemologists in general to show like how the How does not necessarily start the SC? Conversation but show how to actually get someone to stand in front of you and talk with you because that could also be Really interesting man. We might have very different ways of going about that as well I know with my table setup. It's a lot easier because people just come and sit down They're like hey, what's going on over here? And then they sit down right next to you Because they want to talk but when you're standing up How do you get someone to stop and and talk with them and maybe that would be kind of cool Like if we started the recording maybe about a couple of minutes earlier and just saw what was going on there That might be interesting for other people to know how to Start that up as well Because I would have a hard time with that But it doesn't have to be any of those things, you know just just something that you're fairly convinced of that's kind of foundational to you That really informs like the way you live the way you see yourself who you are All right, look at the body language now we went from I mean if we have to we went from You know cross-darms to looking right at him to now cross-darms looking away remember when I said He's got a look at that but yell. All right, so Let's see if this body language improves over the course of the conversation Okay So there is a God so you believe a God exists. Okay? Do you believe in a certain God or is it just kind of Jesus? Great question to ask Raul. Okay, so Raul like I said is one of the best and I'm gonna start outlining here Am I those are my first two quick tips? Gauge body language and then maybe in the future. I'd like to see how these conversations start But let's see if we can start figuring out where we're going with this conversation So we got to the God claim God does exist Raul clarifies Not only asking Not only asking like or clarifying what he means by the God claim like you mean a God exists Not just like God is sort of Mike Mike claims like what do you mean like God exists or not? And he says yes I believe it that God does exist and then Raul goes on with saying which God are we talking about you mean like? Jesus because you can say God as oh no I meant God as a love or force or God as you know the warm feeling in my chest when I hear Christian rock But no, we are worse now We know now that we're talking spooks explicitly about Jesus Which does two things helps to focus and frame the conversation on a very specific God belief But also helps to afford Not to waste time in the conversation with someone who suddenly realizes that they need to ship the goalposts and start talking About a much more abstract or ambiguous God when they realize they may not necessarily have the best Reasons to believe in that being not saying that they don't but it tends to be the case when they feel gently challenged or cornered Their idea of what a God is becomes substantially more ambiguous So it's good to define it ahead of time to avoid that See Okay, so so you believe in God Do you want to just maybe define what you mean? Oh, I love you Raul Find that God double down Everything everything Raul was saying on that on that slide is true It's so good So he's making the IP or the inner part Jesus came to save the world and if we believe in him we'll have eternal life All right This is all just making sure That the terms are set on what God you are talking about that way We're both on the same page because God or Christian Specifically Christian can mean a completely different thing from this guy to this lady to any of these people back here could all mean different things So it's important to verify what you're talking about when you say things like this gives them the chance to think about what they mean when they say these very Common labels as well labels that are used differently by different people Just gives them the chance to clarify what he means when he says God because you're talking to him And you want to know what he means when he says the things that he says. All right, so we got a chance to double down Great job. What why is this a belief you hold? Love this question All right in my head, I know I'm Raul. I'm gonna give you a chance but already I'm hearing argument from upbringing Let's see if I got enough space here. Well, I don't I'm running out of space. Sorry about that guys So argument from upbringing. Let me take out. Let me take out some dashes from my OCD kicks in So I'm already hearing an argument from upbringing Let's see where we go from here Like as I grew older As I kept going to church and I pray on my own also and then this is this feeling about it that I have Oh, we got argument from feelings makes me feel like That there's no way this isn't true Like the way the way it feels like in the church. We're all praising God Man, you're all worshiping him and thanking him just like the feel of it just makes me feel like well, okay So two arguments presented one argument from upbringing I Believe it's true because I was raised to believe that it was true and then we also have argument from feelings which is I believe it's true because I feel that way and Both of these are not very great ways to come to absolute certainty on a God belief though I wonder if Raul take this opportunity to one either Narrow down which of these two beliefs are the more important for his God belief or to try to establish some sort of confidence scale Whether it's numerical or just in prose get some understanding of how company actually is that this God belief is actually Something this guy's committed to and by what degree is and then See if the methods that he's using this the excuse for upbringing or the excuse from Feelings is good enough to support that high level of confidence if he has that we'll see where we go It's from here. I'm really interested Okay on a scale of zero to a hundred We're thinking about the same thing so for real me and Raul try to do Me and Raul try to do Tag team SC once it was it was kind of an interesting experience But we think very very similarly on like the same level so as I love I love I know what he's thinking when he hears these things. It's so good. All right. Anyway, let's continue something that's your confidence scale percent certain number if you had to like Quantify where you're as far as your level of certainty that this thing is true Okay, oh perfect. Oh My god Raul you're so good All right, so All right, so so many great things here. So we got a hundred percent, which is like one of the coolest things you can hear Isn't it's here because it just means all of your options are available as far as like breaking down or At least exam or presenting things to think about as far as doubt because the easiest thing to Throw it to a person who says they're a hundred percent confident is do you know what it will look like if you're wrong? And if they say yes, then there's that's showing an awareness that they could be wrong and Or like a person that's a hundred percent is not going to be open-minded to ideas What it would look like if they're wrong, but of course you have to define what you mean by a hundred percent I'm kind of getting a little bit ahead of myself. I'm a little excited. So how about this? We got a hundred percent. What's important is define what they mean by a hundred percent He just and that's why he asked immediately after he said a hundred percent What do you mean by a hundred percent? And he said no doubt sometimes I personally take that further and I say so no doubt You're not asking any questions at all. No, you're you're absolutely sure there's no way you could be wrong, right? I'm absolutely sure you're like really just close-minded on the idea. Yes I'm absolutely close-minded on this idea people will say that and as a result It really makes it worthwhile to just define what they mean by a hundred percent in the same way as it's worthwhile to Define what they mean by Christian or what they mean by what God they believe in it's just good to make sure that you're all on the same page because it makes the follow-up questions and and and And follow-throughs a lot more straightforward and easy. Anyway, Raul, you're doing a great job No, right. There's no doubt. Okay. No doubt. All right. And so what gets you to 100% is it? Mentioned this feeling that you get when you're like worshiping when you put when you pray Is it gonna go to upbringing? And also motivation. So like I pray for the things Well, yeah, I pray for anything that I'm going through or like I Pray for blessing that I'll do well or something or yet those type of things and then that just gives me motivation like that goes beyond anything so that I will do well and whatever that is or All right, stay focused so the feeling that you get when you're worshiping when you're praying and also the motivation that you get Feelings motivations knowing that God is you know, he has your back You can combine both of those things as just hey you have a lot of personal feelings that you know support your God belief like Now it's time for Raul to start to condense these these these beliefs into Big packets so that way, you know, it's easier to move through in a shorter conversation Else this guy is just gonna go through one defense mechanism after the other and start bringing up Well, well it was also because of my last time at summer camp and the thing that my mom told me and this fortune-quick Yeah, I read that said this XYZ and it's just gonna keep adding up and the expectation is that you'll spend time trying to Dismiss each side story rather than just saying hey Fundamentally all these side stories that you're presenting me are just different feelings that you have can we talk about feelings in general and and and see if that is a Reasonable way to reach a hundred percent confidence about anything Especially a God belief and then if we find that it's not let's dismiss feelings and move on to the next thing that you brought up You're upbringing or the next thing that you bring up may be faith, etc. This is how you move through these conversations basically, okay How the how do these things establish that That this belief is true How do feelings and what the motivation you get like how did this that mean therefore God exists? Okay, we're challenging family Look how he's opening up his body language. I love this still facing away, but not as cross He's definitely thinking and this is a much better pose This too then this and he's giving him time to think pregnant pause here pregnant pause. Oh, I love this I can't answer for sure because like Since he's not since he's not like a human form I can't say like this proves that he's here Like I just have a strong feeling So I can't yeah, I can't answer your question that question because like he's not I can't show you a physical form but Dude, yeah, like prayer and worship but I have a strong feeling so I can't I can't so then it would follow up So you can't answer these but like then what's getting you to the hundred what's making you a hundred percent confident then Or Given time to like, you know saturate on the idea Okay, do you think that these things that you mentioned the motivation the feeling that you get do you think that these things Can bring us to 100 percent certainty that something is the case Raul We are like let me get let me get on this Raul, we were like we were like the brain is right here. That's these are exactly The trains the thought that I'm exactly on perfect dodgy man. Whoa I mean Good stuff and praise like someone can still have doubt So I can't say you'll bring you to 100 percent like If you go through those type things like church and then you pray and then you just have that 100 feeling That he's going to help you whatever you're doing that Like you can get you so no, he's not answering How does this make me certain he's repeating Um The feelings that he has so the question is like how do feelings make you 100 percent? And is that a reliable way to get to 100 percent? And he's saying well, I just have feelings that I'm 100 percent And you know sometimes I go to church and I just have feelings I'm 100 percent And you know, sometimes I talk to my mom and my grandma and they tell me about God and I feel 100 percent it's like you are Sort of answer the question, but you're really just going off in a tangent and beginning what What raul probably knows very well at this point, um the defense mechanism That's that's being starting to kick in where you have an opportunity to answer a question In a straightforward way, but you realize that over that hill Is a lot of uncomfortable territory. You've not really treaded before so you instead tread much more comfortable ground Even if it's one big circle And so what we'll see most likely is raul asking a question that refocuses the question back on the how the epistemology of how Feelings can be a reliable way to come to a true conclusion. I bet he was going to do it We'll be close enough to like Carry out your daily actions through him But like 200 percent. I can't say that's for everybody Some people will like always have doubts they can't Like see him He's appealing to the general too appealing To general remember the questions are asked to him And so he's going to start to as his body languages indicate start to address people who aren't present To hopefully draw the focus away from themselves and on to other people It's like why do you believe in this god based just on feelings?  You need to make sure that's like sure But what about you because we're having the conversation between you and me and why is that Good for you to justify a hundred percent certainty You should be the authority of what you believe and why you believe it. Why are we talking about other people? Let's focus back on you I can't say that everybody gets a hundred percent Okay, I wonder if we had somebody from another religion who also cited these very reasons as as what makes their god True Maybe they said, um, I'm a muslim or or a buddhist or or a hindu or you know, whatever it is because of The feeling that I get when I'm in my temple or my mosque And because of the motivation I get um from you know from that If they were to give the those reasons as why their god is true Do you think that would be sufficient to establish the truthfulness of their god? And that's called the outside or test of faith. It's what happens when you bring up a Hypothetical third person who uses the same reasoning that your interview partners using to come to a conclusion But in this case you they come to a completely different conclusion something that's not compatible like a completely different god And if that person is using feelings to come to the belief that The hindu god's real and you're using feelings to come to the belief that the christian god's real Can you both be right and if not? What does that say about the methods that you're using to reach a hundred percent certainty that you're absolutely right? That's that's the basis of it I like to do the coin flip example you guys might have seen it before but like if I had a coin and I flip it And I catch it and it's I'm back in my hand and I don't know the answer If you don't know the answer isn't that the best answer sometimes I say that I might throw that like earlier in the conversation But then I'll say like okay, so if someone said Um, they have a lot of feelings that this coin is heads up. Does that mean that they're right? Could they be wrong if they said they had a lot of feelings that The coin could be tails up does that mean they're right could they also be wrong? Yeah, yeah, so like what does that say about the method to come to a true conclusion? Like maybe isn't I don't know the better answer I'd say that for maybe towards the end, but a lot of different ways you can go through this That's a good question. Crossed arms looking away, but he is thinking That's a good question. Well, good question reasons that I give for We might make it through this video like He's the only god so far that had in scriptures as said to come down From heaven and that helped those and heal those around him and so no, I the god has I have done that and You don't really see other religions try to go out. How did you know this his word? Don't don't fall for that. They're god's word like christians, dude That's fine. That's another reason All right, something has to tell you enough to go out and reach to other people saying that if you do this If you do this and do that, you'll be saved Don't fall for the bait the bait is my religion's better than those Those are more reasons that you're giving and maybe we can explore those too Don't fall for the make sure we cover the feeling and the motivation Yes And like the sort of the purpose of these interviews is to explore Whatever method somebody uses to arrive at their conclusion. Is it reliable? And so in this case your your method it sounds like is is a feeling that you get When you pray when you worship That's Raul is so good Raul you're so good The bait all right, so look at the bait remember appealing to the general Every single time you asked him a question He's like well, listen, this is what other people do or like, hey, why do you believe in this god?  What about like a Mormon god or like Shiva and how many people they reach out and have you read chapter four of Bhagavad Gita or or what about in the bible where it says Like that's the bait because now you're beginning to pull further away From his epistemology and talk more about his claims his conclusions And the the fault of doing that is you give him an opportunity not to think about how he arrived at his conclusion The conclusion he has In street epistemology does not matter. It doesn't matter if he said I believe in god doesn't matter if he said I like potato chips like it's all It's all just a conclusion at the end of the day What you care about is the s here as the practitioner is how they arrived at the conclusion And that should be the focus of the conversation and if it takes uh, uh, If it takes you stepping back and saying listen what i'm really just trying to do in this You know conversations just try to figure out how you arrived at your conclusions And that's really the more of my focus. So it's not so much about like the god belief It's more of like how you arrive at that god belief And if that method that you used to arrive at that god belief is reliable or not And you said before that you really appreciate feelings and motivations to come to 100 certainty that something's true Are feelings and motivations a 100 reliable way to arrive at that level of certainty? And could they ever be mistaken can someone else use feelings and motivations to come to a conclusion? That's not true and if that's the case What does it say about feelings motivations is a reliable way to get to a conclusion? Because that's the focus of the conversation Not the details of your god not the details of other people's gods But the methodology of how you arrive at that conclusion and raul like an ace like a well Perfect expert is hitting it perfectly also raul's a very intense guy. I seen his face He's got really blue eyes and he and it's like hey man. He's very he's very aggressively friendly too So it's like hey man. I heard you like muffins. Do you want some I got him from your grandmother? She's my next door neighbor. She's really nice yo And it's very interesting. He's a very interesting dude Sort of it sounds like that's your method of determining that this thing is true is that correct? Okay, so is there a way to determine the reliability of of feelings? Yes, as a way raul knows I'm not going to take the bait I'm going to focus on the reliability of the feelings because that's the epistemology. That's the focus of this conversation determining truth I mean For me personally, yeah for like for another person Some people like don't get swayed just by emotions so Well, just to answer your question just like not all the time that people will go by their feelings and claim You can't you can't always go by your feelings and then you can't always go by your feelings We're already started You mean for me personally just in this circumstance. Yeah, I just have a strong feeling for worship that There's a god. All right. Jesus came to save us, but like your question. I mean Everything so then what's getting into a hundred percent? Yeah, some people can't go by their emotions and then say yes 100 percent that I believe that there's Do you think that Feelings are the best way to to determine whether or not something is true Some situations Well, some situations you can have feelings can be Self-seated with your intuition to see let me read this if we can't always go by our feelings How would you verify that a feeling? Yeah, that would have been I would have been more like Yeah, that's more of the lines of my question. I'd say like hey So if we know we can't use feelings in all cases like sometimes feelings can lead us to wrong conclusions And sometimes the true conclusions What is making you 100 confident that you are correct on this god conclusion? Like that would if we know it's not feelings What's getting to that hundred percent that would be the better question But I don't think raul that you lost a lot of time here. I think if you I think if you just continue this conversation You'll hit this level very very quickly. So keep going. You're doing great And just tell whether something's true or false based on like how you like the vibe you get from something But not all the time. Okay. How do we distinguish between two people? who are each making a Their own claim about let's say in your case christianity in another case Maybe somebody saying that that their particular god exists Both of you appealing to feelings as the outside observer. Do I have a way of determining? Which one is True if they're both appealing to feelings as their reason I don't I don't mind this question But I think raul you already established that he can back away from feelings. So if anything we are just re Assessing that feelings aren't a hundred percent reliable by asking if we can test If there's a better way to test and why aren't we using this better test Is there a better way to test if something's true than feelings? And if there is a better way, why aren't we using that as a way to know what true things are Rather than, you know feelings, which might be arbitrary or demonstrably arbitrary that his own admission So um Again, I think the shorter path here would have been Is feelings a hundred percent reliable? No, we know it's not a hundred percent reliable because it's not good in all cases Okay, so then what is actually gaining to a hundred percent confidence because it can't just be feelings And then that leaves you to a lot of Much more useful ground Moving forward in the conversation because if you're going to go to upbringing You can address upbringing and then maybe you'll eventually get the faith You need to find faith and then you can work from there It's pretty straightforward or he might say well i'm 50 percent this 50 percent that and then that brings up a lot of other, you know um Just quick questions that show that hey, you just can't Add a bunch of different things together that aren't reliable and end up with a reliable hundred percent reliable conclusion. So Anyway, I think you're doing great. Let's keep going Let's see this question because Oh, yeah like There's like religions. There's no Way to because for the god for each religion You can't or you don't see them. So there's no proof or like There's no proof of like You knowing which one just based on like it's just you get a feeling but there's no like I got a feeling that And then if you don't have physical proof or if you don't have meaningful proof Isn't I don't know a better answer sometimes Okay, I'm not sure is it possible for somebody to put The belief in a god because of feelings And yet be mistaken and now we're back at that ground level again This is like the lowest level we've reached before we keep cracking further down into this epistemology I like to think about and I think Raul's the one who came up with this idea is that Se conversations are sort of like let me let me get myself up here Se conversations are sort of like an onion. You don't just You know, like it's not like an egg where you just crack it open Hey, I'm an atheist It's not like that It's more like an onion where like you have to peel back layer after layer after layer after layer and now we are finally Getting to the point actually two times in this conversation Where we're reaching the idea of feelings as a reliable way to come to conclusion And whether or not they're a reliable Method or not and this is the best question to phrase or present this idea So let's see where we go from here. Joshua. I'm rooting for you, man For them to feel because of their feelings 100 percent certain and yet still be mistaken Just like Raul, you're so good. Okay, so I believe in christianity, but then someone can have the same type of feelings I have Yes, but I think that they're wrong. Yes. Yeah, sorry for one. Sorry for one. What does that say as far as um, the reliability of of using feelings as a way of determining whether or not Something is true. Raul, you're so good. Well, yeah, obviously you could be wrong Or you could be like it could go either. Yeah with feelings. You're not you can't be either Oh, I love you, man. Oh Raul, this is like one of your best talks. Listen guys Raul cardona His his channel street epistemology. Check this out. Look street knowledge My man's got 1.5k subscribers. He's been at this for years Show this man some love. He's one of the best. He's one of the best I learned so much from this guy. He's really really great. He's really really great. Okay. I mean it. So check him out This is Fantastic. All right, let's keep going So where does he go from here? Where do you go from here? I say let it pregnant pause for a while My idea is uh, give him a chance to think this out let it pregnant pause and then ask him What's getting him to the 100% What's making him 100% sure? He's still gonna say he's 100% in fact you It's fine if he does but if the more The more he holds on to 100% the more through this conversation it becomes Very apparent to all parties involved that being 100% confident when you have no Nothing that's that perfectly reliable to reach that conclusion is an obviously Not a good place to be it's the equivalent of um Not telling someone that they're slow Not telling someone that I don't know like you could tell someone. Hey, man, you uh Oh, I wish I had a really good example You can play you know french like you can tell someone they don't know french and they'll be like I know french How dare you and then you could just show them like a french program that they don't understand at all and be like I don't understand anything like that like they can't lie to themselves anymore when it's that obvious And so when you present them the idea of like, hey, you say you're 100% confident You would expect you would have 100 reliable method in each that confidence. Actually you don't You can't pretend to be 100 confident anymore You realize that you're not and that's what's happening in this conversation And when you focus on just the epistemology and not hey, man Your god is blah blah blah or don't you know about this about your bible? You avoid all those ego Driven responses or back lashes to the arguments you're presenting The ones that make a person feel bad or make them feel dumb and instead you're working together with them to figure out Hey, is this real this this methodology using reliable or not? We can look at that together and come to that conclusion That's a very easy thing for both of us to figure out together and in terms that it's not reliable It's not something that you could just pretend it is even when you walk away from the conversation You're going to know I have some questions. I need to ask myself and this is good I think even this posture that he has right now is a lot more thoughtful than it was at the very beginning where he was Just more standoffish now. It's like geez. I got to really think about this Role, you're one of the best Yeah, it could go either way. It could be wrong Yeah, that's your question Can't can't be completely sure You can't be completely sure would you say feelings can make us now He's re now he's reassessing 100% then how like how sure Do you think it can make us how much can we trust it to be leading us to accurate results? I had it written out. He's going back to the hundred Pregnant pause into what's making a hundred percent So now we're reassessing the confidence Pregnant pause Reassess Let's see if he goes down. I bet he says a hundred I'm still at a hundred because you know yesterday I I made some toast and I had Jesus face I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I used to be there. I used to be there. That's why I'm saying that I used to be right in Joshua's shoes. So it's all good. It's like, yeah, you can have you can have a strong feeling but doesn't mean Look at this guy. Did he think he would have this kind of conversation or breakthrough today? Could you imagine if like 30 more people on this campus just 30 out of everyone on this school knew how to do sc as well and have these conversations with students Could you imagine how amazing that would be? It's insane great pregnant pause Going to the reassessing. I think there's another pregnant pause here. We'll give that pregnant pause I see you pregnant pause Let's see.  Oh, I've not seen this video. So over easy. I'm saying definitely a hundred. That's where my bet's at I can still be at a hundred because yesterday Do you think that if we have this method That can sometimes be right sometimes be wrong. Do you think that That's the best thing to trust to beat us to our conclusion Like I said, your intuition It's like sometimes We got argument from intuition almost argument from the guts argument from gut feelings What's the one analogy that I think of sometimes is like a thermometer Which tells us the temperature and we might have certain ways we can come up with testing its reliability You know, I mean like if we had a reason to believe that thermometer was not giving us accurate results Sometimes I predicted it accurately. Sometimes it didn't What do we say we can know with Any high degree of certainty what the temperature is Is this a is this new I'm not familiar with this analogy Role, are you The question again. Yeah, so I want to hear this because the idea of this these kind of interviews is method Yeah method method of arriving at truth, right? What are you using to determine that something is true? Right? So the analogy of a thermometer is meant to demonstrate that just like we might Test a thermometer to determine if it's giving us accurate results You know when it comes to the method of truth that you're method of arriving at truth How can we how can we test it to determine whether or not it's accurate I I hear where you're going with this You might want to workshop this A bit more and it took me a while to even come up with the coin flip so How can you phrase that so it comes out a little bit more smoother because When I say thermometer, I think of like a phone app at this point What's something else that we can test on a regular basis to make sure That this is still working. I don't know Uh It's the mom or the best way to go about it or like maybe I Rowley, you're showing your age a little bit because we're we old men and these are young kids on school Like most of these kids probably have never seen at the moment her old one in her life And if you had a thermometer You know if you had an a-track right and you hit the replay button Because you're trying to rewind the first three hit singles by tito before the before he left jackson five Uh, yeah, it's like people won't know what you're talking about. I had the same accuracy rate as feelings Would you still trust that thermometer? I know kids that don't even know how to do Make a call on a rotary phone That's that's life today. I know kids who don't know who tony hawk is That's real.  Yes I like this kid you would you would trust at the thermometer if it had the same Rate of accuracy as feelings Okay And what would that be is that like 50 of the time it's right 50 percent of the time it's wrong Or is it like more more accurate than that? Would you say feelings? 90 percent of the time it's right like is it mostly right or mostly wrong or 50 50 or Mostly right mostly right. Okay. So not 100 how can we determine that feelings has a mostly right Rate of accuracy Way to phrase that good good thing. I would have gone well I would have accepted that it was mostly right and said like, okay, so it's not 100 What's getting to 100 and that might trap me personally into Him saying well, it's feelings plus something else and then we'd spend time on the something else I feel like the fact that he's challenging feelings so hard here Also that guy behind him take it back to Hold up this guy's on a cell phone and walking outside man. You can't do that so I say for Believe them brother. You should believe your feelings and I The way I did it is I pray and then See what path it takes me to my life for if I pray pray around pray about a particular thing I see how he would help me in that situation post ad hoc relight um rationalize Probably also Is it possible for you to have those very feelings that you're describing? Yes So like again, we're getting more methods that aren't probably what he's putting a lot of weight into and raul is once again focusing is focusing on the Feelings because it's feelings that got him to the parties feelings. The first thing he got he brought up It's feelings. This is the same thing. He's defending and raul is staying focused on the target Which is this epistemology that he's using not the excuses that are coming up as distractions But the core fundamental thing that he's bringing up again and again, which is feelings Raul you're so good All right, I said that so many times. Anyway, let's just keep going yet. God still not exist It's possible. So if that were the case, how would we find out? How would you find out? I would have said so. Why are you 100 percent? I think how would you find out is the better way to go about that? I think there are roots Or like routes of reasoning that you can use and I think raul is taking the more optimal one here than I would take Because I know I want to say there is I know certainly I generally know where my route of reasoning would go but I think Raul's path stays focused on the epistemology a lot better Whereas mine would lead towards like arbitrary understandings of like different things and and not so much a complete like I'm I'm more focused on like the hey, you're absolutely 100 confident. You're probably closed minded My goal is try to make you not close minded Hopefully by the end of the conversation because why would anyone be closed minded and raul is He said feelings. We're going to attack feelings. We're going to talk about feelings and by the end of this conversation We're either going to find out feelings are worth keeping or not keeping Well, that's that is the topic because that's what i'm focused on. That's what i'm out here for And I like it. I think that's a better way. I think that's actually the better way of doing this Yeah, there's there's no certain way to find out. We just Just say you continue to pray and see So he's bringing it prayer changes your life argument from prayer There's no certain way to find out Roll it up, bro. Do you think that that that's an important thing to do like in order for us to accept something As 100 true or that's it. So my degree of certainty like do we need a way? A good way a good reliable way of determining whether or not it's true. It says yes and you don't have that Uh, yeah, whether whether that for you is having a sound feeling about it or or you need a concrete way. Yeah Here we go. And so For you, you're you're trusting in your feelings and that gives you a pretty high degree of certainty and And you're pretty certain that feelings is a good way of coming to your conclusion I don't know if everybody for but for me. Yeah Okay, and and how how did you determine that how did you determine that this is a good way of figuring something out figuring out if Something is true You got time I've just always trusted my gut Gun and sink don't fall for it. Not yet. Not that's not your style. Remember what I said they keep throwing out things And we're going right back to feelings again, so stay focused on feelings More feelings Is it possible for somebody from another religion to have that same experience Where let's say I feel like this takes a step back I wonder if it let's see I have let me see where we're going with this I have we agreed that feelings aren't 100% reliable, right? They aren't 100% reliable Do we agree that It's important to I think instead of taking the path of saying like hey count instead of test Isn't it important to test to our the methods that we use to make sure if they're reliable or not Instead of following that path. It's could be more of like a Maybe the better route would be hey, um We so we agree that feelings are 100% reliable. What's making you 100 confident that gods exists and While I know that's more of my approach It's it might bring up A rephrasing of what he meant by feelings It's like oh well. No, I still think feelings are still important because x y z is like and then Then you can bring up this question because if he stays Insistent that feelings are important. Then you can say hey. Well, then is it possible That someone else can have Uh a similar feeling in a different religion and would that justify their god to 100% certainty like any god that they believe sheva You know vishnu The flying spaghetti monster you name it, right? And if they back away from feelings say, okay. Well, maybe it's not feelings. It's um My upbringing then you can talk about upbringing and if you find out that's not 100 reliable Then they can say faith and then that's a question of defining what they mean by faith And they say might say well faith is just trusting And you can say like hey, it's trusting 100 reliable. No, of course. It's not. Okay. So then what's getting 200 percent? I don't know And then coin flip Maybe I don't know it's the best answer shake hands. See you later That's typically my game plan and I'm I could see I could see that route working here but i'm interested in seeing how raoul's doing it because raoul's approach is um You said feelings That seems to be your key epistemology Or at least the first thing you brought up the thing that you seem to be putting a lot of weight in To the point where you're defending it for like 20 minutes Even though we know and hit multiple times in this conversation that feelings are important And so I think all raoul is doing right now Is just reminding him so that he won't walk away from this conversation and use these excuses that he's throwing out now The to fall back into the same pit that he was in before but for him to say For him to throw out some more excuses for why feelings are his number one and then for a rule to this to show Why they're dismissible have him dismiss it and then have him throw out some more excuses for why he likes feelings Like literally 10 seconds after that for a rule to say, okay These are excuses and they aren't good and then for him to be like, yeah, these aren't really good excuses either I don't know why I said them. Well, here's some more excuses and Raoul's like, okay We don't need these either And he's going like yeah, we don't need these either And maybe that will be the point where you know, he can end the conversation Because by that point he will build enough momentum for josh What to be able to do that himself realize hey all these things that I keep doing to bring Feelings these fundamental questions that Raoul presented me These excuses aren't dismissing that major question that he brought up So maybe I don't need feelings after all and if I don't need feelings What is reliable way for me to reach this God's conclusion? That's something I do think about Maybe they'll talk about this again in the future but It's almost very interesting approach a certain religion Um, it was brought up and you know going to A temple or a mosque or whatever And they have these feelings associated with doing all that Like is is it is that possible for somebody to have that experience and have the same feelings that you're describing?  So if there's no certain way to see if you're right, why are you 100% right? It seems like Feelings can lead to wildly different results In your case it led you to your belief in your your God But and then we talked about an example where it lets somebody else to believe in a whole whole different God It sounds like feelings are very Like with the results that they give are very Random different. Yeah, like Would you would would you say that that's a reliable method? No, it wouldn't have been Raul don't go back to that Don't go back to the thermometer. Stay on feelings. That's a lot better. I'd like this better others Some people yes, because you can have a good intuition and then you're feeling So other people know other people and there's no certain way to know if you're right. So then why are you 100%? So Raul, please Sometimes yes, sometimes no So, why are you 100% so sometimes feelings is reliable. Sometimes it's not right. So why are you 100%? Please Okay, no All right, Joshua Why are you 100%? Maybe he's letting it hang and his head All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. So only thing I would do differently at that point is just be like So why are you 100%? Using feelings And it's not a it's that question doesn't end there feelings if we know Feelings aren't 100% Reliable we might have gone to some interesting territory there. I think if you threw this question out like around 14 minutes Before we we looped back onto feelings again. It would have been an easier thing to be like, okay feelings Let's just put this aside What else is there and then try to peel back more layers? But I'm also fine with the idea of let's just thoroughly destroy the idea of feelings in a sense while showing how To peel back layers like teach a guy how to peel back his own layers by showing him how to peel back his most important layer I'm fine with that. Either way. It's good Raul, you are so good and people you need to follow this guy. I'm going to put a A link in the description. Please check out his channel Please subscribe to this dude because Raul Cardona is one of the best in the se business And I am so happy to be good friends with this guy. So that's my channel. See you guys Next time I will keep doing more views of a whole bunch of different Street epistemologists that I'd love to highlight And I hope you stick around for this because I'm really really honored to be able to show Some of the great people in our community All right. See you guys later. Bye. Oh, there's my cat Okay


Okay, this is for us to start the second steps and Cornelia talk about and navigation. Thank you. Yeah, hello everybody. It's, yeah, it's really nice to be here today. And I will start with some early bark that Mike has done together with Tom in the mid 70s. Once they have done experiments on hope of life, and they were actually one of the first people who have shows that those who applies the spatial memory in order to return back to two points they came from. So I'm not going into detail because Tom will talk more about later on, but they have been those hope of life and have shown that they use visual information in order to return back to where they started the chase. And this is one of the people from the paper and they show her pink and different parts and those nice always end up in a similar location. And this depends as well on how the visual cues are around this place so if there are lots of clothes by visual cues they're more accurate in order to return, then if it's in the more open open area. And, yeah, in a similar spirit later on, work was done on on ends and we see similar behavior and spend what we have seen and on the previous slide for her price so those and also remember places and they go back to important places as for instance here. And we see a dozen of these comments where they learn to associate the location of the feeder with them. And with those three cylinders and they use this external visual information to learn that place and if those cylinders together with them is used to a test is where there is no no feeder. We see that they are searching around the place that we should be so we get this really nice search piece. And if the cylinders are much further away, they appear to be small on the answer, you know, so there is no space, no location in this space that is correct. So we don't get a location that actually searching for it. But if that, if the cylinders are much further away and they are enlarged in size, you can appear correctly. So again, here you have search and you can pick again and so searching for the feeder in the center of those cylinders. And, yeah, so this is what that was done in decency in the field, but over the last few years we got lots of knowledge on and navigation on wood and some work that was done in the lab. And we see similar so this is similar experiment that was wouldn't learn to recognize a feeder in the center of two cylinders. And what we have seen before as well if for instance the cylinders in the past, have a different size so one is smaller, and one is bigger. So those ends, they fixate a lot on the small one and they are approaching the small one much more than the bigger one because this is the space where the visual views that have been up here correctly. So we see how the parts are then shaped towards the smaller one. So there's a series of experiments that was done in the lab. And so for the last few years, and by looking at the past it is, we have learned a lot, how they use their eyes for navigation and how they are looking at visual cues, and how those visual cues are controlling their course, and as well, how, how they control for them. So we have learned for errors by hand really quick rotations and so on. So, we learned quite a lot about their visual navigation mechanisms in this lab conditions but what we know as well is how they actually navigate in natural conditions. And that's why we went to the first last year and we did an experiment where we looked at how they actually navigate through cloth natural habitat. Here this picture we see the habitat of the Buddha and so they have this nice mouse and they are navigating along those shared trails and shared, yeah, along those shared trails to trees where they go up and get honey to you from Aphids. So we have those quite complex habitats and we have those fortune trees they are navigating on and looking at other animals we know from different animals that they can follow. They can learn and follow, it doesn't work the goods. So animals lose and learn environmental information in order to guide their path. So here for instance on the top we have an example of pigeons. So we have a start and an end. And if you look at those blue parts there are a couple of parts from the same pigeon. And this pigeon doesn't like the direct feeling in start and end but it really learns and follows a specific route and it repeatedly does the same over time, even though it could fly on a direct line to the target. And similar behavior we see in desert ends. So here we have a desert end that inhabits a semi open desert environment. So here we have an S and DL feeder and those are two different ends. And we have two parts from both ends. And they are almost falling exactly the same route. And in those ends they don't have their own trails or in this experiment they also don't have partial equation anymore because they bring this back to the feeder again. So they need to learn and feature for the environment in order to be able to follow again and again the same route. So we are asking the same question if those ends that inhabits these really complex environments and navigate a lot of those shared trails, if they do the same. So we were taking ends that just came down from the fortune tree. And then we fit them with a handheld camera up to the moment they were at the nest and before they entered the nest, we moved them back to the, to the bottom of the tree and within them a second time. We moved them back to the tree and recorded them as a search time. So we go for every end and three homing parts and the videos that we recorded from those. And this is the video how they look when we get them. So, as you can see it's quite hard to actually see the end. I think it was not before. But I gave them a little color dog so that we didn't lose them by following the end. But luckily, there are some recent developments in tracking algorithms, and we were collaborating with people from anywhere and the University of Minnesota in Germany. And they have recently developed and published a tracking algorithm with which you can track animals and we construct their, their environment. And this is one example of one of those ends. So, down here, there will be the tree, and then we have three parts of the same and up to the moment she's in the nest. And, as you can see, there's lots of overlap in this individual past as a victim and radiation but still is and follows the same similar pattern. And this is another example that and then almost identically three times follow the same pass. And here we have a few more examples so those are five different different ends that we have tracked and feeling great those are the parts from all of the ends we have tracked so we have tracks 20 and 20 and 20 and 20 and 20 and 20. which then leads to the question that, or to the... So that makes us realise that those points actually need to deal with which amounts of memory if they are able to have these ideas into our good roots. Yeah. So you said that the cars look very similar. I agree, but the scale bar is like one meter, right? So it's sometimes half a meter and five. And I guess from the end, wouldn't that look completely different? So we will... I will show some pictures how it actually looks in the different places. So yeah, I agree, they have some variation, but if we compare how similar the cars are from one end, it's more similar than if you compare with all the other ones. But yeah, you sometimes have some... I mean, this is 12 meters long and... So this can be 40 centimeters between... Yeah, there's some variation. So they are not perfectly followed the same route, but they are more similar than when looking at all of the cars. So that means they somehow need to remember all those places. And here we have an example of one end. So this specific end, this is a sectional of the normal cars. She always ends up here. Here there's a bit of variation. Here in this case, this end three times ends up in the same location. And if we now look at the images or the panoramic pictures, we have a lot of looks at those places. We can start to think about why this is the case. So here, in yellow, we have highlighted the pictures we can see. At this point, and in red, the pictures we will see at the other point. So we put the panoramic camera on the ground. And here in the middle, it's where we have always ends up. This is how the velcro looks. 26 centimeters to the left or to the right. And when we now focus on the yellow location, so we have here the top, the left location. Here we have the middle location. And here we have the right location. And this is sampled down a bit so that it's more similar. And we haven't done any further analysis on that yet. But as you can see, it looks rather similar. If we go to the other location, we again have the, so in the same place, the location, the end always ends up. Here it looks this, how it would look, 20 centimeters to the left. This is how it would look 20 centimeters to the right. And again, it's looking rather similar, but then we also see some differences. So like, there are some differences in some parts of the, of the panorama. So that, and how different or how similar, similar across all in a specific location might depend on how similar the velcro looks a bit to the left or to the right, or if it's really distinctive. And knowing that there is need to deal with so much, so many memories we can also ask where this memory is actually stored. So we had the different experiments where we investigated where those ends actually stored and which memory. And we were focusing on the central complex and the mushroom bodies. And I give you a quick summary of the projects we have done on the mushroom body. So the mushroom bodies are known from other insects that they are important in mainly in papers, what we have learned from that is that they are important for olfactory associations. And that's about how they are actually involved in, in long-term visual noise. And those ends, they both get olfactory and visual input in the mushroom bodies. So we were asking about the role of those mushroom bodies in the visual memory of those ends. And so doing that we did chemical lesions. So we had an experiment where we could train our ends in the lab, in this, on this platform from the center to a feeder that was both set for a similar visual cue. And then we recorded the past before and after the lesion. And before any head training is happening, we only do these ends that are not going to be set up. So this is the behavior. We see that most of the ends are ending up at some point at the visual cue. So they have this innate attraction to a visual cue. But if we train them to a feeder, that is a way in the visual cue, we get past that look like that after one. So they learn to use this visual information in order to navigate to a feeder location. And with those well trained ends, we then can go to the next step, which is doing a chemical lesion in the mushroom body and then see how this affects their visual memory. And this is what we found. So those were the ends that we're able to aggregate to the feeder location. We took them, we injected a small amount of cocaine with Bocloide, which is a local anesthetic that can be injected and it's coupled with a fluorescent disolator. We can localize where the infection actually was found. And if those ends are released again in the familiar, we see that they are no longer able to go to the feeder. So in this case here, we only had two out of almost 20 ends that were still going to the feeder location. And most of the other ends, they switched towards the left, which is the innate response. So we were also asking if this is actually a motor bias or if this is caused by the loss of the visual memory. So we had a new set of ends that was now trained to the other side of the visual cue. So we started with the training, then we let them learn to use the visual information to navigate to the feeder location. And then we did exactly the same lesion again. And what we found in this set of experiments was the same, so they were not able to navigate to the feeder location. But in this case, they now switched towards the right, again towards the visual cue. So it's not a motor bias of telling more often to the left or to the right, and this is not how the parts are shifting, but it's actually they switch from their learns to their innate response if the visual body is not fully functioning. And an additional test we did was, instead of doing the lesion, we cover the eye with paint. And so the ends are normally trained to the feeder and then we cover the eye, and we cover the parts again. And what we see here is that most of those ends are still able to navigate to the feeder. So that means that the motion of the lesion we have done is not the same and an absence of the peripheral visual input. And yeah, so in this slide, it was summarized by Stanley Kainze and this also nicely shows, so we are doing our free lesions in the input region of the motion body, the policies. And at the same time, there was another team about H.A. Marenka who did lesions in the motion body output region. So they had some deletion here in the vertical zone. And similar to what we have found was that, again, ends that were perfectly able to navigate accurately before the lesion were completely lost after the lesion was done. So the entire motion body needs to be functional in order for the ends to be accurate in visual navigation. In the last few slides, I go and move on to the next question that you can ask them as well. So if they have those ideas in verticals and we know that the visual memory is stored in the motion body, we can also ask how they actually learn those rules. And this was an experiment that was done a couple of years back. And the general setup of this experiment that we have done with Desedans was that we had a nest and we placed a feeder in the field that in this case was eight meters away from the feeder. And then we let the ends establish the woods so they were walking back and forth. And after they have established the woods, we recorded their homing paths. And then later on we have introduced a trap. So this was a channel that was hidden into the ground. So it was in the ground which meant the ends didn't see it up to the moment they actually settled in. So ends normally walked back home and at this point they suddenly settled into the channel that was perpendicular to their homing woods.  So it was a negative experience they had because they spent a lot of time in this channel finding the exit. If we then kept this setup for another day, we saw if we looked at the homing paths and again that they have developed new woods. So some ends have now sufficiently go into the channel somewhere close to the exit and then go out quite quickly. While others have learned woods then either leads them along the left side or along the right side of this channel. We then went into more detail because what's known in ants is that they often show this unscathed behavior which is a moment they unstop and rotates on the spot. And often this is done when ants are alarming or when we are unfamiliar with the situation. So we were looking at this scanning behavior in those paths which is an indicator where learning is actually happening. And this is what we found. So here on the left we see a schematic drawing of the setup so we have the feeder here and so walking home this is the first part of the route here we have the track and then in right we have the second part was the homing route until the end of the nest and then we counted the number of scans they are doing in those different parts of the route which is shown here. So here we have the number of scans and this is the frequency it happens and those two graphs show if there is no track so they are normally walking back most of the ants usually they don't tend to scan so most of the ants have serious scans in both parts of the route. If we now open the track for the first time the first half of the homing route is normal as always and here we see they are not scanning and then they are in the track for a while if they are coming out of the track the behavior in the second part of the route is not different but interestingly if they are now back at the feeder later on in them so they have their second homing path so they will fall the second part into the track we see that the behavior is changing so in this first half of the homing route when they walk again towards the track they start to do lots of scanning so this is the moment they start to relearn the route once they are in the track and they are out of the track we see again the second half is the same so that means that ants do remember the loss used their hand before they fell into the track previously and when they are encountering those use again they change their behavior which is a kind of trace conditioning because it happens before the negative event has happened and then over time the new routes become positively reinforced again and over time those new routes will emerge so we have here like it's a combination of repetitive learning and aggressive based learning so here we have all these areas that are labelled between repetitive learning is happening but if they are falling into the track for the first time this aggressive based learning so they have this occasion that is just before the negative event and this is the area where the learning is happening so this is the area where all these scans are happening and then over time they start to develop a new route and the scanning is stopping again and they are kind of in a situation as they were previously but in a new location and you have to finish up this is way how this could all work so we have ants that experience a new and the projection viewers they then project onto the canyon cells and we have the motion body output new ones and what usually happens is that the views are either associated with positive or negative balances and this can happen through modulation of the synoptic race between the canyon cells and the motion body output new ones which happens through the dopaminergic new ones and in the case of the ant being trapped this is a negative event so in this case the dopaminergic new ones they can decrease the connection strength and the canyon cells and the motion body output new ones and then this balance between a person motion body output new ones and controls the steering which then controls the traction or impulsion and so that's all from my side and I would like to thank all the people I was working on in this project both here from Sussex and the collaborators from all the universities in minstrel and to us and thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you So, after four years of the trap, the first nexity, they start scanning, we call it, some distance before. It's one of the timescales. I'm trying to get an idea of the timescale of the memory engram, whatever you call it, the answer establishing. We don't have the exact time, but it's a couple of seconds, at least like one second or a bit more. Okay, right. Okay, this is the goldfish.  Maybe they want to figure out where did this happen, so maybe look back. So then recognize it again, because it's quite amazing that they would recognize it the next time around, which is much in the future. Yeah, if we look at that, we looked at the scanning all the way, but they didn't change the behavior once they came out of the channel. Can they see stuff in the channel? It's relatively deep, so they have mostly sky above them, so they use different to what they experience on the surface of the ground. Could you bring about other information that the engram may have, that could be an instance, for instance, in that spot that you put in the engram, whether the texture of the ground, the landscape, or whether the sense, pheromones, and other elements, Yeah, so I mean, so other work has shown they can use all the sensors as well, for instance, on factory tools, but it is quite, like the ground is relatively the same all over the place, so it's hard to say if they have learned anything else than the visual tools, because they have the visual panorama, but then, for instance, the ground structure is quite identical. And I guess, yeah, so it's possible that they have some other information, but yeah, we think that vision is the main factor. One more. Yeah, it's mainly like matching the core view with my voice, from that point of view. All right. Oh, once you both, you guys have our next speaker, and he has a life of vision.