Timcast IRL - Sunday Uncensored: Jeremy Boreing Member Podcast: Russia Could Nuke Ukraine And WIN, NATO Would not Respond

Episode Date: March 27, 2022

Join the Timcast IRL crew for a sneak peek at a members-only episode featuring CEO of the Daily Wire, owner of Jeremy's Razors, and one-half of the Smokey Mike & The God-King musical duo Jeremy Boreing. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to our special weekend show, Sunday Uncensored. Every week we produce four uncensored episodes of the TimCast IRL podcast exclusively at TimCast.com and we're going to bring you the most important for our weekend show. If you want to check out more segments just like this, become a member at TimCast.com. Now enjoy the show. I was looking at Nuke Map. What is it? Nuke Secrecy slash Nuke Map. Have you guys ever looked at this? Yeah. No. Now, enjoy the time. We're going to choose Washington, D.C.

We're going to choose enter yield, the largest ICBM ever deployed by the United States, which is 9 megatons, and then detonate. Oh, my gosh. We're dead. Wait. Is that right? Are we dead? Okay. There we go.

We're alive. No, we're not. We're not. So we're in the Harper's Ferry area, basically, and this would be DC being hit by the largest ICBM the U.S. has ever deployed. And it's massive. People don't realize there's a fireball radius of 2.33 kilometers. Wow.

Then there's the moderate blast damage radius. You're all basically dead. Then there's the thermal radiation radius, which is 31.4 kilometers. That's massive. 41-kilometer light blast zone. Fortunately, we're all outside of that. And we probably have more powerful weapons already. I'll actually challenge you on that.

This is a topic that I know a thing or two about. Well, all right then. The truth is America doesn't deploy, actively deploy any multi-megaton weapons in our current nuclear arsenal. Really? Nope. In the 50s and 60s, the nuclear arms race was taking place. And what we discovered in America is that we were very good at advancing our technological ability to hit things.

And the Russians were very bad at developing the technology to hit things. And so the Russians built bigger and bigger nuclear weapons than we did. They did. And we would build bigger bombs as a way of showing that we could also make a big bomb. So they would detonate, you know, I mean, they detonated a 50 megaton bomb at one point. That's our bomber. Yeah, that's what we're looking at. But what America did is it decided that if you can hit a target, then it's immoral to

have too big of a blast radius. The reason that the Russians needed these giant multi-megaton bombs is because their missile wasn't going to hit the target, which when I say not going to hit the target, it's pretty amazing. You can shoot an ICBM into the air 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 miles away and have it hit within a couple of miles of an American city. But a couple of miles, while pretty impressive from a technology point of view, isn't a hit. And so they needed a bomb that if they missed by two miles,

it still destroyed the target that they were trying to destroy. Our goal was put a missile down somebody's chimney. So all of America's deployed strategic nuclear weapons are variable yield, which means that it can range in yield how big it is, and they decide depending on what target they want to hit. And most of them are probably in like the 100 to 200 kiloton range. But we hit our targets. So we're scared of Russia.

Russia's Tsar Obama at the maximum design of 100 megatons would flatten Baltimore, Annapolis, and D.C. if it targeted D.C. Yeah. But here's the reality. You think a bomber is going to make it over D.C. to drop that Tsar Bomba? No. Have you ever seen the Tsar Bomba? There's a video of the plane or something.

It's a gravity bomb. It's a gravity bomb. Which means they just drop it. Yeah. I mean, that bomb could never arrive on our soil. There's no way that that bomb could ever be dropped. They'd have to go over Delaware. Oh, no. Delmarva. I mean, it bomb could never arrive on our soil. There's no way that that bomb could ever be deployed. They'd have to go over Delaware, Delmarva. I mean, it's never going to happen.

Never going to happen. I mean, so what about, are you familiar with the Strategic Defense Initiative? What have we deployed or what do we know? What does the public know about what the U.S. has deployed in terms of stopping nuclear weapons hitting the United States? Yeah, well, first of all, we're better at it than people think we are. You know, our Aegis cruisers are very successful in knocking down missiles. The other thing, though, that I think people don't really think about when they talk about nuclear deterrence is the intelligence piece of this.

It's very popular to hate our intelligence agencies, and they definitely play political roles. They don't always know the things that they say that they know. I'm not making a defense of all of that, but there are sort of core competencies that they have. And one of their core competencies is knowing the status of these weapons. And my guess is that in practice, a lot of the weapons would never get off the ground. Like, I don't want people to have like a false sense of confidence. That's not what I'm trying to instill.

But the American military is not like other militaries. You're seeing it right now in Ukraine. One of the reasons that people don't know what to make of the situation in Ukraine is because they've always thought that there are other militaries like our military. We're a superpower. Russia used to be a superpower. There is no military on Earth like our military. We're the only military on Earth that can forward project power. China is an ascending power, and they may be able to do it soon. They still can't do it. Russia probably never could do it

and certainly cannot do it. You know, decades after the end of the Cold War, they're not successfully invading a neighbor state right now. We can we can do things that no one else on earth can do. And not just by a little, by orders of magnitude, we can do things that no one else in the world can do. Does that mean that I don't believe that Russia could hit us with a nuclear weapon? I'm not suggesting that. Does that mean that I believe that there wouldn't be enormous cost to engaging in a sort of first world war in Europe? Of course there would be.

Our ability to win that war, though. There's no question about our ability to to forward project our power unparalleled in all of human history. The Russian ability to hit us with a nuclear weapon, you know, limited, not not they don't not have the ability. I wouldn't want to take. I'm not suggesting that we take risks where that's concerned, but I think that their ability to strike us is so much less than we think. And the idea of sort of the Terminator 2 Judgment Day city killer nuclear weapons, you know, that are 20 megaton weapons just flattening every city on Earth, I don't think actually reflects the reality of either America or Russia's current strategic nuclear arsenal. I think you'd have to ignore technological advancement over the past 40 years to believe that a mutually assured destruction could happen to i had i had an argument with uh

or debate with imagine noirs because i don't believe mutually assured destruction makes sense or is correct it's this like archaic idea of if you nuke me i'll nuke you but if you nuke me i'll nuke you well if you nuke me i'll nuke you and i'm like that doesn't that doesn't that it's the the argument against me was that i didn't understand human psyche and that I thought humans were predictable. I'm like, quite the opposite. I think, I think humans are sometimes predictable, sometimes not predictable. And when it comes to firing nuclear weapons, we don't exactly know what technological advancements we've had and what defenses we have. We know the Strategic Defense Initiative program was big. We're like, how do we stop a nuclear weapon from hitting us?

We've already seen publicly that they have AI lasers. Have you seen the infrared lasers? You can't even see the beam. The thing just looks at the drone and the drone bursts into flames and falls. So they certainly have prepared for if an ICBM was coming towards us. I think what we might see, though, and correct me if you think I'm wrong, tactical weapons, smaller yield bombs from Russia or NATO or otherwise. So the first thing I would say is that I do believe in mutually assured destruction. It may be

that we no longer live in an era where it is mutual. It may be that America has so outpaced our rivals technologically that we could successfully conduct a first-use nuclear strike. But I believe in the philosophy of mutually assured destruction. I think it kept the peace for 60 years, and there's a lot of good that we can learn from that. To your second point, could we see battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons used? Yes. I think America contemplated the use of battlefield nuclear weapons to hit Iranian underground hardened nuclear facilities. Right. construction of nuclear weapons in hardened targets in a country like iran um you have to understand that when we talk about those kinds of weapons we're not talking about these big city

killer nuclear weapons we also talked about the use of um sort of like thermobaric weapons which are not nuclear but are also very massive destructive weapons in torabora when we were trying to get bin laden we didn't know like what cave he's in so we wanted to do something that would be suck the air out and a nuclear weapon may have been a successful tool in that case, too, because you're not hitting an urban center where you're going to kill a million people because you used a nuclear weapon. You're just going to kill the same number of people that you would have killed with conventional bombs. But you're going to have more success in the instance of Tora Bora. I think it was smart not to actually do those two things, because even though I think that they would have

been moral and effective weapons in those two particular cases, I do think that there's the possibility that it would have led to kind of a dominoing use tactical nuclear weapons from Vladimir Putin. You know, Putin in the situation he's in right now where we're not opposing him militarily, but we are opposing him economically. I actually think that that's one of the worst ideas that we've ever seen tested in all of human history. Right now, he's destroyed Grozny. He's not afraid to destroy civilian populations. He's shown us that during his premiership. He's not afraid to use weapons of mass destruction. He's used chemical weapons. He's used thermal barrack weapons, both against the Chechens. And it's been're afraid there's going to be a coup back home if you don't win.

Your country is being bankrupted. The West has said we're not going to use military might against you. You're contemplating using weapons of mass destruction like chemical or biological or thermobaric weapons. Why wouldn't you use the one that at least puts fear in the hearts of NATO? Why would you use the one that just makes you look like a President Assad of Syria, low-level thug? Why wouldn't you use one that says, yeah, I'll do it.

I'll do it to you too. Which brings me to this story. Top Russian military figures, Sergei Shoigu and Valery Garisimov suddenly vanished from public eye. I did a segment on this from my main channel. These two individuals are the only two other men

with the Russian nuclear football. They're in the chain of command and they've dropped out of public eye. It could be as simple as these men are being protected because of the potential abuse of nuclear weapons. have stripped him of his nuclear access or of his life to consolidate power so he can unilaterally fire these nukes. I think with the absence of evidence, the solution is these men, for obvious reason, are being protected. But if that's the case, is that indicative of Russia does intend to use some kind of nuclear weapon? The one thing that Russia is very good at is psyops. And so I think you also have to just contemplate the idea that he wants us to think that he's contemplating the use of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons that they control are strategic nuclear weapons. So like the nuclear football isn't for battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons. It's only for like ICBMs. So the idea that Putin is seriously contemplating using strategic nuclear weapons,

listen, you don't know his mental state. You don't know his political realities. Human nature is not always predictable. It seems exceedingly unlikely to me. The idea, so like, it's almost like if he were going to use nuclear weapons, it wouldn't be the ones that those guys were controlling, which makes me think

that a big part of it might just be rattling us. What would happen if Vladimir Putin used a, I don't know, let's say a 100-kiloton bomb on Kiev? He'd lose the war. You say he'd lose the war? He'd lose it all. Well, that's the question.

I actually don't think so. Yeah, he'd win. He'd win. I don't think destruction is his goal. I think it's conquer. No, he'd flatten the government. Look at Grozny. He does just want the land.

He wants access to Crimea. Use a Grozny. What did he do to Grozny? He leveled it. I haven't seen anything about this yet. Well, Grozny. He does just want the land. He wants access to Crimea. Use Grozny. What did he do to Grozny? He leveled it. I haven't seen anything about this yet. Well, Grozny was in Chechnya, so it was in the past. But it's the one time we've seen Putin

engage in this kind of conflict. And Grozny was a city in Chechnya, and Putin flattened it. At a certain point, when he wasn't getting his victory through more conventional means, he used sort of the World War II flatten the city approach. So he can flatten cities without nuclear weapons.

My point is if you're in the position he's in today and you've decided to flatten the city and you're already an international pariah, you might be tempted to use a weapon that would actually rattle your enemies. Now, a 100 kiloton weapon is still a strategic weapon. I think the more likely thing is that he'll use battlefield or tactical kiloton weapon is still a strategic weapon. I think the more likely thing is that he'll use battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons if he uses a nuclear weapon. And I think the unfortunate reality is, if he does, I don't think we have any tools left with which to respond other than the ones that we've already deployed. And that's why I say we've,

I think we've removed the incentive for him to show restraint. Right. So on the map I just pulled up is a 100 kiloton bomb, the W76, common US and UK over Kiev. The reason why I ask this is, if it is true that Vladimir Putin is losing, and his real goal is just to strip away what he believes is the corrupt government of Kiev, the 2014 coup, whatever you want to call it, he wants to assert control over what's happening in Ukraine. He wants to destroy their command structure. He wants to cause chaos and panic, making it easier.

Like, I mean, if he dropped a 100-kiloton bomb on Kiev, flattening the center of the city, it would cause chaos and disarray in Ukraine to the point where he'd pick up the pieces and walk through the rest of the country. There would be panic. He needs only, check this out, he needs only fire one weapon and then scare the rest of Ukraine into thinking more weapons are coming and people will desert in two seconds. He would win the war.

The question is, would NATO or anyone else respond to a bomb of that size? Militarily? Yeah. No. And that's why I asked the question, because Vladimir Putin might be sitting there saying right now, we hit Kiev with the nuke. It's over. This is the problem with the position that's popular on the right today, that signs of American strength are going to lead to a world war. It has always been the case historically that is signs of American weakness that precipitates or Western weakness that precipitates world wars we're in a position now where we ask these questions like should we impose a no-fly zone do you want to start world war three a month

ago if we had imposed a no-fly zone we wouldn't have had to have shot down russian planes yep and there wouldn't have been an invasion of russia they would have had to attack the united states correct and so it is signs it is signs of weakness and essentially the west has shown so much weakness today that i don't think they would have i actually don't think they have any military tool listen if if the united states decided we wanted russia out of ukraine russia would be out of ukraine in 72 hours yep the american military's ability to destroy the russian military conventionally there's not a question about it don't don't play any fantasy scenario in your head where Putin can beat us. 72 hours.

If America decided it wanted to remove the Russian military conventionally from the earth, even from Russia, three or four weeks, we would remove their entire military. There is no military on earth. It really is like we are a World War II army fighting at the Alamo. There is nothing like what we can do conventionally. How many aircraft carriers do we have? 20? All of them. Right. All of them. If we wanted to impose a no-fly zone over Russia, or over Ukraine, which I'm not proposing, but if we did, Russian MiGs would be falling out of the sky. They would not know we were there. It would take them a day to even figure out why all their MiGs were falling out of the sky

because the F-22 is invisible to the Russians and it fires its missiles from over the horizon. But it is this nuclear threat that is his ultimate ace in the hole. That is the thing that everyone rightly fears if we get engaged in a military conflict today. If he uses a 100 kiloton nuclear weapon over Kiev, he still has about 5,000 more. He doesn't have 5,000 probably strategic, but he has certainly 1,500 more of that size.

I don't see how we're unwilling to fight against him today, but we're going to be willing to fight against him after he uses a nuclear weapon? That seems preposterous. If, just, I'm just using the W76. If this were to hit Kiev, it would result in an estimated 135,700 dead, 523,830 injuries. Yep. And then it would also irradiate central Kiev.

But this is why... Radiation is tricky. These are thermonuclear weapons. For sure. Some of the question is going to be about— Radiation is tricky. These are thermonuclear weapons. For sure. Some of the question is going to be about where they detonate it. Almost certainly they would airburst it, and there would be a lot less radioactivity than you think. Nevertheless, your first point is correct. Look at this.

When you do a surface detonation, there's no way they're going to do that. No one does surface detonation. That's not going to happen. But the radiation is bigger. Much, much. Yeah. Well, much. Yeah. Well, so here's my point. When I said I don't believe in mutually assured destruction, obviously I understand the doctrine exists.

Obviously I understand that it happened for a long time. This was a doctrine that did keep the peace. What I'm saying is— You don't believe that it is actually effectually— Today. Yes, I agree with you. Today, this is what we're talking about. The U.S. is not going to nuke.

One of the things I was saying is, like, do you think someone's going to nuke an urban center, like an ICBM, like Moscow, because Moscow is attacking Ukraine? No. It's insane to think, let's wipe out the whole planet over Ukraine. So I'm like, I'm not convinced that someone's going to be like, I'm going to destroy the entire planet because, you know, a nuke has been launched or fired here. The question is, obviously, I think if, you know, Russia fired nukes at us, we might have a very strong response, but I'm not even convinced it's going to be like in the movies, like in war games where the missiles just go flying or like in G.I. Joe. No. Especially considering SDI or our SAM sites or whatever we have in terms of shutting these things down, probably satellites that can do it. But right now, the big question is about using an ICBM on Kiev.

And I don't see why the West would intervene if he did. If we did intervene, it would be conventional. I can't imagine a world where we remove the Ukrainian military from Ukraine. I'm sorry, we would remove the Russian military from Ukraine conventionally. I just don't see a world where we do that under joe biden and and i think strength is the only thing that deters war deters war and so at the end of the day the thing that i'm the most afraid of right now is that none of us think that the west would respond to a nuclear attack on ukraine today that is what's going to precipitate in a world war and the other thing that i would say about a world war is they don't all they they often don't global conflict often doesn't happen the way you think it will. And so we're all talking

about, well, what is Putin going to do in Ukraine? Obviously, that matters. But in a moment of instability like this, in a moment of American weakness, where American hegemony is is collapsing, India and China have been killing each other soldiers on their border for the last two years. Oh, yeah. North Korea fired a missile into the Sea of Japan last week. Because our administration is so hubristic in its belief that it can consequence-free reorganize the world order, we're trying to make a deal with Iran so that we can buy their oil. And then we're complaining that the Sauds, the mortal enemies of Iran, won't lower the price of their oil to sell us while we're

about to make their enemies nuclear armed and rich. You could actually see the Sauds allow Israel to fly over their airspace and bomb Iranian nuclear sites in the next few weeks. You could see a joint Israeli-Saudi airstrike on Iran, something that 10 years ago would have been incomprehensible. Doesn't even seem possible. And because these leftists have so upended the world order, that's even possible right now. And so we have to be mindful that the entire world

is on a razor's edge right now. It's not just what directly happens between Russia and Ukraine. So when should we flee the DC area to the mountains? You know, ain't no mountain high enough to quote the man. So we actually have a secured location prepared. We've got, well, first of all, Freedomistan is, you know, 30 or 40 miles west already,

which is, you know is in West Virginia. But we also do have a secure location just because it's cheap property in the middle of nowhere. But what I was saying is if NATO intervenes, the first thing we're doing is packing up one of our trailers with the gear to do the show and supplies and sending it to our secure location. We stay here. We keep doing the show as normal. But the moment we get any kind of dramatic escalation that could be catastrophic or apocalyptic, we already have our supplies ready to go. I've always thought that where you really want to go if there's going to be a strategic nuclear exchange between superpowers, you really want to go to Times Square.

What is that? So it's over quickly? Who wants to survive a nuclear holocaust? Bro, have you played Fallout? It's going to be awesome! You're fighting ghouls and you've got to drink irradiated water. There's no fast travel and cuts can kill you.

Cuts can kill you. I stubbed my toe. Guess I'll die. That's where we'd be at. I want to survive. i don't want to live in a post-apocalyptic nightmare there's a certain excitement to it where it's like well at least you'll have something to strive for i guess but it will be nightmarish beyond most what i mean people don't understand they play fallout and they're like i don't know it might be you know i it would suck but it's like bro when you're walking down the street there's a woman whose

leg is like melted and she's screaming and her teeth are falling out from radiation or whatever, you don't want to live in this kind of stuff, man. I will say again that even in this context, we're talking about a nuclear exchange in these very fictionalized ways. There is the possibility of limited nuclear exchange. It would be bad. I'm not suggesting it would be good or advocating for it, but we don't really know what it will look like. Also, every post-apocalyptic scenario always factors out human ingenuity. Like if there was a zombie apocalypse,

I would immediately have a zombie eradication business and be just as successful as I am today. Human ingenuity is a real thing that we have to just ignore in order to make sort of disaster porn. And look, I love disaster porn, but it is fiction. Zombie movies only work because they're movies about people who are really dumb. Right. That's right. Well, yeah.

Also, this is exactly what I think whenever I hear people making very grim predictions about the future. I think things can and probably will get bad in some respects. But at the same time, when people come out talking about overpopulation and how we're going to reach a number where we can no longer sustain people, I mean, firstly, that's contradicted by the evidence as the world population has grown, poverty has decreased, more people have had access to resources. But even if that wasn't the case, you would have to negate the human ability to solve problems in order to believe that we wouldn't be able to provide for ourselves. You'd have to completely ignore that. Yeah.

Climate change is like that. They don't, a lot of these models of climate change don't account for, you know, technology where we could withdraw the carbon from the atmosphere, turn it into graphene and then reproduce it. We'll actually be competing for carbon with the trees at that point. There's another problem we got to look for. I wonder to what extent, you know, we didn't know about the manhattan project i wonder to what extent bioweapons could be the actual you know weapon of choice oh oh bio yeah well let's talk about covid fucking bioweapon i think the problem

i think the problem with bioweapons is the world may have just learned uh is that that's a genie that you can't control like yeah a nuclear weapon kills you pointed at, and a bioweapon probably kills what you just pointed at and then kills you. What if they mass vaccinate the population before releasing their weapon? No, you believe in vaccines. I'm kidding. I kid.

What if they have their population wear masks so they're perfectly safe from the bioweapon? They wash their food before they get home. What if they only have dinner after 9pm in public places? What if the United States has actually developed a very serious weaponized smallpox or something

and the true purpose of the COVID vaccine was to protect the American people because the US is planning on purging its enemies with a bio weapon. Yeah, the only problem with that is that we've given that same vaccine to just about every person on earth we though community that's it is uh legally distinct is what was given out in europe and the bio was different here and and and look it's it's grand conspiracy

don't don't get me wrong but if the u.s was actually planning on unleashing a bioweapon on its enemies it would not be giving that it would be giving the cure to people while giving the cure to its own people. If I believe that Joe Biden was capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time, I might be able to give a answer. This war fear feels like just a distraction from Biden's terrible, terrible presidency and the inflation. I truly believe the existential threat is the metaverse and people getting into proprietary coded situations where they don't realize they're inside of it and they're owned by a corporation yeah uh it's like ready

player one was there that was not a good movie i mean it was a good movie but it was like nothing good come up came about in that movie like they're like we reclaimed the the digital virtual space i'm like no all of it is bad because your mind is you spend a year or two years, especially a child in this metaverse, they will come out. They will not be human anymore. They will not recognize the world around them. They won't recognize their own hands.

They might be a squid when they go and play the game and they're flopping around tentacles and they come out in the real world and they're like, ah, what am I? And they're going to be so removed from real life, they won't function properly. They're going to be fast, too.

If I turn my glasses like this, and after like a couple minutes, and I go like this, it looks all backwards and distorted. It's certainly true if you've ever put one of these headsets on and played in virtual space. You do get disoriented, and when you take it off, you are disoriented.

The only thing I'll say is humans are soul and body, and it's one thing to sort of abstract that we can disembody the human mind or the human soul. I don't think you can because while you're wearing that Oculus, yeah, you are or whatever, you are in a different world. But it's also heavy and your neck starts to hurt. Your palms get kind of sweaty and your knees get weak. Not if they Neuralink you. I'm talking about once they Neuralink you. Yeah, once they just plug you right in and then what you what you what's going to happen is you're going to be in some kind of suspension

suit to minimize you know the effects or or maybe like a zero g chair you'll be like inside of a smart gel and you'll you'll be pressure now that's too expensive they'll they'll they'll plug your brain in and all of your synaptic responses and everything you think and feel will be virtual. So you will still exist in physical space. Exactly. Yeah. But what are you? So you are still going to be a body soul composite.

And there is an attempt to remove you from that. And it's really more or less ultimately just insulating you from the reality that exists, which is that you are your body, right? You are your body and your soul. You can't have some technological process that truly separates the two. Because firstly, if you do deconstruct a brain and then recreating a computer, you've just killed the person. And now you have a computer emulating what it thinks that person might do. But what happens when they impede the actual biological functions, like your senses, and inject you with pre-programmed senses? Everything that you're saying still requires people to be functioning in the actual real world. Yeah.

It does. Absolutely. You wouldn't be able to sit in there all the time. You'd have to shave. You'd have to shower. You'd have to come out. Or someone else has to shave you and shower you and feed you. Right.

But what I'm saying is people's identities would be shattered. I agree. I actually believe in a lot of what you're saying. I think we're going to find out because a lot of it's coming. And I agree that most of the bad things, like there'll be a lot of someday we'll all be having sex with robots and it'll be bad, right? It's all going to happen. In actual, there will have to be people operating in the actual human world because we're not disembodied. Our body is still there and it still has all of its actual biological needs that we will either have to meet or other humans operating in physical space will have to meet. It may be that the conscious or that your mind isn't necessarily shattered, but it's combined with other minds to create like another mind. Like our body is trillions of microorganisms working together and they all have their own desires and wants and we think that we are this but we're a combination of things so we might be recreating that in a digital sense yeah well i mean people

are gonna flock to this shit like well yes in this sort of this perverse scenario of people living in a cyber world is something we're already seeing and you can imagine people existing at a point in history where their minds are quote-unquote uploaded you know they're connected to this machine and they're experiencing that reality and they will see the difference between them and us is that we were just profoundly disabled because we were also spending all of our time in the cyber world but our only interface was this keyboard in this screen whereas that they can use their entire bodies to be interactive so what's really disheartening is the fact that even though we have the limited control that a computer can give you over the internet, we still spend all of our time there. So of course we're going to when we can plug our brains in.

They're going to say, can you believe that to use the metaverse like in the 20s, you had to like look at a screen in your desk and like click a little thing. It'll be like the phone you had to crank and put up to your ear and then speak into. They'll see it as ridiculous. But sex with robots. Typing will be like Morse code. But robots might be the right thing. Sex with robots. It's not going to be robots.

Sex with robots is potentially good. It's going to be virtual entities. Where you think you're getting fucked. Your brain is going to steal it because it's all digital. It's not even that. You're going to be able to download experiences from other people. So people will sell an experience like their memory or something. It's not even that. You're going to be able to download experiences from other people. So people will sell an experience like their memory or something.

If we can transcode data off the brain, then you're going to have Tom Cruise be like, would you like to experience what it's like to be Tom Cruise at the Oscars? Maybe. Maybe that's going to happen. Because I do believe that we are soul, mind, and body, I'm skeptical that some of our ability to replicate that will actually come to pass. Like, I don't believe that you can upload. I don't think it's just technology. Like, yeah, today we can't upload your brain to the cloud,

but 500 years from now we will, or at least 1,000 years from now we will. Like, I actually think, like, 25,000 years, no nuclear wars, you still won't be able to separate what is the human being from the intersection of mind and body. I don't think they can upload a person to the computer. I think they can copy data and then put it in your brain and stimulate your brain to make it experience and see and feel. Yeah, that idea that they'll stop using computers and start using human brains as the computers. I don't know.

They work quicker. Yeah. I mean, fundamentally I agree that just, there is something about the human being that can't be reduced to information processing. And in order to argue that these machines could be conscious, that's essentially what you have to believe is a total materialistic

worldview that does not allow any possibility for the soul. And then on top of that, you also have to assume that assume that given that framework, we would ever have the capability to recreate consciousness on a circuit board which is also a stretch well i'm i'm not convinced that could happen yeah you know and there's questions about whether data is actually alive for sure whether it's a soul or it doesn't i'm just saying that if if we can data's alive i don't know that's no there's no question about that. I'm saying that he's a robot. I didn't mean to attack data. Data's different. I'm just saying

they can we can electrocute you and make your arm close. Sure, yeah. So there will come a point, in my opinion, where we can electrocute and send signals to your brain and figure out how to transcode information and trick your brain into experiencing or thinking things.

That may well be true. Maybe it will always feel plastic, though, because it is your brain. You know what I mean? Like something about the experience will be of uncanny value. This kind of goes to the question of why can't you just upload us to a cloud? And it's because even our thoughts aren't just our brain. Your thoughts are also connected to senses that happen in other parts of your body. And so, can you, is it like the matrix

where you can teach me Spanish by pushing a button? I don't think so. Because to really understand Spanish, I have to have heard, and I have to have seen, and I have to have spoken. Like, there are actual sensory elements of that. And you couldn't give me your experience of those things because

my sensory apparatus, while fundamentally similar to yours, are not identical to yours. The better example is actually I don't think you'd be able to plug someone into the matrix, teach them a language because like for Italian, for instance, you need that physical fingertips pinching. Come on. I wonder if you can experience that. How do you actually speak the language? If a memory is like a neural pathway, like it's an exact combination of pathways that you can geometrically calculate, maybe you could imprint the ability to access that geometric convoy with like a certain – but like you said, every brain is different. Well, and every body is different. That's the part that I think we're missing, that an experience is not just information, meaning information in the brain. It's also this tactile sensory apparatus that we have

that is connected to everything that we know and everything we've ever experienced. I've got to imagine it's outside the body too. If it's like the neurons in your stomach and in your muscles, and those are electromagnetic, you have an electromagnetic field that surrounds you. You should look up human magnetic field

if you want to see the image I'm talking about when I keep referencing that. But we have these dynamic magnetic fields that must be affecting our thoughts. Also, the godlike being, who definitely isn't God, but who exists out there, who probably made everything

and knows all of our thoughts and is above all, he built the simulation, right? The simulation that we all think is reality. He's going to have something to say about all this. Do you think God is big? Hold on, hold on, hold on. You want to know something crazy?

They've taken high-powered magnets and put them on people's brains, turned them on, and then people say they felt the presence of God when that happened. I was wondering if God was like a huge thing that's like hovering over our galaxy and is playing with us like ants. I think they've said when they use these machines, there was a study and if they use the machine to hit your brain with certain electrical waves, you'd be less likely

to believe in God. It was very interesting. I heard the exact opposite. I experienced God at a Paul McCartney concert and I'm not joking. I was on mushrooms. I went to see McCartney when I was in my 20s at Staples. And in the middle of the concert, of course, as he always does, he came down, sat on the front of the stage,

played Blackbird on his acoustic, and then played Yesterday on the acoustic. And 13,000 people lit up their candle. Back then it may have actually been lighters, but maybe it was before the iPhone. It was probably all lighters. And started singing along to Yesterday, and I felt the Holy Spirit,

what I would describe as the Holy Spirit. I grew up in a somewhat Pentecostal church environment, and I knew this sensation to be the sensation of the Holy Spirit. And sitting there at Paul McCartney, I had this existential crisis of either Paul McCartney is God or that experience is not the Holy Spirit. And that's one of the formative moments in my religious life. You do believe it was the Holy Spirit? Yeah, Paul McCartney's God.

What do you think God is? Well, I want to mention this, so I just pulled this up. Magnetic brain stimulation, quote, reduces belief in God, prejudice towards immigrants. And it's very funny because when this was first published, I saw the responses on Twitter were like, oh, so brain damage makes you a liberal. How do you define God for yourself? Well, in the very traditional way, I would say, yeah.

Like a man? I make a lot of jokes about it, but, well, God is... That's not the traditional way, Ian. That's liberal propaganda. That he's a man. That's not the traditional way, Ian. That's liberal propaganda. That he's a man. That's patriarchy. Yeah. God has revealed himself as a man in Christ, I would say,

and God in the Bible refers to himself as the Father, for example. But that's to help us understand the incomprehensible. It's not that God is a father. You can't go, well, I understand God because I understand my dad. It's more like because we have a universal understanding in some level of what a father is, we can begin to understand something about God. A father is a term that we understand as humans, and everything good comes from God. And so God is actually a father in a truer sense that an earthly father

is because everything comes from him but it's these are terms that help us understand it seems we can't like constrain him in that sense imagine a color you've never seen before oh that's tough you can't even do that and you've seen colors yeah and that's and the issue i find with a lot of atheists is that they're like i should be able to see evidence of God and the things I can see. And I'm like, bro, we know more than three dimensions exist and you can't even visualize it. That's right. And that's like rudimentary. God can only relate to us through – the creator can only relate to us through what is created because we are created beings.

And so our ability to even conceptualize God is limited to what we are we can't actually it's actually it kind of goes back to the iq question earlier right that it's very hard for us to imagine higher iqs than we have because the imagination to do so is the exact thing that's constrained by the limitations of our iq and so you you meet someone with a true breakaway. Like I met Antonin Scalia one time and got the privilege of having a dinner with him. This is a guy with like 170, 160, 170 IQ. He's not like us.

He sees colors that we don't see. He sees patterns that we don't see. You cannot know what it's like to be him. You can't even make believe, imagine what it's like to be him. The average American has a 95 IQ. Well, average is the average yeah 100 iq the average person with down syndrome has like a 75 iq antonin scalia had like a 170 iq he is literally more more advanced than you than you are from a person who is actually retarded. I'm not using that as a pejorative. I'm using it as a descriptive. Imagine if you were the only person on earth with 115,

120 IQ, and every single other person on earth had Down syndrome. That's what it's like to walk around and be Leonardo da Vinci or one of these 180 IQ guys. I say all of that to say, like, that tells you that you can't even imagine the things that he sees. Everybody with those breakaway IQs throughout all human history, they all speak like six or seven languages by the time they're eight or nine, and no one taught them any of the languages. They perceive patterns that we do not perceive. Now, even Antonin Scalia has a brain that is roughly the size of a cantaloupe. We cannot even begin to imagine not just a godlike intelligence. We can't begin to imagine a 400 – I mean, I'm using terms that we can't –

That's right. So here's what I love. Could God create a boulder so heavy that he himself could not lift it? And yet the answer is? I know. Actually, I was just reading about this. I'm curious what you would say. Yes.

Hold on. Let me explain. The point I want to make. Different answer. I've programmed video games before. Have you programmed or worked on any of these games and stuff? I'll tell you this. Games.

You can program a video. So you can program a video game where you make a villain so strong that nothing can destroy him. And then you can go into the base code of the game and remove him. The idea of creating a boulder so heavy that God can't lift it, the problem is that people, typically atheists, don't have – it's not a religious thing. It's like the ability to understand that what we touch, smell, see, and hear is not reality. And so there's a limited understanding among some humans that the charged electromagnetic spectrum exists and we can't touch, smell, or see or hear that. And it's real. But then why stop there?

I don't understand. It's a limitation in the human mind where they're like, well, if God made a boulder so heavy he couldn't lift it, I'm like, why would God be in his own video game if he made it? You know what I mean? So this is the answer that I got from something I was reading recently. It's a book called Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed, and his formulation of this is really brilliant. Basically, the concept of something too heavy for an infinitely strong being to lift is an incoherent thought and therefore it is nothing and so the answer is could god lift something so heavy is there something so heavy god he i'm sorry could god create something so heavy that he himself could not lift it the answer is no

because the thing you're describing is a nothing and for god nothing is impossible so it what it's like a logical contradiction and you're trying to map that onto God. God is beyond the universe, and God is beyond the concept of weight itself. Can I give you my answer to this question? I think that God did make an object so big that he couldn't lift it. My balls. We're on the after show. I think God made an object so big that he couldn't lift it and then he lifted it. And I think this is like the central moment in Christian theology, which is to say that there is a thing that God valued above every other thing. And it was a thing that God definitionally is incapable of having in himself.

So God is love. That's a biblical concept. God values love. But God is love. That's a biblical concept. God values love, but God is love. And so the thing that he values is something that's perfectly expressed in himself. But there's something that he valued even above love. There's something that he valued so highly that he valued it more than he hated sin. And the thing that he valued more than he hated sin and valued more than his own personal attributes was faith. Faith is the thing that God values above everything else, and God himself doesn't possess it. He can't, because faith is, according to Hebrews, the substance of things hoped for, things

not seen. God can't hope for anything because he sees everything. There's nothing in which he can hope. There's nothing greater than him. And so through the entire mechanism of biblical history, the entire mechanism of the creation, the entire mechanism of the fall of man, the entire mechanism of the giving of the law, all of it, all of this leads to the moment where God can tent himself in human flesh in Christ, live as a man, not under the burden of sin, but apart from the burden of sin, and face uniquely among any human ever the actual opportunity as both god and man to faith god and the and the uniqueness of christ among all religions in comparison to all humanity and even even anything we've ever dreamed up is the idea that in christ god lifted the rock that

god himself could not lift apart from christ that God valued faith most highly and in Christ gave himself the opportunity to faith in himself. I think that's the actual, I think that's the actual most important thing that has ever happened in creation. We got to wrap it up because we are way too late. I got to upload this. We got to upload this.

You're saying the placebo effect is like a scientific example of faith. We've gone really late. I love you too so Jeremy thanks I thought that was an excellent final thought thank you and this has been an absolutely fantastic show so thanks for hanging out

and for everyone who's a member thanks for being members and making all this possible we'll see you all next time