I used to be on board with the whole "lol Ben Stiller meditation

>>8920453
Kill yourself

>>8920453

>muh scientism
>muh obsession with rationality and reason to the point of being totally blind to why the human mind even conceived metaphysics in the first place

how can these redditors miss the point so fucking hard

>>8920453
What are some of your favorite moments OP? Preferably with links.

File: 1477702798664.jpg (69KB, 699x485px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 699x485px

>>8920453

Okay I've been looking for a straight answer to who he is and what he believes. My brother used to idolize him and Eckhart Tolle, and he still likes them, but he thinks Harris comes off as arrogant now. I've tried, but I can't get a clear answer to what Harris is about.

I think my brother likes how dispassionate and impartial he sells himself as. I also think Harris's influence has caused him to embrace subjectivism somehow.

Can anyone point me to the most essential 1-5 hours of listening or reading? Probably gonna take the plunge and listen to JRE 804.

Harris is a reasonable lad. His podcast is good you can skip the religion/Islam stuff if that's not your thing, there really is a lot of it.

Not that I don't think he's right on these subjects but I don't need any more convincing.

Harris is a pleb who has to confront his failure to beat Hume.

Also, he is very good at deflecting on his knowledge of neuroscience.

>>8921078
Not only that moral facts exist, but that they are grounded in reality somehow and as such a kind of eternal law of nature. Disagree with this and he'll acuse you of wanting to justify pedophilia or something. Also somehow torture is good if the US does it but not anyone else somehow.

>>8920453
I don't know if I'd call him a genius.

Smart as fuck though.

>>8921085
Hume couldn't even confront his failure to beat Hume. It's a nice bit of theoretical scepticism but at the end of the day science 'just works' regardless of that technicality.

>>8920453
>watches ted talk
>"science can answer moral questions"
>only talks about muslim women not being stoned/science allowing us to live longer

>>8921099
Yeah, that's why there have been thousands of bogus "peer-reviewed" studied released over the years that are pure nonsense because it "just werks".

More like the four Horsemen of the reductionists!

When will Scientism die?

>>8921147
Well, planes still fly even though Hume says 'dude you like can't know if the last time is a guarantee for the next time bro the laws of physics might change'

File: xBt0owf.jpg (49KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 655x527px

>>8921104

Okay I'm watching it now. It's more like
>science can answer utilitarian questions

Interesting, but this doesn't really seem like philosophy because it doesn't address the more fundamental question of "Why utilitarianism instead of x, y, or z?"

>>8921093
moar

>>8921153
when smug continentals stop trolling people with sophistry

>>8921159
Way to completely misunderstand Hume.

Hume never advocated applying this to our methods, he simply recognised this problem but offered the sceptical solution of living ourselves in this manner anyway.

Also, your points don't address Hume's point about morality. You are using the fact science "just werks" as somehow comparable to Harris's claim that science can inform moral decisions but this is a large leap with no basis.

>>8921164
I'm not a continental, thanks.

I've listened to him and his calm, rational manner of speaking is very convincing and somehting to copy if youre into debating.

On the other hand its obvious hes not that well read and seems a bit like a pseud who decided to become an intellectual after weatching some Hitchens videos

File: Naamloos.png (218KB, 419x384px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 419x384px

We'll see how good this guy handles himself with Jordan peterson

>>8921077
bump for this, I'm genuinely interested now, since I am on the same boat that OP used to be

>>8920453
>Still
Subtle

>>8921162
>moar
Zizek had a kind of proxy argument with him on the torture thing. Probably turns up if you search something like zizek torture pill. Good fun!

>>8921240
hopefully if peterson doesn't die by then

Zizek is not very good at debates.
He's good at writing books. But he's not good at making his case against another party.
"B-b-b-but muh Lacan.. And we need Hegel and dreams, uhhhh, I claim."
His lectures get extremely repetitive and you have to look each time for a nugget of novelty in them. He's honestly convinced most of us who go watch him haven't heard of his Starbucks shit or cutting the balls off instead of putting dust on them.

Sam Harris on the other hand is a modern day Socrates who will BTFO your sophist ass without ever showing any anger or disgust on his part. Rip you apart and you'll only notice the lethal wounds after he's gone. He truly is reason incarnate, the logos manifested.

>>8921323
lol what a freakin' hilarious post

Greatest philosopher since Hume. Harris will go down in history as the man to finally solve the is-ought problem.

As Schopenhauer said: Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/arthurscho385253.html

>>8921323

nice bait

>>8921338
Are you shitposting?

His book Moral Landscape didn't address the is-ought problem whatsoever.

>>8921348
Well, maybe you should read it again because that is the central theme of the book.

>>8921338

sam harris literally gave $10,000 to someone for proving that he never solved the is/ought problem.

>>8921352
Publicity stunt. Harris loves toying with anti-science philosophers.

>>8921350
Le just reread the book

Why don't you elucidate, pleb? Oh that's right because you know he didn't.

>>8921366
Epic shitposting.

Go back to plebbit.

>>8921352

>He actually believes you can derive is/ought, and morality in general, from science

Hey Sam, I'll take my $10k now please.

>>8921372
Le just teach me because I'm too lazy to read the book for myself

Is the only alternative to ignoring the is/ought problem moral nihilism?

I would love to see Harris and Hume together on the Charlie Rose show.

>>8921386
Except Sam Harris literally held a competition for who could change his mind after he got so much criticism. Someone won the competition and he even posted the guy's essay on his website.

Kill yourself, brainlet.

>>8921396
His goal was to get people like you talking. And guess what? It worked.

>>8921396
I don't want to brag but pretty much every day I talk to Sam on Google Hangouts and it was my idea for him to do the contest. I introduced him to Eric Bischoff's book Controversy Creates Cash. Since doing the "contest" his book sales have tripled. Yeah, so don't pretend to know more than me about Sam. The blog and podcast are him in character. I know the real man, unlike every single other person on this board.

>>8921406
Le it was all an epic plan

Brainlet.

>>8921419
Epic.

>>8921423
You are such an ignoramus.

>>8921425
You are an effeminate nu-male.

>Hah I hang with Sam on like Google hangouts

Laughing at you from behind my screen. Go on, reply again so I can laugh at you, dork.

>>8921432
Your envy is palpable.

>>8921419
Sam employs me to talk to him at least once an hour on AOL instant messenger and he says you are full of shit.

>>8921454
Thanks for making me laugh again, dork.

>>8921463
Aww, Mr. Tough Guy behind his keyboard. I seriously fucking doubt you would say these things to my face.

>>8921469
>Aww, Mr. Tough Guy

Dork continues to type like an effeminate nu-male. What a surprise.

>>8921475
Stop projecting.

>>8921475
Post a picture if you're so tough. Not only do you come across as a dumbass, you come across as a huge pussy too. Let's see a picture. I'm waiting.

>>8921486
>>8921482
Dorks triggered once again.

Keep replying, it only makes me laugh to see you so triggered.

File: 220px-Ben-Stiller-(MS1411200222).jpg (15KB, 220x330px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x330px

>>8921265
underrated as fuck

>>8921494
Look everyone, he refuses to post a picture but I am the dork nu-male. Laugh all you want but next time you go to the bathroom to sit down and pee you'll see your scrawny ass in the mirror and realize just how right I am.

>>8921514
Cringe post.

>>8921518
Cringe life. I bet you sleep on the same twin sized mattress you slept on as a kid.

what a great thread

>>8921525
Strange reply, projecting?

>>8921548
You're gay.

>>8921078
his podcast, not JRE lol

>this whole exchange between 2 retards

/lit/

>>8921572
Looking at your post history now and it's pathetic.

>>8921388
well free will is an option as well which kinda breaks the is ought to problem. you can either pretend the is ought to problem isn't there, accept it and become a nihilist, or try to defend some form of free will

>>8920473
>being totally blind to why the human mind even conceived metaphysics in the first place

go on...

>>8921514
Not him, but

Screenshot Harris convo, even the slightest hint, and we'll all concede. Until then, you are just a shitposter bra.

>>8921553
Child.

>>8921593
I'll post a screenshot when gay boy posts a picture of himself shirtless.

>>8921589
This.

This is why 4chan blows now. Edgelorfs hint at having so profound insight and either greentext cop out because le memes or dont actually have that secret knowledge and merely want to feign contrarianism.

I miss the old lit, straight out the gold lit. Please be a pretentious fuck and slaptype the fuck out of me. But please also make sure it has content.

inb4
Irony
Newfag

>>8921584
>free will is an option as well
It's not.

>>8921609
Go back to Reddit.

>>8921614
Have a tab open right now. Reddit is a lot better than this shit website if you can find the right subreddits.

>>8921609
So that's a no. If you really conversed with Harris and were eager to prove so (as your earlier comments led us to believe), than you would ne smart enough to understand the playing field here i.e., this site is dominated by faggots who inflate their egos and then runaway. That's literally the point. So now, yet again, another promising anon too has been discarded to the realm of faggotrt merely for not wanting to end the shitpost joke or prove his true intellect to us. In short, a friend of Sam Harris wouldn't be so petty. Also, yes, I realize how much of a faggot I am for playing into all of this I know this is precisely what you wanted. I will kill myself now.

>>8921622
name some pls

>>8921628
tl;dr

>>8921631
You are gay kys tits or gtfo

File: rarepicofsam.jpg (134KB, 850x572px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 850x572px

Here's a rare pic of Sam that he sent me on Google Hangouts.

>>8921622
Lol thanks for proving you're from there.

Could tell by the way you type. Loser!

>>8921584
>you can either pretend the is ought to problem isn't there, accept it and become a nihilist, or try to defend some form of free will


If everyone was dead, there would be no human world: it is up to us to decide if their ought to be a human world. Those who prefer to exist, than not, declare there ought to be a human world. In order for there to most assure a long lasting healthy human world, it has been determined/discovered, there ought be rules. If there is no rules, the overwhelming majority of existing entities, likely do not desire such, and the livelihood of the coherent human world is threatened, which we have already seen, the collective major majority of conscious intelligence, ought not want to be the case, so there can be a case which, by which one can successfully declare what ought to be,

I suppose the problem, stems from, 'objective' knowledge of is/ought?

There is no objective concrete necessitation, that the human world must exist, or that no humans ought exist: (if there is no God) there is no is/ought from any source outside of the human desire (besides the laws of nature: the attempt to seek or discuss moral or metaphysical information, is the potential for is/ought morality to be derivable from the laws of nature?) :
the trouble then goes to democracy, if it is only the collective of each individual, which determines what is and ought should be, it is possible for their thinking to be fallible: but if it is possible for a person to persons thinking to be more or less fallible on this subject, then does this imply, that there is some objective standard, for an individual approaching, morally/lawfully what is and ought should be?

>>8921722
over my head

>le reddit man
Can't wait to see him get BTFO by /ourguy/ Jordan Peterson

>>8920453
I'm impressed by his writing about gun control, it was very pragmatic and he seemed to actually know what he was talking about. But I also heard him give an hours long talk about free will, which was pure sophistry and semantics. He only really gave one argument for how rejecting free will would make any difference to one's worldview, which was that if we don't believe people have free will we won't hate them for their actions and will be more at peace. And that's at least partly bullshit because people often do get angry at inanimate objects in much the same way they get angry at other people, even without philosophically believing in their free will. e.g. "Fucking computer, why won't you fucking work, you piece of shit? I hate you. I'd punch this thing if it weren't so expensive."

File: IMG_2096.jpg (202KB, 1241x1830px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1241x1830px

I simply don't understand how a hard determinist like Sam Harris can be so adamant in defending the idea of objective moral facts. Saying an action is objectively "good" or "bad" only makes sense if you assume you could have done otherwise, which is clearly false when you've taken the view that free will is bullshit. Human moral intuitions are merely biological instincts to be studied by evolutionary psychology.

Sam Harris's crude attempt to prove science supports utilitarianism reminds me of the common characterization of Sophisticated Theists as otherwise intelligent people who are afraid of allowing the public to accept the full extent of atheism. "Don't worry about atheism leading to moral nihilism because there is a God" becomes "Don't worry about atheism leading to moral nihilism because there is science."

Waking Up is a very good no bullshit introduction to Eastern philosophy, though, and I would recommend it.

>>8921386
>I'm right
>No, I don't have an argument, go read a book and make my argument for me

>>8921610
>>8921589
>>8920473
Because metaphysics concerns itself with questions outside the realm of science and rational understanding of the world
Science is only good at figuring out stuff that can be tested about the world
But it can't address some questions that might be reasonable to ask

>>8921077
>>8921261

Not OP, but these are some very good ones that aren't too long:

SH on Black Lives Matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_8K-eulZJ4

Conspiracy theories:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL9yyhs6pBE

Ted talk on AI / superintelligence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg

Just poke around YouTube. Tons of great clips and compilations.

>>8921926
>Saying an action is objectively "good" or "bad" only makes sense if you assume you could have done otherwise, which is clearly false when you've taken the view that free will is bullshit

No, questions of objectively considering things good or bad still make sense if you don't believe in free will. You are making it sound as if the philosophy surrounding the idea of free will is positing that we literally have everything decided for us at all times, and thus could never hope to have "done otherwise" in some action of our own, which isn't what free will is about.

The issues explored by the debate around free will are mostly about the extent to which many factors influencing our lives are out of our control, such as our IQ. It is essentially a rejection of the belief that we can fully control our lives and bring it to a desired outcome once we have enough freedom and force of will to do so - a belief that people like Sam would argue lie at the root of most forms of arrogance. For example, a successful businessman drawing his self-worth entirely out of his interpretation that he had no help in life, and that his success lies entirely in his own hard graft and determination, rather than from genetically inherited traits (like IQ) enabling him to bypass variables that for others are insurmountable obstacles.

>>8921265
HAH. Good catch, and bravo OP.

>>8921767
January 16th, 2017 - The day Sam Harris converted to Christianity.

>>8922137
He actually makes the joke that he looks like Ben Stiller towards the end of the first video. kek'd

>>8921323
We don't need another Socrates, or another Jew with a new and improved ontology.

>>8922151
>which isn't what free will is about.

There are multiple layers of the philosophical debate and understanding of what the word free will means and how it relates to any possible existing in reality

>>8921388
Or good old fashioned religion. If God exists, the is-ought problem is solved because God says it is.

>>8921240
Fucking thissssssssssssssssssss

I am actually really fkn excited about it

>>8921297
Was freaking gut wrenching seeing him cry in his latest youtube vid, although it did leave me with a sense of disgust.

>>8921419
You should see a psychiatrist

>Sam Harris
>Stanford, B.A. degree in philosophy in 2000
>Ph.D. degree in cognitive neuroscience UC Los Angelos

Why the fuck are you guys hating on him? Isn't he a litard like the rest of you? It seems the only difference is that he actually know some science. Like any good philosopher who's not a joke.

>>8921338
KeK you made me laugh. Have a you.

>>8922737
He's only written like 2 papers on neuroscience and both were badly received

>>8921240
who's he

>>8920453
The guy has a fanatical faith in the human mind. The way he talks about rationality like it's some kind of superpower is cringeworthy. He, and all of you, need to read more.

>>8921338
This is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about because contemp. ethics has already moved way passed the is-ought problem. People jus bring it up to Harris because it's a convenient example of one of the many problems that he fails to address. And then he thinks philosophers are obsessed with it jus because they keep annoying him with it lol

>>8922777
>Those trips

He is your prophet Kek

Hmm he is good, but nobody beats Christopher Hitchens. I dare anyone to find a more eloquent speaker than the Hitch.

>>8922028
>But it can't address some questions that might be reasonable to ask

such as, give a few examples?

>>8922028
First off, metaphysics as it stands today is not the end all, with the advent of modern science it has most definitely taken a back seat. And metaphysics and science are certainly not as incompatible as you seem to imply.

>>8922777
Psychology professor from University of Toronto. He gained a lot of notoriety online recently by opposing legislation which would require you to use made-up gender neutral pronouns upon request, though his work in general is very not /pol/ other than his Christian views and frog worship.

I don't think sam Harris overall goal with his project is to be any more in depth with his philosophy than he already is. The common man will never read philosophy past what needs to be done in undergraduate courses, which is about as far as he delves into his work. Yes, you can pull it apart like you can most philosophy if you continue to work at it. Harris does not care about academic acknowledgement. He knows he can catch a wider audience by having limits. In his own rationale it is much better to educate millions on surface level philosophy than it is to gain the prestige of a few thousand academics who would read his papers.

>>8923495
>by opposing legislation which would require you to use made-up gender neutral pronouns upon request
No, the legislation never had anything vaguely like that. It simply included trans on a list of aggravating factors, potentially making certain crimes carry heavier sentences if the victim were trans, same as if they were gay or black etc atm

Does anyone have a copy of that video where an actual neuroscientist pokes fun at Harris for being a fraud?

>>8922137
I don't mind Sammy, but when he wastes time on unintellectual topics such as BLM it makes me lose some respect for him and reminds me that he's mostly just a "pop intellectual", in it for the quick buck.

File: boss chomsky.jpg (31KB, 396x594px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 396x594px

> how can anyone not consider this dude a genius
Its simple
I look at the facts and reality
And then I look at Harris apologetics for state power and violence

>>8922796
>The guy has a fanatical faith in the human mind.

Yes, the human mind evolved in the manner which was conducive to our survival, which does not necessarily entail thinking rationally or even accurately perceiving reality.

Sam Harris is a pseudo-intellectual.

Now, I'm not throwing this term out there randomly or as a garden variety insult. I have a very specific meaning in mind when I say that Harris falls short of being a proper intellectual, as I hold that being an intellectual demands a certain kind of rigor of thought process, which Harris continually demonstrates his own lack of; which is that he must be willing to actively look over his own arguments in order to understand where they may be flawed or wrong and revise them in the light of any reason that reveals fundamental problems with them. Harris refuses to re-evaluate his own understanding of things when people straight up point out where his lines of reasoning are weak or flat out wrong, choosing instead to simply continue on while ignoring the criticism and acting as if his arguments were sound. He fails to do basic research on the issues he claims expert knowledge of.

Harris lacks the discipline to do philosophy proper, and mostly is only able to engage with the non philosophical disciplines he dabbles in at a relatively low level.

>>8925114
I think it was in an "ask me anything" episode and the comment got a lot of upvotes.

When will neuroscientists and reductionist plebs like Harris die off?

Serious question.

>>8925171
Any examples of what you just postulated?

>>8925171
This accurately describes the entirety of the "New Atheist" movement.

>>8921093
Why does everyone on here always misrepresent his arguments? He's saying we should care about human suffering and the well-being of conscious creatures. GIVEN that that is what we care about, we should be able to objectively measure the moral good of actions. For example, how is chopping someone's vagina off and sewing it shut increasing human well-being? Does it provide a net surplus of human well-being into the world?

Yes the CRITERIA is subjective, so is the idea of health being not losing a lung to smoking or dying at the age of 30. Who's to say that's objectively unhealthy? It's just something we generally agree upon. And just like with this idea of morality, measuring it is hard, as is it with health. Some things will be more obvious than others.

That's how I've generally understood his argument.

>>8921162
>"Why utilitarianism instead of x, y, or z?"

Heh, you actually expect him to address that?

>>8925211
>For example, how is chopping someone's vagina off and sewing it shut increasing human well-being?

This racist degradation of foreign minority cultures is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Go back to /pol/.

>>8925232
S-sorry, I meant w-when white, hetero-normative, cis men do it

>>8925285
>not mentioning able-bodied persons

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>8925211
The problem comes in defining suffering and his stupid concept "well-being". Here he says "oh just look at their brains! See! They're clearly in pain!". But we don't need to be able to scan someone's brain to know their in pain, and never did. Philosophers have been making the same arguments since forever. If you base an ethical system on one single thing you run into dickloads of problems, which Harris just shrugs off.

>>8925298
>But we don't need to be able to scan someone's brain to know their in pain, and never did.
The more methods, the merrier. The preciser the methods, the better.

>Philosophers have been making the same arguments since forever.
Yeah, it's not entirely OC and he'll admit to this.

>If you base an ethical system on one single thing you run into dickloads of problems, which Harris just shrugs off.
Namely that it's hard to measure or?

>>8925192
He explicitly says in his ethics book that he didn't read any moral philosophy because he thought it was boring

>>8925211
>Why does everyone on here always misrepresent his arguments?
>For example, how is chopping someone's vagina off and sewing it shut increasing human well-being? Does it provide a net surplus of human well-being into the world?
I believe you'll find that part of his argument in the comment you repkied to using the pedo variation. When in doubt ask why people are trying to justify something that is generally accepted in the west as reprehensible.

So why am I disagreeing with Harris? It must be that I am a terrorist pedophile intent on circumcising all women. I just cannot see how that is wrong and so we will always disagree.

Of course most people who aren't lobotomized/Sam Harris can see this is a lazy attempt to attack someone's character.

>>8925305
An easy problem is the utility monster. What if I drrive greater pleasure out of causing pain on some level. Another fork more specific to Harris is let's say birds have different enough brains that we cannot say there is a mammalian correlate to pain there. Let's say I like plucking live birds for fun, pulling off their legs etc is it therefore a moral imperative to distribute birds to me?

Another example, what if I like eating people alive. I drug them with strong painkillers so they feel no pain on their final moments. Is this morally right?

>>8920460

>muh
>muh
>if you're an atheist you're a redditor fedora tipper

/lit/ is surprisingly immature and bad at arguing.

File: GKfYE39.gif (1MB, 463x257px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 463x257px

>>8925325
ok we have no rebuttal to your celestial teapot argument, you win. Now please:
You need to go back.

>>8925305
>Namely that it's hard to measure or?
That, and the fact that values always, ALWAYS, run into conflict. If you claim that a single one of them overrides all others you run into some pretty silly conclusions and reductio ad absurdums, such as the Brave New World situation.

Give Bernard Williams a read. He died before Harris was around which is a shame because I feel he would've torn him a new asshole. His work is basically an argument against everyone Harris says before he even says it.

>>8925325
That wasn't an argument you retard.

>>8925335
I felt the teapot or spaghetti monster thing were kind of odd things to pick for a "doesn't that just seem way too crazy to you?" argument. Consider that Zeno's paradox is a thing for a second. Or the fedora favorite quantum physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtH3Q54T-M8

Skip to 58 minutes and watch Simon Blackburn's presentation

>>8925335

>You need to go back.

I've never been there so I can't go back. /lit/ is and always will be my home.

Hopefully we can coexist peacefully :3c

>>8925325

>if you're an atheist you're a redditor fedora tipper

i've yet to see anyone refute this

>>8925352
>/lit/ is surprisingly...
>oh me? No I know /lit/ terribly well! I practically live here!
Come now.

Sam Harris gets shit on because people are mostly insecure, they see a guy who is rather popular with ''dummies'' who seem to develop a sense of great self-worth because they follow the teachings of an iNtElLeCtUaL such as Harris and get butthurt and jealous because they think their self-worth isn't justified.
It's 100% retarded insecurities found on /lit/ and those subreddits where he gets posted all the time.

That being said, his moral theory is messed up and he generally doesn't make proper philosophical arguments.
He's also sort of ignorant on geo-politics.

However I love listening to him, he has a great voice and I think is a very sincere and well-meaning person.

>>8925373
>I love listening to him, he has a great voice
This should have been your comment.

>>8925382
Intellectually insecure homo detected.

>>8925387
Meant for
>>8925373

>>8925390
Wrong, meant for: >>8925382

Isn't it time to check out /r/badphilosophy to laugh at people who are dumberer than u? ;-)

>>8925405
lol sounds like someone got banned

>>8925405
Oops meant to post this to my blog and todo list. Please delete mods!

>>8922737
In addition to what >>8922767 said it's questionable how much he actually did for those papers since they were collaborative and the people involved stay quiet about it. The other problem is everything he writes and talks about is philosophy, the subject in which he only spent three years studying. He is no expert in philosophy.

File: 1480006151944.jpg (10KB, 350x490px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 350x490px

>>8925373
>People who think he is rubbish are all just insecure jerks
>That being said he is pretty rubbish

>>8925439
>Being a redditor
Almost as lolworthy as Philosophy's relevance now that we have science ;)

He's unbelievably naive when it comes to political philosophy (or anything related to politics). Just listen to literally anything he's said about the middle east and how he reduces incredibly complex situations down to "USA are the good guys".

inb4 "hes right tho"

>>8925308
I think that's a mischaracterization of what it said. I think he chose not to include too much of it because that'd bore the reader.

>>8925310
You didn't even bring up my argument there, just the example of it and then dismiss it as an ad-hom. I was giving that as an example of something that doesn't increase the well-being of conscious creatures etc, not as an example of why you're a terrorist pedophile.

>>8925323
>An easy problem is the utility monster. What if I drrive greater pleasure out of causing pain on some level.
Yeah, he does mention that there are different peaks in the landscape. If you had a perfect mix of masochists and sadists, you could get a peak there.

>Another fork more specific to Harris is let's say birds have different enough brains that we cannot say there is a mammalian correlate to pain there. Let's say I like plucking live birds for fun, pulling off their legs etc is it therefore a moral imperative to distribute birds to me?
Sure, if that's what you want and it doesn't have any effect on anyone else. If other people are severely disgusted by it to the point where their well-being decreases more than your increases, there's a conflict and it'd be seen as immoral by that standard. Again, we run into the problem of measuring it.

>Another example, what if I like eating people alive. I drug them with strong painkillers so they feel no pain on their final moments. Is this morally right?
I'm not sure on the circumstances, are you killing this man? Then his loved ones would suffer, if not, would the other people be repulsed to such a degree that it'd lower their well-being? If this happens in a tribe where nobody cares and the man would die anyway, for example, then it wouldn't be morally wrong according to this standard.

>>8925336
I'll check him out. The problem seems to be measuring though, still. Conflict arises when someone feels great pleasure for something and another one suffers from it, it gets really hard to see whether it's a net surplus of greatness or not. Add to this that if someone gets killed for example, we'd be deriving that person of all future pleasure etc etc.

>>8925491
What reason do you have to believe that moral outcomes conform to a given mathematical structure? If you do then what mathematical structure?

File: 1410553173851.jpg (95KB, 1600x557px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1600x557px

>>8925171
the truth right here
what those rationality fetishizing scientism adhernts don't get is, that science is a language just like everything else. the mind is not software and the brain is not a computer. we just invent narratives to explain the world to us. ultimately they are based on axioms, or to say it with hegel: behind the curtain of phenomena, there is only what we put there. they don't get that there are unsolvable questions, that truth is superior to provability. they simply fail to deconstruct or even reflect on their own assumptions about science, especially physics and mathematics.
science stems from the indogermanic word sci, like schizm or schizophrenia. it means to seperate. they are parting the world and pretend, that only those phenomena exist, that we can explain, thereby reducing meaning and pretending to be able to solve irreducible problems. they don't get that tests test tests. the are stuck in a cybernetic dream, but don't even get second-order cybernetics or its potentially constructivist consequences.
in the end it's just hubris

Ever since Chompsky tore him a new one this guy has been irredeemable for me

>>8925622
>but don't even get second-order cybernetics

The kinds of people you're talking about tend to think of cybernetics as "what if we connected robots to people's brains man?".

>>8925491
It's not an "ad hom", it's purely an attack on character. Ad hom would be like Hitler was a vegetarian therefore animal welfare amounts to Naziism or some such, you draw a relation between a separate argument and a character attack. There is no argument from Harris a lot of the time, just claims that you agree with him unless you like female genital mutilation for example.

It's also nowhere near enough that an ethical framework or moral theory etc has answers (that really don't make sense) in every or many situations. That doesn't somehow make it more valid. Not that Sam even goes that far, there's a massive gap between what he claims to derive his framework from and the framework he sort of puts forward that isn't explored at all.

File: 1438308073906.jpg (100KB, 466x700px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 466x700px

>>8925649
but that's exactly what harris, dennet, dawkins etc are about.
when i get harris correctly, and please correct me if im wrong, i haven't read any of his books since it is obviously a waste of time, he wants to develop some empirical utalitarian ethics.
meaning he wants to implant micro devices, that monitor the serotonin in our brain, which would be exactly what you just stated.

>>8925675
>he wants to develop some empirical utalitarian ethics.
He wants to take empirical results and using his brain turn it into a framework for a kind of utilitarianism. It sometimes flipflops into something else, so for example if you're in the Middle East you can never use torture ever because suffering is a side constraint, but if you're in the good ol USA it's your duty to torture the shit out of everyone to get secrets, and probably even to develop a torture pill so the torturer doesn't accidently feel bad for freedoms.

>>8920453
>how can anyone not consider this dude a genius?
1) I've read books
2) I know actual smart people
Like Stephen Fry for the UK, Sam Harris is what stupid Americans think smart looks like.

>>8925670
>There is no argument from Harris a lot of the time, just claims that you agree with him unless you like female genital mutilation for example.
He doesn't do this. This is a strawman. Like I did, he mostly just gives examples of things that don't increase well-being and you're twisting this into him saying "if you don't agree with me you support this", which isn't the case. You could have a separate moral framework where you disagree with it. This type of argumentation is quite untasteful and either confused or knowingly dishonest.

>>8925591
Given the moral framework of "well-being of conscious creatures is what we should be concerned about", that just naturally follows. Though precisely defining it is near impossible, but in some circumstances it's quite clear-cut.

>>8925675
>meaning he wants to implant micro devices, that monitor the serotonin in our brain, which would be exactly what you just stated.
He has never stated that he wants to do this.

>It sometimes flipflops into something else, so for example if you're in the Middle East you can never use torture ever because suffering is a side constraint, but if you're in the good ol USA it's your duty to torture the shit out of everyone to get secrets, and probably even to develop a torture pill so the torturer doesn't accidently feel bad for freedoms.
He hasn't stated this either, a quote would be nice. He's generally against torture except for in rare circumstances such as the Stanford example
> In the police truck on the way to the police station: “Where did you leave the Hyundai?” Denial instead of dissimulation: “It wasn't me.” It was—property stolen from the car was found in his pockets. In the detectives' office: “It's been twenty minutes since you took the car—little tin box like that car—It will heat up like an oven under this sun. Another twenty minutes and the child's dead or brain damaged. Where did you dump the car?” Again: “It wasn't me.”

>Appeals to decency, to reason, to self-interest: “It's not too late; tell us where you left the car and you will only be charged with Take-and-Use. That's just a six month extension of your recognizance.” Threats: “If the child dies I will charge you with Manslaughter!” Sneering, defiant and belligerent; he made no secret of his contempt for the police. Part-way through his umpteenth, “It wasn't me”, a questioner clipped him across the ear as if he were a child, an insult calculated to bring the Islander to his feet to fight, there a body-punch elicited a roar of pain, but he fought back until he lapsed into semi-consciousness under a rain of blows. He quite enjoyed handing out a bit of biffo, but now, kneeling on hands and knees in his own urine, in pain he had never known, he finally realised the beating would go on until he told the police where he had abandoned the child and the car.

but since it's hard to regulate he thinks it should just be illegal across the board.

Full case study here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuBea

>>8925815
>Given the moral framework of "well-being of conscious creatures is what we should be concerned about", that just naturally follows

How, what reason do you have to believe, for instance, that you can take happiness as a quantitative value, abstracted from its actuality, and then simply sum up various states into a total, such that being really happy is objectively equivalent to a bunch of people being somewhat happy and that misery can be accounted for with a minus sign?

How many specs of dust in various beings eyes would be enough to justify killing your own daughter?

>>8925837
the brain implant was just my reductio ad absurdum.
please read or answer to:
>>8925622

>>8925853
Alright, I'll give my take on it.

>>8925622
>the mind is not software and the brain is not a computer
Depends on how you define a software it and it seems like the sort of claim that'll become less and less relevant as AI develops. We can already sort of measure the limits in calculating power of the brain and the like, so comparing it to a computer isn't that far-fetched.

> they don't get that there are unsolvable questions, that truth is superior to provability
I'm pretty sure they get that, but they also get that we can't know for sure in our current state what is provable and what isn't. Most would agree that we couldn't know for sure what happens after death, for example. We can only make educated guesses.

>they simply fail to deconstruct or even reflect on their own assumptions about science, especially physics and mathematics.
Any examples?

>they are parting the world and pretend, that only those phenomena exist, that we can explain, thereby reducing meaning and pretending to be able to solve irreducible problems.
I don't think a lot of people would claim that only phenomena we can explain exist, I'm sure at least Harris wouldn't claim this, but it's not something I see people claim a lot in general. What I do see being claimed, is that unexplainable phenomena tend to be a waste of time, which is quite fair imo. "Meaning" is also a waste of time in regards to science etc since that's quite subjective.

>they don't get that tests test tests
In what sense, can you elaborate on this? So if we test, say, how many days/hours an apple can stay fresh before it starts rotting, we replicate this multiple times and come to the conclusion that it's generally 5 days (I don't know if this is correct), and we can then apply this knowledge to the real world by eating our apples in time and thus not wasting them unnecessarily. Even if we're only "testing a test" (and I'm not sure what you mean by this, please elaborate), the results we've gathered from our tests are still useful and beneficial.

>>8925491
>I think that's a mischaracterization of what it said. I think he chose not to include too much of it because that'd bore the reader.
This is wrong. Here is a direct quote from Harris himself.
>Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy. There are two reasons why I haven’t done this: First, while I have read a fair amount of this literature, I did not arrive at my position on the relationship between human values and the rest of human knowledge by reading the work of moral philosophers; I came to it by considering the logical implications of our making continued progress in the sciences of mind. Second, I am convinced that every appearance of terms like “metaethics,” “deontology,” “noncognitivism,” “antirealism,” “emotivism,” etc., directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.

>>8925192
the exchange with Chomsky comes to mind

>>8922684
I'm worried their talk will devolve into them talking past one another

Peterson will probably argue religion has truth derived in moral truth and he'll try to explain what that means and how it is derived through history and application to he foundation of our civilization and its current behaviour. Whereas Sam will get hung up on his symmantics or get stuck with a single claim that religion is not the place to derive morals.

I'm very afraid it'll fall victim to symmantics, word play gymnastics and a lack of understanding of each other's argument framing

Nieschke said god is dead, harris said niestchke is dead

WHOS NEXT?!

>>8923451
>such as
Ethics

>>8929633
God will say "Harris is dead" and thus the circle is complete.

God nearly did it before but had a cosmic cold so no more Hitchens.

>>8929633
lrn 2 spel fgt

File: chomsky_planes.jpg (61KB, 640x340px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x340px

>>8920453
>gets btfo by chomsky
>thinks he can debate Zizek
Not even on the same level.

File: milana wink gif.gif (2MB, 379x452px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 379x452px

>>8930880

mmm that sexy hornet silhouette

>>8921338
>the man to finally solve the is-ought problem.
>is/ought problem
Sigh.
Hume is misunderstood by many casuals.
The is/ought 'problem' was Hume pointing out that if your philosophy can't bridge the is/ought gap it is at least irrelevant. Hume never claimed it was unsolved or unsolvable because he knew of and mentioned several that bridge it!
Teleological ethics and deontological ethics, for example,easily bridge is/ought