Seems like the main quibble he has with Sam comes down to delivery. I don't agree, I rather like that Sam doesn't try to use flattery or sugar coating before he lays out his argument. It just feels more honest that way and less salesman like.

@killa3x

2 жыл бұрын

I agree. Interviewer want a softer approach. Well Sam doesn't do that. Plenty of others can do that. Not sure we have to soften everything for soft people. If Sam's approach is effective for many. No approach will work with all people.

@camerondeans9056

2 жыл бұрын

The quibble may be partly about delivery, but I think it's also about effectiveness. I.e. Does the method Sam is using actually achieve what he wants to achieve?

@kuleebaba9014

2 жыл бұрын

@@camerondeans9056 Sam is clearly not hung up on other people agreeing with him. The concern about effectiveness is yours, not his. I am also sure he never intends to offend people. He tells it like he honestly knows and feels at the moment. To me, that is what makes his message compelling.

@rustyosgood5667

2 жыл бұрын

Some people think that the way someone argues is more important than the argument itself. I find these people to be very uninteresting. Convictions are not rooted in methodology, they are rooted in ideas. I don't think it's efficient to discuss and advance complicated ideas through the lens of politeness. Scientific ideas are presented in papers by means of data and methodologies but until we have a method of quantifying the values of bad ideas, we only have the ideas themselves. If people are thinking and discussing ideas emotionally (Sam's points @ ~40:00), they are wasting time. The best way to reach the most people in the shortest amount of time is to discuss ideas openly and honestly...not emotionally. The reason for this is that, in a crowd of people, you may have 1000 different emotional priorities. It would take forever to dismantle and accommodate the wide girth of feelings and emotions with precision in order to deliver a well reasoned message to everyone. In other words, I think it is almost always most efficient to appeal mainly to those people who are intellectually willing to change their minds when addressing an audience.

@myselftik

2 жыл бұрын

He just cuts through the bullshit. That's a good thing.

The impeccable , most coherent , intelligent and enlightened Sam Harris ! A " must listen " to human being !

That was a great interview. Harris was as usual on point and I really enjoyed the interviewers perspective regards his father etc.

Chris has tried to highlight / change Sam’s approach to expressing all these ideas by acknowledging the merits of religion / culture first just to be more receptive to audiobut it will still back fire the moment you mention some of contentious issue of any religion/culture as people strongly identify with those things. In defence of Chris some strategy like educating people about Listening can be done where people are told just to listen not to agree or disagree but just listen / observe.

Wonderful show. Thanks for having Sam as a guest.

Sam Harris is the only person I’d be willing to “suffer” through this many ad interruptions for.

@dbrad5197

2 жыл бұрын

Me too but no need to suffer... Turn autoplay off. Scroll to the end of the video the restart it. No ads. Enjoy.

@victorvispetto2367

2 жыл бұрын

True... Reason and Truth, Sam is an all-star... The Gods are make believe. The burden of proof is on these believers. So far throughout modernity they have failed at giving one scintilla of evidence of a higher power.

@thomasbarrack1384

2 жыл бұрын

get an ad blocker. If your using the mobile app, when you open a video, skip to the end, then rewind repeatedly about 1/5th of the way across the screen until you get to the start point again, and no more ads. You're welcome. Not trolling here. Try it, the little yellow bars go away.

@dbrad5197

2 жыл бұрын

@@thomasbarrack1384 no need to rewind repeatedly u just scroll to the end and let the replay symbol show up press it and off you go.

@rickyinwakayama

11 ай бұрын

Bro. This channel hungry af.

This is very amazing.

Is it possible to retrieve audio from a screen grab of those lines at the bottom of the screen? Or what are they?

@Repackrider84

2 жыл бұрын

Use two phone’s

@kaydalliance9737

2 жыл бұрын

It's podcast - you can download it to your phone from whichever app you listen to podcasts on - if that's what you are after.

@adamlane6453

2 жыл бұрын

It's not a graphical representation of the sound waves. It's essentially just a visualizer like you'd see on a stereo or media player, showing the relative volume along a range of audible frequencies.

I'm a technologist, and am continually mystified by this idea that machines that "seem conscious" (which is all one could *ever* say of them) would say anything at all about consciousness. That's like asking what a magician's trick tells us about decapitation. If a program behaves in a manner that makes you think it is thinking, that is because it was programmed to do so, or programmed with the ability for that behavior to emerge. Whatever consciousness is, a simulation that appears to be doing it is no more doing it than a calculator is multiplying (which they also don't do). A calculator doesn't "do math" as we do but it sure looks the same on the outside. I guess I could have just said "category error" and made this short haha. Great conversation!

@Unhacker

Жыл бұрын

Addendum: I just want Sam to take - and pass - a single Machine Learning programming course...and still make these assertions. ;)

I think that the human project really needed is not (only) about developing Moral Science, but (mostly) about developing Critical Thinking (and even Popper’s Tradition of Criticism) on a massive basis, with status of human right. Otherwise discussions about fundamentalisms (anti vaxxers, jihadism, etc) will be dead-ends, no matter the communication “tricks” that we use. …and the first step towards that project could be to get the few people already with Critical Thinking to finally take Moral Science seriously.

@patmoran5339

Жыл бұрын

Very well said Armando. We need to stop justifying and start criticizing.

@shortvids6547

3 ай бұрын

Yeah but pretending subjective ideas are objective is only going to alienate anyone who has critical thinking skills. Just because health and good food are hard to define because subjective answers, doesn't mean the science used to study them is subjective. Sure a bookend analysis of moral behavior gives you a guess of the best and worse ends of a made up spectrum. But science requires you can measure something and replicate the results. So he comes in saying, "we can all agree..." nope double wrong. First, we can't agree on subjective answers, that's the definition of subjective. Second, agreeing doesn't make something science. If we all agree that 2+2=5 is correct, then we are all wrong. Until we can prove it by replicating the results reliably, it's not science. Science can basically take a pinhole view of a subjective subject, and provide pinhole answers that guide us, but it can not jump into a moral topic and prove it one way or another. Just inform. That is the nature of subjectivity.

The solution is to provide the actual natural description of what religions seek to describe by other means in this universe. Before you continue to think about absolutely anything, read the following, and keep reading, it goes where you can't imagine; {LIVE Science; Forums, History and Culture; Culture History & Science; What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?}

Be warned. KZread added a commercial every 8 minutes at the beginning and every 4 after the second half. Wtf.

This was great... I just wish it had MORE ads... jesus christ

As an anology to this podcast, and as a gardener, growth depends on soil preparation. Sam's wise words, as accurate, thoughtful, and well-intended as they are, will for the most part, now fall on deaf or uncomprehending ears. The seeds [ideas] that he is attempting to plant, require a recipient's mind to be open, aware, and receptive as based on some significant accumulation of related facts. But, much of the world will not see/hear what he has to say as they would either not have the technology to tune in, or because their media interests follow much more banal subjects such as the Kardashians, Trump's Circus, Fox News, and the like. Sam Harris is food for any brain looking for insights and an end to the strife now perpetuated from so many angles. It is ironic that people like Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson now dominate the airwaves with their concomitant nonsense, while someone like Sam Harris, who actually has valid and interesting things to say, is often just a footnote to modern media consumption.

I found myself audibly telling the other guy to shut up.

When describing ideas , it is impossible to keep focus while addressing every possible feeling in the audience with more them some general statements. Is far more valuable to get the idea then to not offend any possible claim from any one. We will impose a impossible cost to any one using a language if the possibility of offense is a crime with consequence to stop the expression.

@dianedevery3711

2 жыл бұрын

The politically correct, 'woke' mob are outlawing democracy and common sense

Hmm ads ever 3-5 minutes. Say to ruin the listening experience.

The interviewer admirably proved everything Sam Harris tried to explain as the problem. When the interviewer mentioned their father, they were essentially stating their father tried to merge two religions into one. These individuals are still getting their morals from a religion, that's the problem - it doesn't matter which one. Sam Harris states that everyone takes the me, me, me approach, and as long as this occurs, universal morality is impossible to discuss. The interviewer asks Sam Harris what would happen if Harris was lecturing to a group of Muslims, and the interviewer also tried to state what they would say when talking to Muslims. Why? Because they feel that Sam Harris is being offensive to Muslims. The interviewer is taking the position - as long as you're not offensive to Islam, I'm good. That's the problem, it isn't possible not to offend some person, or some group. Which gets to Sam Harris' biggest problem. Sam Harris states that taking offense is not a defense against, or a reason not to state, the truth. The interviewer is offended by something Sam Harris said? NO ONE CARES. The sooner the interviewer understands this fact the faster they will realize that they completely wasted Sam Harris' time with their comments.

One cannot create OUGHT from IS, but one can reference IS to develop better OUGHT, to treat both as separate is to DENY REALITY at your own perils.

@gordonbgraham

2 жыл бұрын

All morality is subjective

@christinalaw3375

2 жыл бұрын

@@gordonbgraham correction, all morality is subjective consensus developed from trials and errors and .......referencing empirical reality.

@gordonbgraham

2 жыл бұрын

@@christinalaw3375 yes...precisely

@gordonbgraham

2 жыл бұрын

@Despize Perform Certainly, they can as they take place in the physical world. We can, for example, say someone is sick or injured and to what degree. That’s an example of an objective observation/assessment of a subjective experience.

The only reason Sam can come across as provocative is he tells it as it is whereas most commentators are slaves to pc

Justice matters because it pertains to who suffers and who doesn’t, and why - humans have evolved an innate sense of fairness but that can also be distilled to terms of wellbeing, ultimately

Genuine question - the moral landscape discussions were around 10 years ago....why has this interview only come out 6 months ago? - I'm not certain but I reckon that must be at least 8 years old

Thank you Chris, I thought you did a good job of intelligently questioning Sam's views. One question I would have to Sam, I understand that the 'bedrock' of his views on morality is that any improvement on the ultimate suffering is good, but why should anyone be concerned with the suffering of anyone else, in particular someone else whom doesn't provide any benefit in return? It would seem our morality has evolved like other traits as a way of advancing our genes, so we are good to those that can help us and bad to those that hinder us. So just using reason, how do we get to a morality of helping those whom hinder us, of loving the enemy?

@mickaziza

Жыл бұрын

Good question

@patmoran5339

Жыл бұрын

Maybe our morality comes from within our cultural evolution of memes rather than our biological evolution of genes. The former is ancient and quite limited while the latter is quite recent and has potentially unlimited capability to be improved. Your bodies may die but ideas might not ever die.

I was raised Christian, but things have gotten better for me since I gave that religion up. I can see things more clearly now. I don't think it was the worst thing to learn those things as a kid. I don't think they are that bad. They are not that good either, but they are not that bad. There will always be a place for religious people. They will always be the true believers. The most spiritually in touch of us. There are things that Christianity teaches that isn't relevant or useful in a tangible sense, but can sometimes be important until we develop a more advanced philosophy (which we might already have right now if you are educated). I think the better content gets on Netflix and KZread, the less people will have the need to go to church. There will still be the communal aspect of church, but we can replace that in other ways. Some of us prefer gathering true knowledge rather than spending our days in local community settings like church. Which leads to loneliness for me anyway. Because some people might think my beliefs are weird or strange so I don't fit into a lot of places. The internet is my safe space. I can listen to Sam Harris and Ted Talks all day. This is my power, my pleasure, my pain.

@adamlane6453

2 жыл бұрын

Nice Seal quote tucked in at the end there. "My power, my pleasure, my pain, baby. To me you're like a growing addiction that I can't deny." Edit: Just noticed your username. I'm autistic, too. One of my quirks is song lyrics spontaneously popping into my head, associated with speech I hear or text I read. So reading your last sentence automatically brought up that song in my mind.

All morality is subjective. It is the agreed upon behaviour, implicit or explicit, between two or more people, be they a couple, a family, a community, a workplace, a team, a nation...the human race. Morality does not occur in a vacuum.

@karlerikpaulsson88

2 жыл бұрын

I completely agree with your analysis, but that wouldn’t mean it’s “subjective” ie entirely dependent on and/or defined by an individual subject, though it would not exist in the absence of subjective experience. i would say it is emergent from the multitude of possible subjective experiences and objectively agreed upon by the community of all peoples.

@gordonbgraham

2 жыл бұрын

@@karlerikpaulsson88 each community, not community of all peoples (although some "morals" are agreed upon by all people, others are not)

@MrSidney9

2 жыл бұрын

All knowledge is subjective, human-subjective that is.

@gordonbgraham

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrSidney9 Knowing is subjective, knowledge is the information gained through subjective experiences. Facts are objective. Knowledge is the accumulation of facts experienced in the objective, material world.

How educated people continue to hold on to their religious beliefs is beyond me.

@reinforcedpenisstem

2 жыл бұрын

It's a bug of the human mind.

@gordonbgraham

2 жыл бұрын

Myth is the lie that tells the truth

@fedcoin1602

2 жыл бұрын

All over the world, for thousands of years, mankind has spent a lot of resources towards an endeavor. To assume there is zero logic or value in that endeavor is a bit closed minded. If you look at in terms of evolution, a bird would not build a nest unless it helped the species survive in some way. Our technology may have out paced our evolution but at some point in history religions helped humanity and they still may have something to teach us.

@blogintonblakley2708

2 жыл бұрын

Educated people hold onto the myths of capitalism... The answer to your question is that educated people hold onto religion because religion and god thinking places them in a hierarchy of authority. That is what god is -- a way to establish authority among humans.

@fedcoin1602

2 жыл бұрын

@@blogintonblakley2708 myths of capitalism. 🤣 lmao

This interviewer basically calls Sam a meanie over and over whilst unironically insulting the intelligence, or at least the capacity to be reasoned with of about 7 billion people.

This projects dies without individual freedom - freedom of speech is a basic characteristic of the landscape that can host these type of analysis.

About 3 minutes in, I have to pause and challenge the the assertion that "most philosophers" believe that values are created by people and there are no objective values. I'm not sure how much normative ethics, metaethics, axiology, moral theory, and other types of moral and normative philosophy the interviewer has been exposed to, but I have read A LOT, and my impression is that most moral philosophers are actually realists about moral value (and presumably about other forms of value). Some make that more or less explicit, but I would say pretty confidently that a significant majority of moral philosophers DO believe in the existence of objective values.

@ghundmanful

2 жыл бұрын

Objective values have to do with instinct. They are concerned primarily with survival. This includes sharing with our siblings (keeping each other warm) but also being selfish when it's required (the stronger young bird throws his weaker sibling out of the nest to have more food for himself). These are values we don't learn. We're born with them. They're part of our primal DNA.

I don't think that this host realizes that this is an interview. He is talking way too much, just trying to lure Sam into a debate. And by doing so, he is proving Sam's point about the human shift to closemindedness.

@kaydalliance9737

2 жыл бұрын

It's Chris' interview, not Sam's so why can't he lead it the way he wants?

@jimmybiangco7272

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaydalliance9737 This is more like a conversation/debate and it should be named as such. In a traditional sense, an interviewer says very little and is neutral. The questions posed are what the audience wants to ask, more or less, in order for us to know more about the subject's expertise. In this case: Sam Harris. I don't really care about the interviewers point of view at all. The worst part of it is that this interviewer's set up is so long winded before his actual question to the point that he seems to answer it himself. Also, he interrupts Sam many times as he is speaking. Bad etiquette.

@kaydalliance9737

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimmybiangco7272 Maybe you are right. They could have called them conversations. And it's exactly why I like the podcast in the first place. Because it's not one question after another but conversations with people and I think Chris often tries to ask 'devil's advocate' questions and you can tell he's listening and trying to understand another's point of view rather than having a bunch of questions he's waiting to be answered. I'm not saying he's perfect but I think after running TED for 20 years and interviewing the best minds for years he knows a thing or two and I'm happy to listen, even when I disagree. I think these conversation(s) would be poorer if he simply asked Sam what he thinks of this or that and left it there. As for interrupting - yeah. Surely they both know by now that there are people who will listen to interesting conversations even if they run well over an hour. Or two.

@jimmybiangco7272

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaydalliance9737 Unfortunately, there are some people in the audience who might get turned off by this. And I am one of them. I will most likely never want to listen to this host again. By calling it the interview, it may even be seen as clickbait. A better title would be: host says his point of view and lets guest speak sometimes only when interviewer agrees with what he is saying. ;)

@johnybrokeit

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimmybiangco7272 I agree with you! The host Was irritating. And I am happy to see you speak your mind while trying to be diplomatic.

Sam Harris is the best intellectual today.

@elizabethk3238

2 жыл бұрын

"best intellectual?" 😅

@24wallachian

Жыл бұрын

A true intellectual would not suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

@hhumca

Жыл бұрын

@@24wallachian He doesnt. He is just able to recognize an idiot when he sees one.

@hhumca

Жыл бұрын

@@elizabethk3238 In the area of morality, self awarness, and consciousness. Yes.

@hhumca

Жыл бұрын

@@24wallachian he does not have one.

When the interviewer talks 2-3 times as much as the person being interviewed does, there's a problem. I expect a little more from TED.

Of course I understand this comes from a place of logical fallacy (confirmation bias, etc), but after so many years consuming Sam Harris's content: if you can't make sense of the position he's defending, you just don't have the ability to "get it" - whether via inability to conceptualize the abstract or by intellectual, philosophical, or shortcomings otherwise. How concise, thorough and from how many different angles must he defend his unconventional yet rational stances from?

🌟

In this interview, only Sam is worth listening to.

@grandepittore

2 жыл бұрын

BS! Chris probed and challenged Sam's ideas very effectively and drew attention to the counterproductive aspects of appearing to be hostile to religious beliefs. I thought he was an excellent interlocutor and it was fascinating to hear Sam being interviewed for a change.

@jerrysmith5782

2 жыл бұрын

@@grandepittore 7:26 it is clear here that Chris just doesn't have the mental capacity to grasp what Sam is saying. Chris just continually misses the point. I'm not saying that Chris is a bad person nor a bad interviewer, only that he is incapable of grasping what Sam is saying.

Life is a “massive lottery” of luck.

@patmoran5339

Жыл бұрын

Was the Theory of Evolution the product of luck or the product of the only beings capable of understanding explanations?

The existence of competing Holy Books proves Sam's landscape analogy as true. They're attempting to find peaks. But they're innacurate attempts...

@blogintonblakley2708

2 жыл бұрын

The thing Sam doesn't like about religion is that it is the old way of establishing authority over one human by another. The new way... Sam's way is no more valid than religion... but it's the way that gives Sam authority so he likes it. Sam like to think that the law is a rational way to establish authority and rule others. But it's not at all. The basic problem is that no human can be trusted with the level of authority over others that we regularly give to everyone from cops to judges to political figures but most importantly to business "leaders".

Sam needs just a shade more right to left corpus callosum

You think Sam should be softer. We get it. You didn’t need to circle back on it 20 times

What universal morality implies is some global enforcement mechanism for values you do not like in other countries. That is, social engineering of other people's cultures. Can we all agree about how well that worked out in Afghanistan?

its weird that Sam's considered "center" now. even just like 10 or 15 years ago he would have been considered definitely on the left, and definitely not center

@tywonellington

2 жыл бұрын

These days being critical of a side (or even a faction of a side) means to many people that you aren't on that side. I've never even for a second ever questioned that he leans left. It seems pretty clear.

@EpicLemonMusic

2 жыл бұрын

I mean thankfully Sam still believes in Liberal values whilst rejecting the Wokeness of the left along with things that don’t match up with facts. He is only a centrist if you are comparing him against radicals IMO

@kaydalliance9737

2 жыл бұрын

Is this a US thing? As a European I would say Sam is on the left.

@punkpatrito79

2 жыл бұрын

Harris being considered a centrist instead of on the left is due to the disintegration of conservatism into populism, nationalism and a reaction to changing demographics in America.

@punkpatrito79

2 жыл бұрын

Also nativeism and isolationism has uprooted the neoliberal concepts of concepts of left and right in the US.

Minute 15, so confusing.

Mars colony design=Rawls' Veil. Inequality won't be a factor for the (TED audience) crew who get to go...higher threat environment, survival (capabilities) more pressing. The bottom of humanity will be condemned to Earth until a solution (tech?) presents. Too risky/irration@l🐒.

The amount of ads we're getting here is immoral and unethical and causes harm to society and our minds. Sometimes I wonder if religion poisons everything or ads do. Both maybe.

This will be offensive to some, but I would challenge anyone to do an Etymological search on the word fundamentalist. It goes from fund, yes economics, to fundament, but in the mix is buttocks, anus. Thinking from the most base necessity only? That makes me feel like removing the mental from the middle of the word.

Nobody like Samuel?

I am one of those people Sam has delighted.

we tried the kid gloves and it does not work ... so we have to take the gloves off and discuss the facts

Neither Chris' softer approach nor Sam's more direct approach will change minds if the recipient is unable or unwilling to change her/his mind. The few of us privileged with clearer mental faculties, in our enthusiasm to enlighten the less privileged, overlook the fact that the less privileged invariably have good reason to not change their mind - to NOT see reason and logic. Jim who makes his living in a small town where everyone votes for the fanatical political party, would be stupid to openly promote and vote for the open minded party. Isabel who belongs to and finds much psychological solace (sense of belonging, a listening ear, etc.) in that unhinged religious sect is unlikely to leave the sect when reasoned with. The pharmaceutical salesman is unlikely to see reason even if you prove to him that the drug he is selling is addictive and killing people. For these folks, seeing reason and logic threatens survival; blocking out reason, logic and denying facts facilitates survival. They will not see reason irrespective of whether it is dispensed gently by Chris or aggressively by Sam. The words of Upton Sinclair come to mind: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” I gleaned this understanding when I fell upon this essay on "the transmission failure of wisdom". According to the essay, irrespective of which delivery approach you employ, if the recipient is not primed to receive the wisdom you dispense, the transmission of wisdom will fail. Other essays on the site (reasonedutopia.com) explain how to prime recipients to receive wisdom or "create an environment that is conducive for recipients to clarify their thinking" as the author puts it. A captivating read.

A "withering scorn" seems quite a good description of Sam Harris' mode of operation. But an even more problematic about this approach is his use of Empiricist philosophy which very much resembles religion. Also, his use of "reason" seems to me to be more "rationalization". Harris shares with Dawkins and others associated with Evolutionary Psychology the notion that atheism alone is sufficient for a science of morality. Atheism is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Genuine moral science must also assume that human minds have an unlimited ability to solve moral problems. Also, could someone tell me how "meditation " differs from "prayer?" In the last couple of minutes, Sam states the idea that AGI is somehow already coming to fruition. It is not. Then, he supports the idea that AGI could come programmed with amoral choices. Bad philosophy will not result in a viable model of moral science. We are moral agents making moral choices and we can make unlimited improvement in moral science, but we must choose to do so. Other commenters might not believe this, but Harris does not believe that humans are capable of making free choices.

@tonygoodkind7858

Жыл бұрын

Pat, why are you trying to make atheism into a broad ideology? _It's just non-belief._ That's it. For example you seem to think atheism is being used to solve morality, but why would you even say that? Sam's argument for the approach to morality he's described doesn't rest on atheism. It rests on choosing the goal of well-being, and looking at the consequences of various actions we might take. So the foundation isn't atheism, it's _facts about reality:_ the fact that putting your hand on the stove causes you suffering is why he argues (if your goal is well-being) that you shouldn't do that act. So it's not my atheism that causes me to give to charity; it's my desire to alleviate suffering and promote well-being. Similarly you say Sam's philosophical outlook "resembles religion", but why? After all, * religions require you simply believe what they say, but by contrast * Sam's position only recommends that you believe what we can reliably know to be true (and "evidence" is all the methods we know that reliably indicate truth). One view involves believing text blindly while ignoring reality. The other view involves only looking at reality to determine beliefs. Now I can't stop you from saying they're similar, but what matters most is the output: beliefs formed based on reality _are_ more reliably true! (And those formed by just blindly believing what you're told _are not_ reliably true. In fact we often negatively call someone "gullible" if they believe things without comparing those ideas with reality. When someone tells you a pink unicorn is in the room, but you don't see it, by default you shouldn't be convinced of their position.)

@patmoran5339

Жыл бұрын

@@tonygoodkind7858Thank you for your considered response to my comment. I do believe that Darwin should have made it specifically known that atheism is warranted by the theory of evolution. Agnosticism simply provides a precarious toehold for believers in the supernatural. Now, we are stuck with a 163-year-old pout. It is human beings and human beings alone that are capable of correcting errors and making progress. Some scientists and philosophers fail to understand the significance of the theory of evolution. It is the first theory to connect the physical with the biological. Thus, of course, applies equally to the philosophy and the science of morality. We can make unlimited progress in the science and philosophy of morality but only if we choose to do so. Human beings are capable of making free choices and do so all the time. Yes, I think the prophecies of empiricism could well destroy the future. I am an advocate of Karl Popper’s philosophy of science. It is Explanatory Realism. Thank you again for your reply to my comment. Perhaps we can communicate in a dialogue?

@tonygoodkind7858

Жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 Did you ignore my last post because you agree? It's truly bizarre to me that you ask to communicate in a dialogue (which requires people reading and responding to what the other says) while you've ignored and not responded to what I said. Your actions betray the fact that you don't actually want a dialog. You can change that at any time by actually reading and responding to me, but you can't _pretend_ to want a conversation while actively _not conversing with me._ Evolution doesn't require gods or rule them out. So why would Darwin say anything about atheism? His idea was just plain, observable truth and has basically nothing to do with whether any gods exist. The only way evolution relates to gods at all is: 1. Some religions claim god(s) caused humans. 2. We know humans originated by evolution. We know this due to the weight of overwhelming evidence (if you go to the _references sections_ of "evolution" and "human evolution" on Wikipedia, you'll find over 400 scientific papers worth of evidence proving this). 3. So we know those religions are wrong about those claims. So that's why some religious leaders (the ones that take their holy texts literally when they claim humans were caused by a god) lie to their followers about evolution: because evolution proves them wrong. Conclusively. But you'll note that none of those religious leaders can (A) address evolution as it's defined or (B) address the evidence proving it. They always argue against (A) things that aren't evolution, or (B) they ignore the evidence. Those are the only two ways evolution-deniers approach evolution. Your comment about "correcting errors" is really wrong. Computers correct errors, for starters. For biology, _if a kid dies due to a mutation giving it non-working lungs, does that kid grow to adulthood to have its own kids?_ If your answer is "no" then you're admitting the "error-correction" of evolution, and that's called natural selection. Many mutations are bad, and the worse they are (like my lungs example), the less chance that kid will spread those bad genes to a new generation. Some mutations are good, and the better they are, the more likely that kid will grow to an adult who has its own kids (spreading those good mutations to a new generation). Empiricism has no "prophecies" and why are you even bringing up that bizarre topic in the first place?

@patmoran5339

Жыл бұрын

@@tonygoodkind7858 Oh my. I guess what we have here is a failure to communicate? Which gods do evolution fail to rule out? I think that Darwin should have called it variation and selection instead of “natural” selection. I think he was probably trying to stay on the good side of his wife and his friends who were believers. The word “natural” leaves the word “supernatural” an open door as an option. Besides that, the most important theological book in the 1850s was William Paley’s 1820 Natural Theology. In fact, Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of biological evolution, strongly desired that Darwin should present the idea that the mind is completely different from the rest of biology and he is the reason I think, that the idea of “Intelligent Design” still has any currency whatsoever. Creationists will grab onto any sliver of information that might help them rationalize their false belief about there being an intelligent designer. Could it be that you are underestimating the power that creationism still has and that it holds sway over the majority of the population of the world? And yes, Empiricism has been used for more than 300 years to “justify” belief. This is usually in terms of the “weight of the evidence.” This is what you get from a philosophy that values prediction over explanation. Genuine science does not prove, it moves from theory to better theory and creates new problems. Religions and bad philosophies seek to find ultimate truth. All mutations are random, and, yes, and, from our point of view, they seem to be cruel and wasteful. If anything can be done about the mutation you cite, it will be done by universal explainers-people. Explanatory realism is optimistic while Empiricism is pessimistic. Consider this: If Empiricism were true, there would be reason to do science. Everything would already be known. Are we ready now to continue the dialogue?

@tonygoodkind7858

Жыл бұрын

@@patmoran5339 When you don't read, _that causes failed communication._ * I explained what gods specifically evolution rules out. * In reply to that explanation, you asked what gods evolution rules out. * So do you see how that failed communication is entirely your fault for not reading what I wrote? _Natural selection works just fine as a name._ The only way it's even slightly weird is that we often pretend humans aren't also nature, and so the human culture things which can drive evolution might wrongly be considered _not natural,_ even though they count as natural for the purposes of how our environment is defined. (An organism's "environment" is basically every factor they face during their existence: the atmosphere, any culture(s), the presence of food, etc). _We know the supernatural isn't necessary for evolution._ We know this because we've simulated evolution on computers like the video "mari/o" here on KZread. So unless you're saying some supernatural element influenced that simulation, we know for a fact evolution doesn't require anything supernatural. Does that rule out the supernatural? No. But unless you have evidence of supernatural influences, you have _exactly zero reason to believe they're involved._ _Do you have evidence the mind is completely different from the rest of biology?_ You don't, and in fact "mari/o" is once again relevant on this point too because it proves minds can become extremely intelligent without intelligence guiding the process. (The moment the programmer stopped programming "mari/o", the AI was completely mindless: it hit buttons at random. Without any guidance from the programmer, evolution caused the AI to eventually race through a Super Mario level faster than most humans.) Examples like these prove conclusively that we know this non-intelligent process can cause considerable intelligence. _Pat, conversations like ours prove creationism SHOULD NOT have any sway._ In our conversation we've seen zero evidence of any gods (or any supernatural influences over life). So that side of the conversation has zero evidence, while the natural evolution side has overwhelming evidence. So I completely agree tons of people believe in creationism and intelligent design, _and because those ideas have no evidence supporting them, those people seem misled by falsehoods._ That won't change unless the evidence changes. (And it's unlikely to change.) Why would everything already be known under empiricism? You're acting like if truth can be known by evidence, then all truth must immediately be known. Do you see how you skipped a step there? (The critical step would be: _do we have all evidence!?_ ) We don't have all evidence, and so we don't know all things. Our knowledge is forever limited by the evidence we have. So when you're faced with people claiming to know things beyond our ability to know, the correct choice isn't to blindly believe them for no reason. If they can't substantiate their position (if they can't prove their position reliably indicates truth) then their position is garbage and shouldn't be believed. Well it seems clear to me theism is garbage, because when it's challenged its defenders _scatter to the winds._ They don't defend it. They change topics. They question whether anything can be truly known. They hide. They run. In other words they act like their belief is misguided, wrong, and untrue.

where have i seen this guy before.....ah yes the simpson's .......mr burns ...incarnate

I get bored when he has to explain things to people and they dont get it.

Chris needs to stop talking so much. Why would Sam feign respect for ideas that he doesn’t respect?

Sam real is the Shit! Lmao

Harris clearly appeals to his fan following. I look at Harris with more clarity now that I´ve recognized his comedy routine approach with Hedges and Craig. His existential terms also clearly have popular appeal, appealing to the imaginary. "The misery of the worst Universe imaginable...." I´m going to keep assessing Harris´ approach and his Hedges and Craig encounters, because he´s kind of my nemesis. I love science, and see its applicability to morality, except that I have been seeing how it all relates in the University-based philosophical system. Burn your hand on a stove? How about the very beginning of "science" itself, to get real. Newton studied at Cambridge, which had been founded after Oxford by graduates of U Paris. Newton got to read Descartes, Kepler, Galileo, and so on. Apparently it wasn´t as neat as their work all being in a library yet, but scholarly networks were alive with activity, even after Luther´s unbelievably significant inspired Reformation, that monk with a doctorate. And before him Luther and Descartes, centuries earlier, was that pivotal monk Thomas of Aquinas at the U of Paris. That was in the 1200s, just before the Plague epidemic. James Hannam points out that all manner of invention had already begun increasing the population, as with the plough complex. All of a sudden, the relevance of "God" isn´t just the commandments. It is the consequence of Jesus´ life, mission, and message. Rodney Stark´s sociological inquiry addressed the empirical issues involved. Truly, Harris´ popularity represents something, but as for the truth value of his kinds of position, it is in the comparisons and contrasts with Hedges and Craig that I´ll probe and assess with my own insights.

Outsourcing morality to God. At least that eliminates hateful post modern wokeism nihilism

Enlightenment nonsense

The Kingdom of Heaven is all around us, yet men do not see it. It is sustainable, it is humans who have and are destroying it for their own sins of greed, avarice, selfishness and evil.

Re: women “trapped in cloth bags” - Why does Sam call the communion wafer a cracker? Although brought up in a Jewish family I’ve always been atheist. My hackles rise whenever I hear anyone refer to that wafer as a cracker, because I know how much that offends many people; it’s as if he cares nothing about how important that wafer is to so many, how reverently they consider it to their religious identity. And when Sam says it isn’t people but ideas that he’s opposed to, all I can think of is E. M. Forster’s A Room With a View: the scene where Cecil Vyse leaves the room when Freddie Honeychurch plays a rollicking piano tune, and Lucy explains that it’s not people but things that offend Cecil; Mrs. Honeychurch asks: is it a person or a thing when Freddie plays? ETA: Sam’s word choices betray his underlying scorn - “tricks” and “cracker” instead of “strategies” and “wafer” kill the effort, however sincere, in the beginning. And I do question Sam’s sincerity.

@EpicLemonMusic

2 жыл бұрын

His entire premise is literally that it is bonkers that people consider the wafer as sacred, in fact he has entire sections dedicated to showing a juxtaposition of the wafer by saying that there is literally no less legitimacy to say that the body of your savior is a spaghetti and meatball sandwich, that is an idea and not a particular person, it happens to be millions of people but that changes nothing. Millions of people also believe Jesus was risen in the US (mormons) and your friends probably laugh at that. How dare they right? Nah. Ideas NEED to be laughed at.

@twntwrs

2 жыл бұрын

@Hollis Ramsey Oh how your hackles must rise then upon hearing the term "genital mutilation". What a relief that at least here you don't have to question the sincerity of those who perform it on the defenseless children and the sincerity of their parents who mindlessly acquiesce to this barbaric tradition in the most foul betrayal of their child's trust - whose very first and fundamental line of duty it is to protect from harm. And now let's see you trot out the absurd justifications for it you've mindlessly internalised and regurgitate just as you do your concern for what "offends" people. Btw step away from all your electronic devices, you know, you might otherwise offend Luddites.

@Hollis_wants_your_comments

2 жыл бұрын

@@twntwrs You’re my first bite. I guessed it would be this easy. The End of Faith convinced me that it was in my best interests to declare my atheism loudly. But Sam’s rhetoric often demonstrates his disdain - which I share - through what can only be seen as deliberate insults, as though he were throwing down a gauntlet, without a care for his audiences’ sensibilities. I’m a fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as well as of Christopher Hitchens. When YOU say “genital mutilation,” are you referring to female clitorectomy only, or do you include male circumcision? I’m an intactivist, meaning that I oppose ALL genital mutilation. The ritual performed upon 8-day-old Jewish males is as disgusting and unnecessary as is the ritual performed upon very young Muslim females. While female genital mutilation is usually more brutal and considerably less sanitary, the incidence of days-old infants contracting herpes from the mouths of mohels is as real and as disgusting as their pain-filled wails - if you don’t believe that humans that young can feel pain, just because they can’t tell you explicitly, then you’re ignorant of how infants express themselves; also, such a belief is equivalent to the belief that a detectable heartbeat in an embryo indicates sentient life. They’re both nonsense. The fact that hospitals routinely perform male circumcisions at an alarming and predominantly accepted clip does not make it any the less actual male genital mutilation. Why don’t you condemn that very American procedure? I, an intactivist, certainly do. It’s not Luddites I’m loath to offend, it’s my friends whose devotion to the use of wafers is not for me to ridicule. Back in 1974, I took communion at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on Easter Sunday because I wanted to see for myself if that wafer was as offensive a thing to put in one’s mouth as the ritual unleavened bread aka matzoh, which I still find a disgusting and completely unnecessary foodstuff. The rule regarding the communion wafer is that it must be placed on the tongue and allowed to dissolve, no chewing allowed. But it wound up stuck to the roof of my mouth when my tongue raised up seemingly of its own volition; at that point the partially dissolved wafer glued itself to that part of my anatomy as firmly as the peanut butter that producers back in the ‘60s used to make Mr. Ed appear to talk … but at least that poor animal was free to use his tongue to remove the obstruction. I was obliged to follow the circumscribed condition that forbade my chewing of Christ’s symbolic body. So now I know: while matzoh is hard, dry, and tasteless, the equally tasteless wafer turns to glue in the mouth and must not be hurried along, and that’s a very uncomfortable situation to be in. I was also eager to disprove the belief that my desecration - an atheist taking communion on Easter Sunday merely because of curiosity, as a kind of scientific experiment - would get me struck down by lightning. Well, I’m still here! And you’re the first defender of Sam’s terminology to kneejerkingly attempt to smear me; in your faith system, Sam can do no wrong. I doubt you’ll be the last 21st-century Luddite.

@Hollis_wants_your_comments

2 жыл бұрын

@@EpicLemonMusic You’re #2. See my response to #1.

@EpicLemonMusic

2 жыл бұрын

@@Hollis_wants_your_comments this response makes me laugh because it almost seems like you are somehow offended by Sam offending people, as if offending peoples religions and thoughts is a bad idea. If you have a bad idea you should be offended, if I saw a Nazi I would say very offensive things to them, their ideas suck and deserve to be offended and your angry youtube comment is rather uncomfortable to us KZreadrs how dare you offend us? See how ridiculous you sound. Also while I am for all genital mutilation to be banned, the thing is male genital mutilation A. Does not remove pleasure more men, if anything it makes them too sensitive, causing orgasm too soon, but it also happens to be cleaner, less prone to disease, and scientifically debatable. Cutting off a clit in the name of islam is none of those things. While I think it should be the choice of the children in terms of men yes, but there is a scientific debate there unlike a clit which is 100% religious.

This is very interesting but impossible to listen to because of the mindless and constant interruptions by the advertisements. I am watching youtube less and less and I am not missing it. Maybe this is for the metaverse geniuses. gerbrekcuz kcuf.