/lit/ - Literature

>>5322163
I cannot argue with someone who doesn't even accept the notion of "facts".

>>5270777
⇒I'm denying right now

Top kek. Never change, philosotards. You can also deny gravity and evolution, it only makes you look even more retarded. This is why you will never be accepted by scientists.

Here is a description of the hard problem written by a man with a PhD in neuroscience:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness

Where do I start with Sam Harris?

I can't decide which one to read first: "Free Will" or "The Moral Landscape"? The latter was published earlier. Do I have to read it first if I want to understand the former? Does he often reference his earlier works or are they independent? He's the most insightful contemporary philosopher and I really want to understand his theories.

>>5202504
⇒I like your style young man!
I am not a man.

⇒I basically hold that errors in ethical structures might invalidate it from a scientific standpoint
Pic related explains why this is futile. Philosotards reject the very notion of logic. Particularly in ethics, where "muh feelings" is the only justification for anything. Can't argue with dumbfucks who value their beliefs higher than facts.