/lit/ - Literature

>>19303704
you're a fucking pussy with no discipline or control, that's why. try meditating or something idk.

and this has literally nothing to do with morality. neither of you what the word means or what questions are being entertained. fuck you pathetic loser who can't even into the subject.

>>19303704
Did you really need to try the stove experiment?

>>19303704
Doesn't Sams argument fail it's own premise?

>>19303759
This might be the simplest complete refutation of an OP ive ever seen.

>>19303759
OP absolutely btfo'd

It's so cringe when "public intellectuals" reinvent a plebeian version of an old philosophical problem and act all high and mighty as if they have some new insight. Fucking hell.

It is amazing how certain moral realists like think our capacity to feel pain proves anything. We can feel different kinds of pain and pleasure because we need to survive. That's it. Pain feels bad and pleasure feels good. The emotions arising from pain and pleasure are marginally more developed in humans than in other animals, but that is not germane to the discussion. I am an an atheist, but people like William Lane Craig and others are right when they confront secular moral realists with the fact that honest atheism leads to moral nihilism. It may be a tough pill to swallow, especially if you've been raised to believe otherwise, but that's how it is. The idea that our ability to feel pain and pleasure is anything beyond an evolutionarily beneficial trait is laughable. Especially when it's used to justify moral realism by New Atheists like Harris.

>>19303704
So life is just about making things less painful? I might be retarded because I don't know how this argument incorporates the fact that someone might have to willingly bring pain onto themselves for the sake of others (like the crucifixion). Why favor another over yourself? For the sake of the preservation of your race? I'm sure he's said something about this but I don't feel like reading his books.

>>19303917
The question of how and why good and bad subjective sensations even exist at all is not answered by this though

>>19303934
What do you mean "why they exist"? Are you asking how subjective experience is even possible? I can't answer that, especially not in a thread on /lit/, but I don't see how it is relevant.

define "suck"

>>19303759
OP BTFO. Also Harris jumps to a pretty unsubstantiated conclussions. If he genuinly believes humanity is just a physical and biological accident it seems to me that claiming "Pain = bad." is absurd. By his own sets of beliefs he should only say "Pain is an evolutionary response without morality attached, it feels bad to us but it's cosmically irrelevant." If it's devoid of morality in itself it can't be good or bad. It only feels good or bad and anyone who claims you can build a morality sysyem based on electron exchanges is a retard.

>>19303704
/lit/ already BTFOd him. check the archive.

>Getting from "Is" to "Ought"
>5/ If we *should* to do [sic] anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks.
da brain genius has logged on

>>19303759
holy based

>5/ If we *should* to do [sic] anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks.
holy pseud

>>19304190
>>19304209
So stop reading Sam Harris? Got it.

>ITT: anons burning their hand on the stove

>>19303957
Yes why sensations exist and why they have valence of good and bad. This part of the world so good and bad at objectively existing things in some sense

>>19303917
>secular moral realists with the fact that honest atheism leads to moral nihilism.
>blocks your path for 2400 years and counting

>>19303704
This is the first and only thing I've ever read by Sam Harris, and it's all I need to know that he's a complete idiot.

>>19304478
you have to go back

>>19304478
>Plato was an atheist
I know you haven't read him, but Plato's whole point is that human-centric philosophical concepts such as relativism, perspectivism, etc. always lead to nihilism, and that the only way to escape nihilism is divinity. Plato was critical of the organized religion of his time because he saw that it reflected human weakness, not divine greatness.

>>19303704
None of these premises have any relation to each other. Not only is this argument not valid, it's not even a syllogism.

>>19303704
What about those monks who can self immolate and not move a muscle?

>>19304478
Jesus Christ I bet you believe Aristotle was a monotheist too...

Is this real? If so sam harris is a genuine retard

>>19303759
This doesn't really contradict his argument. He'll simply say that these individuals were fooled into making a fatal mistake by their belief system & their circumstances ("things already sucking quite a bit).

>>19303704
It is hilarious because Harris is correct when he says that the reason why we go from is to ought is consciousness. He is wrong in wrapping it in materialist terms, and presents his argument in the worst possible way possible, but ultimately his answer is closer to the truth than what 90% of /lit/ cunts believe.

>>19303704
The problem that no one ever brings up is that a moral system based on things 'sucking' hits the old utilitarian problems (because this is basically utilitarianism for retards). For example, if I go out on a winter morning, walk onto a frozen lake, break the ice, and sink in and die that would suck for me, but it would not suck for the numerous aquatic organisms who would gladly feed on my corpse. Do I (one human) have a greater 'moral weight' than possibly thousands of other animals? How would you even quantify the moral weight of one animal relative to another, unless you want to make all organisms equal, in which case our morality tells us that we should be vat-farming bacteria.

>>19304827
What is the correct answer?

>>19304618
I belong here retard. I am /lit/. I am 90% of the original takes this board has produced. I am 95% of the effortposts. I am 99% of the funny memes. I am the reason that most of you know half the books you know. Le lit, c'est moi kid.. heh.. so you better think before you speak.. I've dunked on retards in Sam Harris threads since before you took to the tit.. nothing personnel..

>>19304672
>Plato was an atheist
Was that what I wrote, retard? Imagine being so hermenutically bankrupt that you think questions of systematic philosophy are solved by what le author was.
>the only way to escape nihilism is divinity.
That is an extremely facile (mis)understanding of the idea of the Good. I know, I know, you read some undergraduate thinkpiece or one of Schopenhauer's endlessly trivial screeds about how Plato's thought is actually just advanced christianity, and you failed to consider whether that was merely christfag cope. Many such cases! Profoundly sad!

There are numerous non-theological ways in which you can reconstruct several of his arguments for the idea of the Good - transcendentally (this being the strongest strategy), phenomenologically (this being the sexiest), etc. - I know you haven't actually *thought* about any of the many things he wrote that you have ... SURELY, SURELY ... read, but I'd advise you to do so. Indeed, the only time Plato lets his own voice shine through, in the non-spurious letters, that is the exact same thing he'd tell you. And he'd probably tell you to stop being a faggot too, but we may never know.

>>19304763
And I bet your dick is real small and your balls are the size of peas

>>19303759
was just about to post this

>>19304959
based

>>19303984
I think that Harris sees morality as an evolutionary tool basically that is best used when we link it to our needs as organisms. But he doesn't do a good job of articulating that view.

>>19304959
you really have to go back, bro

>>19304976
>waaaaah! waaaaaah! go back! waaaaah!
No.

>>19303704
>>19303843
>>19303984
Harris has highly contradictory views across a wide variety of topics. A self-proclaimed skeptical atheist who claims LSD is the gateway to spirituality. You would think he's smart enough to know that LSD is a chemical that affects the brain in interesting ways, while having no spiritual component. He simply chooses to ascribe more meaning that it actually has, which runs counter to a lot of the points he has made in previous statements.

>>19304780
>This doesn't really contradict his argument
I think it was aimed more at OP's statement, and only partially at Harris' weird stove analogy. It's an oversimplification of a complex topic and ignores that people ARE capable of "touching the stove" if they're stronge enough to do so.

>>19304992
one thing that i think harris does understand fairly well is the irreducibility of experience to chemical interactions.

>As our understanding of the physical world has evolved, our notion of what counts as “physical” has broadened considerably. A world teeming with fields and forces, vacuum fluctuations, and the other gossamer spawn of modern physics is not the physical world of common sense. In fact, our common sense seems to be stuck somewhere in the 16th century. We have also generally forgotten that many of the patriarchs of physics in the first half of the 20th century regularly impugned the “physicality” of the universe. Nonreductive views like those of Eddington, Jeans, Pauli, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger seem to have had no lasting impact.
[...]
>The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.
[...]
>If we look for consciousness in the physical world, all we find are increasingly complex systems giving rise to increasingly complex behavior—which may or may not be attended by consciousness.

Working out sucks, therefore don't workout.
Looking for a job sucks, therefore stay where you are.
Trying hard sucks, therefore do very little.
Being creative is hard work and so sucks, therefore do nothing but consooom.
Dolled up in mathematical or scientific language, these propositions appeal to people who don't know any better, but the Utilitarian argument is very shortsighted. Pure materialist ideas lead to spirit denying actions. Is there any wonder at the state of the world today?

>>19305046
Because nonreductivism generally boils down to special pleading that even though you're atoms you're special.. somehow. I prefer the coarsest eliminativist to the most pleasant non-reductive physicalist.

>>19305283
what we consider to be a 'materialist' account of reality in the 21st century is far from being just atoms at this point. perhaps consciousness is related to a fundamental property of reality that we have not adequately theorised yet

>>19303917
I never really understood the argument that we have to be theists or moral nihilists.

Simply positing the existence of God by itself doesn't give us any moral facts. We're all aware of the Euthyphro dilemma. An omnipotent God could equally be evil or arbitrary as good. So theists need to make additional leaps of faith to get from "God exists" to grounding morality.

Given that, it's not clear to me why WLC is justified in arguing "honest atheism leads to moral nihilism", since "honest theism" alone without any additional faith commitments is in exactly the same spot morally. And if we allow the theist to make additional leaps of faith to a perfectly good God as a source of morality somehow, why can't the atheist make additional leaps of faith to a form of secular moral realism?

Ultimately no-one theist or atheist has a coherent account of morality and we're all winging it. Given that, it seems partial to make it a problem for only one side of the God debate.

>>19305340
I know it’s not just atoms at this point (I did a few quantum physics classes in university) but it felt like the right term for my polemic from a cadence standpoint.
Reductive physicalism, as I take it, is the principle that everything can be (theoretically, epistemological concerns notwithstanding) completely described by basic physical interactions. Non-reductive physicalism this holds that systems cannot be described in this way.
I don’t see how this can escape the dilemma of either breaking physical laws or having no causal power. If minds break physical laws, it would be hard to say it’s still physicalism, and if there is no causal power we are basically admitting that we can describe the system completely by basic physical interactions, but positing some non-reducible property dualist epiphenomenal view of the mind

>>19305444
you are assuming that our current understand of physical laws is the same thing as the actual physical laws themselves. but our understanding of physical reality has greatly expanded over time to include more and more things that were not included in, for example, a cartesian view based in res extensa. or a newtonian view based on force and mass.

>>19305283
holy pseud
stop posting

>>19305046
But that's all our experiences are. Our personalities, emotions and beliefs are all tied to our physical forms. We're all just walking sacks of chemicals and meat, reacting and changing to better survive in the world around us. Post-trauma neuroplasticity is enough to prove that, to a certain extent. Sure, we can reduce those chemical reactions further and further down to where we talk about forces/string theory/etc. but that doesn't change the physicality of it.

>The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.
Everybody knows we don't know the source of consciousness yet, that's not a debate. He's jumping to a conclusion based on a premise he wants to be true. Going further, it seems to me that Sam Harris wants the answers we find in scientific research to actually give our lives deeper meaning and not be "you are just a collection of atoms interacting in a complex manner." Surely he realises that even if it turns out we are just a collection of atoms interacting in a complex manner, we can choose to give our lives meaning regardless? He wants scientific facts to justify his philosophies and I'm not sure if he would accept facts that don't.

>>19303704
>Sam 'I'm an anti-theist but also a Buddhist' Harris

>>19305547
>But that's all our experiences are.
prove it
>Our personalities, emotions and beliefs are all tied to our physical forms.
i think you are already misidentifying experience here as 'personalities, emotions and beliefs' -- emotions are things that you experience, not experience itself.
>Post-trauma neuroplasticity is enough to prove that, to a certain extent.
you are talking about behaviour now, not experience
>Sam Harris wants the answers we find in scientific research to actually give our lives deeper meaning and not be "you are just a collection of atoms interacting in a complex manner."
why would you assume this is the case when we have not yet been able to account for experience with atoms? why would you assume this is they case when we can't even begin to understand the relationship between atoms and experience in scientific terms? if the theory doesn't fit the data then doesn't that mean it is not yet a correct theory?

>>19303759
Transcendentally based

>>19303704
And so the last man blinked, plugging himself into the pleasure pod chamber never to climb out, chanting "I am the true realist, I am the true realist."

>>19303704
You cant objectively argue that touching a stove sucks universally. Thats all that needs to be said.

>>19305711
I literally love you anon

>>19305602
>prove it
>i think you are already misidentifying experience here as 'personalities, emotions and beliefs' -- emotions are things that you experience, not experience itself.
Experiences are memories tied to cause-and-effect, created as new synapses form in the brain. To use Harris' example: If you touch a lit stove as a child and get burnt, that's an experience that teaches you not to do something. If you see a lit stove again, you know based on your experience that it will burn if you touch it. Obviously, someone else (parent/guardian/sibling) could have told you this information as well based on their own experiences. And it is those experiences which form the memories that build the foundations of our personalities, beliefs and emotions. If you've met a person that was sexually abused as a child, you'll find that experience had a major impact on who they are as a person because of the negative experience and memories attributed to it. Some learned to cope with those events and others still struggle, but all of it is sourced from chemical reactions.

>you are talking about behaviour now, not experience
Neuroplasticity isn't a behavior but a physical reaction to experiences, intentional or unintentional. That's why I said trauma -- that's an experience, not a behavior (unless self-inflicted but then it's a mix of the two). You are your brain. Everything that is "you" comes from chemical reactions throughout your body. Cortical remapping is an example of repeatedly experiencing an action to change the composition of the brain.

>why would you assume this is the case when we have not yet been able to account for experience with atoms?
You say "we" as if I'm part of a research team. I'm not. I've answered this as best I can above.

>why would you assume this is they case when we can't even begin to understand the relationship between atoms and experience in scientific terms?
I'm not sure by what you mean when you say the relationship between atoms and experience. Are you asking how atoms carry experiences/emotions/memories if they're just tiny physical objects? I think the issue is you're trying to separate them into some sort of mind-body duality, where humanity is in the mind and instinct is in the body. I can't really argue with that since our knowledge hasn't progressed to the point of disproving it.

>if the theory doesn't fit the data then doesn't that mean it is not yet a correct theory?
I'm not advocating for any specific theory, just ideas (materialism, neuroplasticity, etc.) that have already been established along with my feelings towards Harris' thoughts. You are right and if we make some breakthrough in the future showing there's something more to our world than what can be physically observed, I'll change my opinion on the topic.

>>19303704
>Morality is based on this self-evident suckage instinct
So morality consists of nothing more than “we shouldn’t expose ourselves to intense pain for no reason”? Sam Harris is a fucking retard.

>>19303917
Theism leads to moral nihilism too. There is simply no objective reason that we “ought” to do what a “god” wants. At best you can argue “uhhh if you don’t do what he says he’ll torture you”. It’s moral nihilism all the way down

>>19304972
>I think that Harris sees morality as an evolutionary tool basically that is best used when we link it to our needs as organisms
Pretty sure that’s an appeal to nature

>>19304972
I get that that's his point but in the end is as nihilistic as all atheism is.
Survival isn't morality unless you twist the definition of the words. It's just how a highly optimised organism subject to natural selection will maintain itself. Not because it's existance is desirable or good but simply because the systems that are optimised to survive "are" while the ones that aren't fit for survival "are not". Therefore any system that "is" happens to "be" only because it survives, not because "being" in itself is it's goal.
He could argue that, even though is utterly nihilistic humans prefer pleasure over pain and that if we work together we can all achieve more pleasure than if we work alone, but that pleasure in itself is neither good nor bad nor significant. This does not prevent egoism as he himself admits, humans like pleasure and in an universe devoid of morality, if pleasurable to you, murder, genocide or torture is perfectly okay. Maybe society would punish you because that makes them happier but at no point are they right or wrong morally.

>>19304840
Why should you ever, under any circumstances, assign greater moral weight to something that isn’t you? That is self-harm

>>19305547
Cringe

>>19306052
God is the highest degree of goodness, doing God's commands is good because God is goodness in itself, simple as.

>>19304959
You are such a fucking pseud.

>>19306085
>God is the highest degree of goodness
Prove it, and how is what is “good” determined? If “good” is just whatever God says it is, then that’s circular reasoning.

>>19305992
memories are experienced but they aren't experience. touching a stove is something experienced but it isn't experience. by experience i mean consciousness. the perspective from which things are experienced. the quality of BEING an entity. you are talking about behaviours and memories, which is entirely missing the point.

neuroplasticity doesn't prove that experience itself is reducible to chemicals or atoms any more than the specific experience of being hit with a hammer leaving a bruise would prove it lol. i'm talking about experience, not experiences.

"we" refers to human beings in general.

>Are you asking how atoms carry experiences/emotions/memories if they're just tiny physical objects?
i'm asking how the state of being something could possibly be expressed as an arrangement of atoms.

>I can't really argue with that since our knowledge hasn't progressed to the point of disproving it.
though i would not really call myself a mind-body dualist, on what basis are you assuming that mind-body dualism is not true if human knowledge can't currently disprove it?

>I'm not advocating for any specific theory, just ideas (materialism, neuroplasticity, etc.) that have already been established
the specific type of materialism you are advocating for is absolutely a theory. it's an assumption. the existence of consciousness is something that has not been explained in terms of this theory / assumption, suggesting that it is incomplete or incorrect. the only reason a materialist viewpoint seems natural to you is because it is such a dominant point of view in our society. many people felt the same way about theological views on reality once upon a time.

>if we make some breakthrough in the future showing there's something more to our world than what can be physically observed
we already know that consciousness exists and we have not been able to observe it in terms that fit our current materialist paradigm.

>>19306064
which is invalid because ...?

>>19306073
i think that is basically what he is (very badly) arguing desu

>>19306145
……Because “it’s good because it’s natural” is a non sequitur. Doesn’t follow.

>>19306180
My point is that I don't think Harris believes in a 'good' independent of nature.

>>19306204
There is no “good”, period, not any more than there’s a “tasty”. I think foods like pickles are delicious and other people hate them.

>>19306222
and Harris thinks that when we say 'this is good' it is just a way of thinking that individual humans evolved to have. and when we say 'this is good' about something that helps us survive, then that conception of 'helpful thing is good' is more likely to become widespread. whereas the idea that 'jumping off buildings is good' is much less likely to catch on

>>19306236
That doesn’t mean anything about what we “ought” or “ought not” do.

>>19306255
of course it doesn't. he could improve his argument by applying similar logic to the concept of ought / ought not (modelling them as an evolutionary heuristic that helps us survive)

i think that is probably the argument that he is groping for (or at least the logical conclusion for his trajectory of thought) but because he is a bit of a retard he doesn't manage to express it at all.

>>19306281
Attempting to root “oughts” and “ought nots” in evolution is just an appeal to nature and leads to lots of things people would consider ethically dubious anyway. Evolutionarily, I’d benefit from becoming the ultimate rapist and killing other people’s children.

>>19306293
>Attempting to root “oughts” and “ought nots” in evolution is just an appeal to nature
which is invalid because ...?
>Evolutionarily, I’d benefit from becoming the ultimate rapist and killing other people’s children.
and that is exactly what pic related did. but in our society you go to prison and get raped and beaten for doing that, which deters people from doing it. we are a form of life that is HIGHLY interdependent and has developed very complicated ways of restraining each others behaviour to ensure our own safety. when bees fuck up a drunk bee that comes in the hive are they applying ethical principles or are they just acting as a group in a way that benefits the hive as a whole?

>>19306339
>which is invalid because ...?
Are you retarded?

>>19306345
thats not a response

>>19306346
Yes it is. Natural does not equate to good or desirable.

>>19306353
"Good" and "Desirable" are ideas in human brains that are themselves products of nature. They are evolutionary heuristics that we use to survive. You are yet to explain why natural does not equate to good or desireable, all you have done is assert that it doesn't.

>>19303759
spbp

>>19306358
>"Good" and "Desirable" are ideas in human brains that are themselves products of nature
Irrelevant. People have differing ideas of what is “desirable” which conflict with what is “natural” all the time.
>You are yet to explain why natural does not equate to good or desireable
Certified retard.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Nature

>>19303704
>duuude some things are like painful
>maybe we should make less painful things man
>with science!

He's making the same mistake the heroin addicts make unconsciously. He's going for a not-bad feeling instead of pursuing what's truly satisfying to the human soul.

>>19303759
I only believe people who CAN touch the stove are deserving of human rights.

>>19306416
>People have differing ideas of what is “desirable” which conflict with what is “natural” all the time.
How are you defining natural? I'm saying the entire ability to desire anything comes from nature. It's an evolutionary heuristic. It helps us get food when we're hungry. It also helps us by pushing us to go and explore uncharted territories or to eat random plants that may be poisonous. Some people die from doing these things but, in the cases where they do succeed, they provide the greater extent of humanity with new territory or new food sources.

His argument went off the rails at "many experiences suck", which is a preference and you can't get a preference from what is by itself. I'm not even a philosopher but I'd laugh him out of the agora for that kind of sophistry.

>>19306138
>by experience i mean consciousness
>you are talking about behaviours and memories, which is entirely missing the point.
>i'm talking about experience, not experiences.
I feel like you and I aren't on the same page regarding the definitions of consciousness or experience.

>i'm asking how the state of being something could possibly be expressed as an arrangement of atoms.
By simply existing. Put the right atoms in the right place and you have oxygen. Add other elements in the proper quantity/configuration and before long you have a human being, consciousness and all. Granted, it does bring up the Ship of Theseus argument if we don't define a threshold for what makes a human being.

>we already know that consciousness exists and we have not been able to observe it in terms that fit our current materialist paradigm.
We couldn't observe photons for millenia but we could feel sunlight. With regards to the brain, can already map brain synapses and have experimentally extracted memories. I believe we will understand the root of consciousness in time.

>on what basis are you assuming that mind-body dualism is not true if human knowledge can't currently disprove it?
"You can't disprove it so you have to consider it" is a very weak argument. I've seen no evidence to imply the existence of something beyond the physically observable but I'd be excited if I was presented with it.

>the specific type of materialism you are advocating for is absolutely a theory. it's an assumption. the existence of consciousness is something that has not been explained in terms of this theory / assumption, suggesting that it is incomplete or incorrect.
Gravity is a theory as well. We've "proven" that it exists though we're still trying to figure out why. Gravitons, or maybe something else? Nobody in their right mind would deny the existence of gravity. Too much evidence substantiates it. The theory of consciousness isn't there quite yet and I try to keep an open mind. But it can be difficult to do so when another person presents something unfalsifiable as if it's worth considering. My opinions are derived from scientific evidence, which has falsifiability -- it can be proven correct or incorrect based on continued research. Your opinion is based on the idea that if a theory hasn't been disproven, it must have equal weight to other theories. It does not.

>the only reason a materialist viewpoint seems natural to you is because it is such a dominant point of view in our society. many people felt the same way about theological views on reality once upon a time.
Materialism isn't the dominant point of view in our society, only for the scientific community. 84% of the world is religious and believes in some aspect of the supernatural. I'm sure some people can hold both values but it requires a certain degree of cognitive dissonance. Sam Harris is a good example.

>>19306573
>I believe we will understand the root of consciousness in time.
Faith-based position. “Uhh we’ll find a new particle called qualiatons” LMAO

>>19303704
His fatal flaw occurs in tweet 5.
>if we *should* to do anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks.
Why, and says who? It absolutely is question-begging.

>>19306573
>Add other elements in the proper quantity/configuration and before long you have a human being, consciousness and all.
Nobody has ever made a human by arranging atoms into the shape of an adult human though. So how can your assertion that this is possible be anything other than an assertion?

>We couldn't observe photons for millenia but we could feel sunlight.
okay, but the theory was proposed as early as 55 BC that light was made up of small particles moving in a stream and hitting our bodies to create the feeling. nobody has even proposed a testable theory for a materialist account of consciousness. saying 'arrange atoms into a human and it just happens' means what exactly? why does it happen? there's no theory as to the mechanics here. what is so special about the millions of different arrangements of atoms that are human brains (as opposed to trees)?
> I've seen no evidence to imply the existence of something beyond the physically observable
other people can't observe your internal experience of reality. i can't be you. but there is an experience of 'being this particular person' that you have. nobody can physically observe that. look at as many neurons as you like, they are fundamentally not the same thing.
>"You can't disprove it so you have to consider it" is a very weak argument.
and "I can't prove it but I just think it's right" is not an argument at all!
>Gravity is a theory as well. We've "proven" that it exists though
not really. we both agree that objects are drawn towards each other but whether or not this is due to an actual 'thing' called gravity is pretty debateable. don't some models just argue its to do with a relationship between matter and spacetime?
>it can be difficult to do so when another person presents something unfalsifiable as if it's worth considering
my point of view is falsifiable because if consciousness was shown to be an arrangement of atoms then it would be proven wrong.
>My opinions are derived from scientific evidence
you have cited absolutely no evidence for consciousness or experience being an arrangement of atoms (no such evidence exists)
>Materialism isn't the dominant point of view in our society
funny meme, but yes it is. every economically dominant country in the world funds scientists before religions (most don't fund religions at all). every education system in these countries is implicitly materialist outside of specialised religious schools. a materialist perspective is completely orthodox in the first world in the 21st century. even if many people don't believe in a strict materialism, they will speak as if they do much of the time because it is what is dominant.

>>19306651
That's really what you took away from all that? I could have typed assume, think, or any synonym. I didn't want to type "I know we will" because I don't know.

>>19306675
>Nobody has ever made a human by arranging atoms into the shape of an adult human though. So how can your assertion that this is possible be anything other than an assertion?
>saying 'arrange atoms into a human and it just happens'
One statement is a literal interpretation and one statement is a gross oversimplification. "Just arrange atoms" -- we've created new elements in laboratories. We've grown artifical organs. Is it so hard to believe that in the coming centuries, technology won't progress enough to allow us to create human life? You can say it's an assertion, I just see it as a natural progression of technology and science.

>okay, but the theory was proposed as early as 55 BC that light was made up of small particles moving in a stream and hitting our bodies to create the feeling.
That doesn't invalidate what I said at all. What do you think people believed in 56 BC?

>other people can't observe your internal experience of reality. i can't be you. but there is an experience of 'being this particular person' that you have. nobody can physically observe that. look at as many neurons as you like, they are fundamentally not the same thing.
If your personal philosophy is solipsism then I can't convince you of the reality of anything.

>"You can't disprove it so you have to consider it" is a very weak argument.
>and "I can't prove it but I just think it's right" is not an argument at all!
I made it perfectly clear why I think it's right -- because most evidence points to the physical world and not something beyond that.

>my point of view is falsifiable because if consciousness was shown to be an arrangement of atoms then it would be proven wrong.
Incorrect. You stated outright that human knowledge can't currently disprove your position, implicating you believe your pseudoscientific position of equal value. Stating anything else is utterly dishonest on your part.

>My opinions are derived from scientific evidence
>you have cited absolutely no evidence for consciousness or experience being an arrangement of atoms (no such evidence exists)
The arrangement of atoms and the way they interact, yes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810019301436
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225786/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02091/full
https://nautil.us/blog/consciousness-is-made-of-atoms-too
https://nautil.us/blog/electrons-may-very-well-be-conscious
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201401/is-consciousness-property-everything-in-the-universe
https://theconversation.com/could-consciousness-all-come-down-to-the-way-things-vibrate-103070
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
https://iep.utm.edu/consciou/#SSH3b.v

>>19303759
Sam Harris on suicide watch

the only and main problem is justifying why someone shouldnt just wipe out humanity / existence in order to end all bad experiences. i.e. life was an accident that should never have happened. sure, touching a stove sucks, so lets remove the possibility of anyone ever doing it again. then there will be peace

>>19303704
If you take psych one of the first things you learn is that the stimulus-response of touching a hot surface doesn't involve consciousness at all and is usually the example used to teach polysynaptic reflex. I get that he's using an analogy but he chose one that's completely retarded if he's arguing against determinism and conscious decision making. (inb4 "cHOoSe tOUch dA sTOve"...it's indicative of how shallow his overall thought is--when it comes to solving the is/ought problem he leans on something from psychology that doesn't even involve choice).

>>19303759
Based.

>>19306103
In the same way flesh is a property of the human body, goodness on a property of God’s existence. It’s not an opinion that he is good and more a state of his actual being.

>>19307179
*is

>>19303759
gottem

>>19307179
>I define God as good therefore he is good
Yikes

>>19303704
What in the absolute fuck are you talking about? That was stupid. Just stupid. “If we learn things we can’t probably avoid more negative stimuli.” but you’re not scary enough to even articulate that, you have to dance around the issue in 10 separate tweets trying to sound smarter than you actually are. Just stupid.

>>19304780
That’s stupid, eventually you’ll just get wind up having to agree nothing is uncertain, but that doesn’t matter. The guy from this post >>19303759 took sedatives so he couldn’t feel the pain.

>>19307333
> That was stupid. Just stupid. “If we learn things we can probably avoid more negative stimuli.” but you’re not smart enough to even articulate that, so you have to dance around the issue in 8 separate tweets trying to sound smarter than you actually are. Just stupid.

Fixed it. Ffs

>>19303704
Why are modern public intellectuals such an absolute embarrassment?

>>19307374
>modern public intellectuals
>modern public
Just watch old episodes of the Dick Cavett show on YouTube. hhttps://youtu.be/hzH5IDnLaBA?t=452

>>19307463
boring

>>19307463
James Baldwin's influence partially responsible for the the sad state of both the public intellectual and novel today.

>>19303984
>he should only say "Pain is an evolutionary response without morality attached, it feels bad to us but it's cosmically irrelevant."
Indeed. He should say it, but he's a midwit. It's not even the first time I hear this exact argument (minus the stove) from some midwit aspiring philosopher.

>>19305046
>A world teeming with fields and forces, vacuum fluctuations, and the other gossamer spawn of modern physics is not the physical world of common sense.
"Quantum physics is counter-intuitive and so it must be wrong."
How much of a midwit is this guy?

>>19305283
>special pleading that even though you're atoms you're special.. somehow.
Indeed. It's a coping mechanisms for weak willed midwits that desperately want to believe they're "more than mere atoms". It has ZERO scientific value. It's a religious hypotesis: untestable, unprovable, undebunkable.

>>19305444
>Non-reductive physicalism this holds that systems cannot be described in this way.
It's the usual argument of creationists that "all this can't simply be the result of evolution because it seems too complex to my pigeon brain, so there MUST be an intelligent designer". Exact same argument, with a different wording.

>If minds break physical laws
Then brain injuries couldn't directly influence our ability to perceive and think and our basic personality, morality, impulse control, etc. But we know FOR A FACT that they can, because we've studied plenty of patients with traumatic brain injuries who experienced drastic "spiritual" changes.

>>19303704
>Not keeping your hand on the stove even as the flesh burns and the skin melts.
>Not testing yourself like Paul Atreides to see if you're a real human or just an animal.
Harris is just butthurt because he knows he'd get the Gom Jabbar.

>>19303759
Absolutely btfo by a picture. It's even sad.

Harris has some cool things to say about islam (because you don't need any particular intelligence to realize how repulsive an ideology it is), but every time he tries to venture past that, he reveals himself to be a midwit.

>>19307558
>monotheism
>misogyny
>repulsive

Jay Dyer completely destroyed Sam Harris's (and Jordan Peterson's) pathetic arguments.
https://youtu.be/PjQh8ij4R4o

>>19306089
>gets completely fucking annihilated
>continues to posture emptily with words among which the only polysyllable is "fucking"

>>19307343
this kek

that monk was blasted out of his fucking mind, they carried him down the street so he couldn't even feel himself on fire.

>>19307343
>>19308040
No, he didn't. Thich Quang Duc was old and infirm, and had to lean on his disciples to walk out into the square. He remained completely still in lotus position while burning alive. There is no drug that allows a person to do that.

>>19307536
you are the midwit because that is not at all what he is saying. he is saying that the range of concepts we include in our account of 'the physical world' has broadened over time.

>>19307068
>we've created new elements in laboratories. We've grown artifical organs.
this is a non-point. i agree with you that elements and organs are made of atoms. of course they can be made by arranging atoms. consciousness is not an arrangement of atoms.

>That doesn't invalidate what I said at all. What do you think people believed in 56 BC?
if you can't even propose a theory for how consciousness is an arrangement of atoms and just assert that it will be discovered to be the case then what you are doing is eschatology
>If your personal philosophy is solipsism then I can't convince you of the reality of anything.
there is no reason to assume im a solipsist (i am not)
>I made it perfectly clear why I think it's right -- because most evidence points to the physical world and not something beyond that.
indeed if you ignore the evidence that points to things which are not atoms then its very easy to argue the world is just atoms
>Incorrect. You stated outright that human knowledge can't currently disprove your position
currently we have not shown that consciousness is an arrangement of atoms. so we don't have that knowledge. if we did show that then my theory would be falsified.

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810019301436
completely and utterly dodges the question. i'll get around to reading the rest but this literally did not offer any theory for how atoms interact to form consciousness. it just asserted that consciousness is the same as neurons. in order to address the problem they would need to present a scenario where observing neurons is actually the same thing as observing consciousness and explain why there is no difference between signals moving around inside a brain and conscious subjective experiences. it's not the same thing as the difference between the model of an atom and the particle itself whatsoever -- its the difference between observing an atom while being a human, versus "being an atom", if such a thing is possible.

>>19303704
my fat veiny penis is producing a lot of suckage instinct in your mom right now

>>19305396
>>19306052
Quality posts. Sadly, the psueds in this thread will ignore them.

>>19308245
But the Euthyphro dilemma was made in reference to a pantheon of gods which were known to routinely commit acts contradictory to common morality and each other. The Christian God is of an entirely different nature, especially if the New Testament is favored over the Old.
Really, what does it mean to create the universe? When God has determined every condition of existence the arbitrariness of his morality should not considered the same as yours or mine. We don't make moral assessments of animals, not because they're too base for such an inspection but because their Being eludes our puny comprehension. We only presume to judge each other morally because we have the capacity to judge ourselves. How far beyond our vanity must then stand the divine mathematics of God's wisdom? How can we pose these facile moral gotchas (not to call Plato facile but rather his arguments when parroted by redditors) with respect to a being so utterly alien? You can empathise with Zeus, he's more or less just a powerful man; you cannot empathise with God.
Now you might not appreciate the degree to which I'm appealing to ineffability but I'm afraid that if you want a more thorough meditation on these matters you'll need to look to a proper theologian, it's their area of expertise.

>>19303704
Physics can't explain the mind or qualia
So his premise is wrong

>>19308413
(blocks your path)

>>19307179
So, circular reasoning it is.

>>19308443
He doesn't explain anything at all.
He tried to create a "model" for showing how free will can be compatible with physical determinism, but it was a complete failure and only showed the mechanics of physical determinism and did NOT leave any possibility for free will at all.
Atheists are such frauds.

>>19307343
>The guy from this post >>19303759 took sedatives so he couldn’t feel the pain.
Proof?

>>19308444
Do you not understand that circular reasoning is inevitable when you dig down to the very bottom of any worldview? Whether you are an atheist or you believe in any kind of religion, your assumptions for how you view the world ultimately come down to circular reasoning.
The difference is that at least the teamscendental argument for God is honest about this and doesn't pretend otherwise. Arheists are so philosophically retarded they think they have escaped from circcular reasoning, but they have not.

>>19303759
perfection

>>19309207
>teamscendental
*transcendental

Nigger, I don't care about pseuds

HOW MANY TIMES DO ATHEISTS HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT THERE IS NO MORALITY IN THEIR OWN WORLDVIEW.
THEY WANT TO BE AN ATHEIST BUT THEY ALSO WANT TO BE SELF RIGHTEOUS MORALISING FAGGOTS AT THE SAME TIME.
THEIR WHOLE WORLDVIEW IS AN INCOHERENT, INCONSISTENT, LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS MESS OF PROPAGANDA.

retroactively refuted by dostoevsky

>>19303759
Bravo anon

>>19309207
>achshually circular reasoning is necessary
Tradlarps should be gassed

>>19309758
But it is true and you have provided no argument to the contrary.

>>19309766
Counter point: morality is subjectively axiomatic as it is derived from the individual's will. God has His morality and I have mine. No need for circular reasoning :)

>>19309793
On what basis do you decide what is moral?

>>19309808
Anything I do is moral because it ultimately follows from my deepest desires. Morality is only a puzzle when applied to others.

>>19309826
This cannot account for a coherent and all encompassing worldview unless you think everyone should think in this manner which would lead to chaos and nihilism. What you are espousing is simply hedonism and enslaving yourself to your passions.

>>19309793
>God has His morality
>good” is just whatever God says it is
oh so you don't get it
>goodness is a property
read ^ and understand

>>19309826
WOAH DUDE
HEDONISM?!?
THAT"S CRAZY I NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED IT
btw why is following your desires moral again?

*utterly annihilates the arguments of every atheist and agnostic*

>>19303704
Why did Harris become some sort of public intellectual? Surely there are so many "philosophers" (can you even call him that?) smarter than him. He just doesn't come across as very intelligent, which is common to many other public physicalist intellectuals like Dawkins and Dennet.

Harris especially reminds me of myself. I'm interested in philosophy and stuff and while I think I'm statistically smarter than most people I have a hard time following strictly logical trains of thought and following points through their arguments to their conclusion without committing fallacies and whatnot. I'm generally content with my capabilities but I think it'd be bizarre if I were to gain a mass following as some genius.

Is it because his opinions are useful to the globohomo handlers who choose who to platform and who not to platform? Who else can defend Charles Murray and still have a public career?

>>19309847
>This cannot account for a coherent and all encompassing worldview unless you think everyone should think in this manner
I don't think it should be that way, I think it already is and always has been so.
What you are espousing is simply hedonism and enslaving yourself to your passions
If you make the definitions for those terms as broad as possible I suppose so, but following God's will or any other moral system then becomes crypto-hedonism.
Fight me all you like, but would you ever do so if you really, truly didn't want to? Apply that to anything, or keep screaming into the void with your friends if you wish. Like I said, the morality of others is a puzzle.

>>19309826
And the pseud exposes himself

>>19309881
>Why did Harris become some sort of public intellectual?
The standards have gotten lower and lower over the years and now we have clowns like Harris and Peterson put on a pedestal like they are brilliant, sophisticated thinkers.
>Is it because his opinions are useful to the globohomo handlers who choose who to platform and who not to platform?
Yeah and also this

>>19309882
>would you ever do so if you really, truly didn't want to?
>everything you do you want to do
this is amoral
orthogonal to morality

>>19304840
/thread

>>19306204
>>19306236
So his argument transforms from
>it’s good because it’s natural
to
>it's natural because it's natural
or
>good things are good

>>19303704
No no no nonsense total nonsense.
This is obviously just basic everyday selfishness inherent to a survival instinct. How anyone could equate this with morality is such a massive leap. Morality is based in the desire for advancement nothing else. To put it simply it gets people to work together certainly not in any effort to avoid pain if anything it often creates a great deal more.

>>19306339
>but in our society you go to prison and get raped and beaten for doing that, which deters people from doing it. we are a form of life that is HIGHLY interdependent and has developed very complicated ways of restraining each others behaviour to ensure our own safety
you are confused
Your argument comes down to
>all things that humans do are good
since you have no criteria to devide what does help and what doesn't

>>19306455
>How are you defining natural?
How are YOU defining natural? It seems that everything that humans do is a part of human nature, which means it's good. So everything is good?

>>19309766
>ree you must debate me!
Assuming your own argument to be true, I can just say you're wrong because you're wrong.

>>19310102
No you can't because you have no coherent worldview to justify the use of such circular reasoning.

>>19310102
>Assuming your own argument to be true
Then you would be wrong to say that I'm wrong (which you are).
Not all paradigms are created equal.

>>19306085
>God is goodness in itself, simple as.
does this mean that some [goods] are above god? Does he adhere to [good] moral principles? Doesn't this make him...less godlike?

>>19309493
It would be "proactively refuted" you dumb meme spouting faggot

>>19310128
Goodness comes from God. He is the standard by which we judge something to be good or bad.
Evil or sin has no ontological substance in itself. It is simply an action. It is when a being chooses to move farther away from God.
Nothing in creation is bad by nature. God created everything good. Badness is the result of man's choice.
>>19309877
>>19309877
>>19309877

>>19310152
>Badness is the result of man's choice.
In that case why is there a necessity for the ontological freedom of will in god's plan?

>>19310165
Free will in itself is good. It is an aspect of man being made in the image of God. Even in the eschaton, people on the new Earth won't lose their free will. The church writers talk about how a person can will multiple goods. The difference is that they will no longer sin.
Sin is an abuse of that free will.

>>19310174
>Free will in itself is good.
>Sin is an abuse of that free will.
This doesn't add up. Why would there be a loophole for the sinner to sin? This makes the world less good, doesn't it? If I kill 100 people, the total amout of goodness is reduced.

>>19310110
My worldview is that I'm right and you're wrong (and also a faggot).

>>19310126
If I'm wrong for using your argument, you're wrong.
If I'm right for using your argument, you're also wrong.
Welcome to proofs by contradiction.

>>19310191
>If I'm wrong for using your argument, you're wrong.
You are trying to use a different paradigm to prove your own.

>>19310204
I am merely using a shitty paradigm against itself, I'm not building my own.

>>19310213
Everyone who has a worldview. Yours is simply an incoherent and unjustifiable mess.

>>19310165
>why is there a necessity
because forced love cannot exist
like a square circle
love must be freely given

>>19307541
>If minds break physical laws
>Then brain injuries couldn't directly influence our ability to perceive and think and our basic personality, morality, impulse control, etc.
I get the sense that anon wasn't making an absolute claim on this matter, and even the ancients recognized that there was some level of physicality to consciousness.
However, massive brain trauma causing changes in behavior does not rigorously imply that consciousness is dependent on physiology or biochemistry on all levels. In other words "consciousness physical cause brain injury bad" is a reductive statement.

>>19309826
> Morality derives from the things I like doing
> The things I like doing are moral because I like doing them
Wow look, circular reasoning, fucking dumbass

>>19310305
/thread
Harris btfo

What if I see Sam Harris and I find his existance to suck so hard that I want to kill him right then and there? What would his response be?Certainly for him being murdered sucks more than not being murdered.

Sam Harris is a propagandist. He talks in that pseudo-calm, quiet, NPR voice to try to make you stop thinking.
Shhhhhh, just turn your brain off and listen to enlightened science man. Don't think critically about what he says. Just sit there and take it all in. Shhhhhhhh.

>>19309445
?
You can take morality as a god.
Most atheists don't believe in a creator god but don't plumb it all the way down to deconstructing morality. The smart ones operate on ethics. Christians, on the other hand, are little children. Always need someone to tell them what to do.

>>19309847
>Everyone should think in this manner
Everyone already think in this manner. They're just under the illusion they're not.

>>19310847
Where is this so-called "morality"? Show it to me.
It doesn't exist in your materialist paradigm.

>>19308228
>i'll get around to reading the rest
Let me know when you do.

>>19310901
Show me your god.

>>19310174
>Free will in itself is good.
That's awfully close to "it's good because I chose to do it" instead of "I chose to do it because it's good."

So, muh brain hurt muh conciousness buh bye anons.
How do you explain ESP? How can people gather information remotely while locked up in a faraday cage?

>>19303704
>Getting from "Is" to "Ought"
>Let's assume that there are no ought's
Harris-sama... I kneel...

>>19310847
> ethics
>need someone to tell them what to do.
where do you get your definitions
ethics are all external
morality is internal and personal
atheist ethics is just trusting some euro dude (who regurgitates secularized Christian thought) to show a good path in life with an incoherent definition of 'good'

>>19303759
kekin good job

>>19311439
>atheist ethics is just trusting some euro dude
Sam Harris is Jewish.

>>19303853
I agree. But it will happen forever