/lit/ - Literature

>>6658295
No

Is-ought

What does cocaine have to do with anything? It's almost as though you're making an ad hominem attack on Sam before you've even asked the question.

We've inadvertently circuited morals to emotion and science to apathy, disinterestedness. Morals can be taken as scientific just as you can stand back and watch worldly crisis and suffering as theater.

I don't know what he said though I'm just answering the "moral through science"

>>6658295
Sam Harris is wrong because his "utilitarianism" is NOT a moral philosophy at all, it's just a way to formalize moral issues. It doesn't make any prescriptions.
The idea that clarifying moral issues help make decisions isn't new (hello analytic philosophy).

But what he forgets is you still need to ask the question "okay, WHICH utility function am I trying to maximize". And then you realize that you encounter the exact same philosophical issues you had just before formalizing everything with utilitarianism.

Examples of elementary questions that you can't answer by fact analysis:
Should "being dead" be categorized as a null utility value or as a negative one? What about "not existing at all", null or negative?

Should you satisfy the "utility monster"? Pic related.

>>6658295
>suffering
>human well-being
>flourishing

Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

>>6658295
What does his bit about muslims and bikini covers on magazines have to do with his argument?
>maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle
Yeah thank you South Park.

>>6658307
Just a funny thing I noticed. He is sniffing throughout the video. I mentioned it because I hate that ad hominem which is oftenly used when talking about Zizek. I seriously don't really care about people using drugs. I am really sorry if this affected your judgement or your emotional wellbeing.

>>6658295
>atheist
>not a nihilist or absurdist

Clearly in denial

>>6658325
I agree.
Nice pic. Please send me the sauce of them.
>>6658359
He had to say something against religion. That is what he does.

>>6658379
>Please send me the sauce of them.
existentialcomics.com

>>6658400
Oh... Sauce is literally written on the picture itself. Reading is ruining my eyesight.

is this that video where he shows happy people and unhappy people on a continuum labeled "science" or whatever

Sam Harris is the unintentionally funniest person alive

>>6658823
Not as cringeworthy as his debate with Singer

>>6658408
>Reading is ruining my eyesight.
but that's momscience

>>6658325

That pic is retarded. It's basically just a more subtle way to present the bullshit criticism of "utilitarianism logically allows for the majority to enslave a minority if it increases net happiness". It's a bullshit strawman because no serious utilitarian believes the issue is as simple as "net happiness".

/lit/ is absolutely livid when they see the likes of Harris and de Botton using their philosophy degrees to get rich and famous.

The envy is palpable.

>>6658853
How is that a strawman? Utilitarianism is about maximizing some utility function. Describe your utility function please.

>>6658295
>can shit on all religions
>pick islam
Kek. That's like picking the weak guy for a fight. Not impressive nigga.
>>6658856
Maybe, but almost everyone does that. I'm sure many anons here want to be the next zizek, chomsky or harris (lol).

>>6658856
>Harris
>philosophy degrees
ayy le mao

>>6658877
>any religious belief is the tough guy in a fight

>>6658867

The utility function that picture implies is not the utility function any rational utilitarian who believes in human rights would approve of. It's a pathetically simple utility function that doesn't address anything but "net happiness".

I can't describe my utility function because devising such a function would be an extremely complicated process, but it's obvious from the get-go that such a function would not allow any person to wantonly harm other people just because he gains more happiness than they suffer. The utility function would address issues such as human rights.

>>6658899
no, I mean, Islam is really easy to shit because of the whole fundametalist thing that is affecting the the middle east and west. Why doesn't he pick budhism? He probably can't even talk about it.

Well, if you're a moral realist then it obviously follows that the scientific method not only can be used to find answers to moral questions, but is the best approach.

That being said, realists are completely fucking retarded.

>>6658887
Harris did study philosophy you moron.

>>6658911
Surely utility functions have nothing to do with whether people approve of them or not?

>>6658911
>The utility function that picture implies is not the utility function any rational utilitarian who believes in human rights would approve of.
Really? Because I find it entirely reasonable to find some /b/tard who would take massive enjoyment from ruining someone piping, while for that person it would only be some annoyance, as he would have to call a plumber and get some money. So why the fuck not? Remember, Harris whole point is you can't rely on deontology, so no saying "it's Singer's property".

>it's obvious from the get-go
Oh is that so? How do you know when you are nowhere near devising that utility function? And he's not harming the guy, he's ruining his plumbing. Remember, you can't use property as a principle here.
Seems like you're actually basing your ethic on something completely different that isn't utilitarianism at all.

>>6658937
No the odd fact being that when utility goes up the value of an individual is reduced to a single atom. Continental philosophy.

>>6658924
Because Buddhism is the Sacred Cow of the kinds of upper-middle-class self-fellater who watches TEDtalks. They're about as interested in honest critique of Buddhism as they are in admitting they voted against Prop 8.

>>6658911
>such a function would not allow any person to wantonly harm other people just because he gains more happiness than they suffer
THIS JUST IN
JUSTICE IS IMMORAL, YOU CAN'T PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON
Thanks utilitarianists!

>>6658958
Adding that I have no real beef with Buddhism, I think it's got some interesting stuff, but the amount of mental gymnastics the average white soccermom goes through to claim association with it is staggering.

>>6658924
>>6658958
Not to mention Harris is a buddhistaboo himself.

>>6658360
Ty

>>6658924
He does it to piss off braindead liberal part of american society.
Cultural relativism is such a failed idea, but idiots still cling to it. Values of islam are inferior even when talking about Euorpe 200 years ago ( French revolution ). Also, he is not ripping on buddhism because he is biased just as any other braindead moron. Harris deserves no respect, but islam deserves even less.

>>6658943

>Because I find it entirely reasonable to find some /b/tard who would take massive enjoyment from ruining someone piping, while for that person it would only be some annoyance, as he would have to call a plumber and get some money.

If you want to get into the specifics of the example in real life then yes, you could devise scenarios where what's depicted could be justified from an utilitarian's perspective (such as if the person who's plumbing is torn down is filthy rich and the situation truly does not cause him almost any harm). But the problem is that the comic is not just saying that, it's putting forth the general idea that this is how utilitarians think, that's it's just about Received Happiness - Received Harm > 0

>And he's not harming the guy, he's ruining his plumbing. Remember, you can't use property as a principle here.

He is harming the guy. First of all he's directly inconveniencing him, causing him stress. He's also depriving him of resources, something which can have a multitude of harmful effects on his physiology.

>>6658993
Oh wow, if THAT is your definition of harm then holy shit the amount of stuff we can't do is through the roof. Basically what you're saying is your utility function doesn't allow ANY reduction of someone's utility in favor of someone else
employer doesn't hire you?
>stress -> harm
restaurant refuses to serve you food because you didn't pay?
>denying resources -> harm
creditor wants to recover his money?
>no can do
guy gets in front of you at the emergency room because his condition is more critical?
>fucking stress man

>>6658958
I give a shit about TEDtalks, I mean Harris in general. He always shit on Islam. Alright, good, but he says religion itself is shit, so why he doesn't shit on budhism or fucking jainism?
I bet he would say htat budhism isn't a religion. He's just like those faggots from The Unbelievers.
>>6658971
Pretty much.

>>6659009

>Basically what you're saying is your utility function doesn't allow ANY reduction of someone's utility in favor of someone else

Where the hell did you get that from? Having a broader definition of "harm" doesn't mean it's always wrong to do an action that results in harm towards someone else.

>>6659033
>doesn't mean it's always wrong to do an action that results in harm towards
I thought you mentioned "that such a function would not allow any person to wantonly harm other people just because he gains more happiness than they suffer"

>>6659033
So how the fuck do you decide when it's OK and when it's not you fucking retard? Do you just pull it out of your ass on a case-by-case basis? Should everyone in the world come to you if they need to decide if some harm is OK or not?

>>6658295
>Life expectancy has increased over time, so our idea of what it means to be healthy has changed.
What a poor argument. Plato lived to be 80 years old. Life expectancy has increased mostly because we're better at preventing infant death and treating disease, and we have better national security. If you were a vigorous, athletic 30 year old in Greece it wasn't outlandish, it just meant that nothing had killed you yet.

>>6659041

Yes? If you see a contradiction there you're misreading.

>>6659046

>when it's OK and when it's not you fucking retard?

This is exactly why I said it's extremely complicated to develop a utility function you doofus.

>Do you just pull it out of your ass on a case-by-case basis? Should everyone in the world come to you if they need to decide if some harm is OK or not?

You're literally chastising me for not having a system to determine the morality of any action, something no single human could possibly come up with. You're being ridiculous. Obviously determining such things would be immensely complicated and very dependent on the case in question.

>>6659079
I still don't get why you think your utility function has to do anything with that of others. Whatever utility function you "develop", the utility function of the monster doesn't change, the utility function of the houseowner doesn't change...what does the function you develop have to do with the scenario?

>>6659092

Now I've lost the plot on what you're talking about. In the utilitarianism I'm talking about there is only one general utility function, not individual utility functions for all people.

>>6659079
Are you literally complaining about having to determine the morality of actions in a debate about moral philosophy?

>You're literally chastising me for not having a system to determine the morality of any action
It would be nice if it could determine the morality of SOME actions at least, because as of now you've said nothing that could help determine the morality of any action at all. Like, how the fuck is "it's probably more complicated" a moral system, are you for real?

>>6659131

>It would be nice if it could determine the morality of SOME actions at least

I didn't bother because they feel like simple common sense but an example where doing harm is the morally justified action under utilitarianism: A person has a brain that makes him very prone to violent acts and he cannot be cured with current technology. Harming him by taking his freedom away is a justified action because it's almost certain he will continue to inflict violence if he is free.

A more straight-forward example: A homeless person finds the wallet of a billionaire with 6000$ in it. He takes some of the money and rents himself an apartment and some new clothes and begins on a path to becoming a better person. The harm he did to the billionaire is near to zero while his whole existence just got exponentially better.

>>6659079
Congratulations you would have turned Socrates insane:
S. So, young Fegites, I heard you claim that the morality of actions can be evaluated by a global utility function?
F. Yes, I do.
S. But surely it would mean then that I could destroy a man's house if I got more enjoyment from that than he got distress.
F. No he wouldn't, because my utility function prescribes for such a case.
S. Oh, and how does it?
F. I can't tell you, because the utility function is too complex for me to describe. But I do know that it wouldn't allow it because of the harm caused.
S. Oh, so it prevents any sort of harm being caused?
F. No, sometimes it allows it.
S. Then how do you know that it wouldn't allow it in this case?
F. Oh my God am I supposed to answer question now?

>>6659236

It's called intuition you retard.

I can also say the global utility function wouldn't deem child rape to be OK even though I wouldn't be able to describe specifics of the function.

>>6659221
>you're caricaturing utilitarians when you pretend we evaluate situations by weighing the harm of one versus the benefit to the other
>in this case, we can see that the harm to the billionaire is low while the benefit to the hobo is great, therefore it's good
Oh woaw you've really destroyed my prejudices here.
I thought utilitarians had wacky ideas, now I learned they don't even know what they believe in.

>>6659236
A: The utility function is too complex to describe, but I can tell you that no harm may ever fall on the best flute player.

>>6659250
>It's called intuition you retard.

oh boy

1. Our intuitions about virtually every single aspect of the world are completely wrong, what makes you think our intuitions about morality are right?
2. Different people have different intuitions, how do you decide which one to pick?
3. How does this account for significantly changing popular morality over time, while our intuitions remain fundamentally the same?

>>6659257
Ah.

>>6658295

No. I have no idea what Sam said, I didn't watch the video. I think he's wrong because I dislike him on a personal level.

>>6659265

I pick mine. What the peasantry are made to think by their masters is of no concern to me.

>>6659280
Damn, it was really worth going through that whole global utility function ordeal.

>>6658295
Shame on this guy and his pathos-laden rhetoric, his deceptive analogies, his subtly derisive language towards opposing viewpoints

Anyway, he basically solves the is-ought problem with another is-ought problem. If he wants to define "human flourishing" by biological/psychological metrics, that's fine, but people who believe in metaphysics are always going to disagree. And there will always be metaphysicists as long as the existential problem exists.

It seems possible that if we can settle on empirical metrics for "human flourishing," then we can also develop empirical methods to maximize that flourishing. But the human-in-civilization system entails such a convoluted knot of problems that humans might be extinct before we could ever solve it, considering we don't even know what makes a person gay right now. Harris deceives the audience by comparing it to a practically black and white situation like "but what about le hijabs!!" His main argument is conditionally correct despite his poor reasoning, and he is a very unethical public speaker

>>6659265

Of course my own biases affect the global utility function I imagine, I never denied that.

>1. Our intuitions about virtually every single aspect of the world are completely wrong, what makes you think our intuitions about morality are right?

I'm sure some of them are wrong to varying degrees. But most of my intuitions are logically derived from my ontological worldview and as such I can at least be quite certain that if my ontological worldview is correct then my intuitions in regards to morality are at least close to correct (as they are logically deduced from the premise that my worldview is accurate).

>>6659318
>my intuitions are logically derived

>>6659287

Not the same anon.

>>6659359

I mean what's behind the intuitions I have like "raping children is bad". That's what I intuitively think without needing a logical chain that starts from premises, but I could also derive it from what I believe if I wanted to.

This isn't /sci/, is it? Fuck off with this pop sci shit.

>>6659371
Any chance that chain might involve simply weighing harm vs. utility, as you claim to not be doing?

>>6659377
No, it's a thread about making fun of wide-eyed STEMfags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtH3Q54T-M8
Skip the speeches and go straight to debate.
>people paid a fortune to TED to hear 'public intellectuals' say "Oh my God why is it in philosophy you're always believing what some dead guy wrote in a book"

>>6659380

No because there are certain principles that get in the way (like the principle that no human being is inherently more deserving of a better life than another human being and that prosperity should be divvied up as equally as possible)

>>6659398
>prosperity should be divvied up as equally as possible
How is that a principle when you attempted to derive it from utility maximization a few posts above?

>>6659404

I don't recall doing that.

From a review of his book on this subject:

>As economists, political scientists, game theorists, psychologists and philosophets have long noted, there are intractable problems with any general standard of happiness. Harris does not have an answer to these utility-maximization quandaries, however much he may protest to the contrary. He just cites some easy cases of bad behavior - Nazis, mutilators of female genitalia, child abusers, suicide bombers - waves his hands, and assures us that only fools or those ignorant of his neuroimaging experiments could deny that morality is measurable and that goodness can be objectively determined with the help of analogies to health and chess.

>>6659417
What about the hobo example in >>6659221
Isn't that what you're doing there? Advocating the spread of wealth based on the diminishing marginal utility of money, in order to maximize global utility?

>>6659427

That's not me deriving that concept from utility maximization, that's me applying my principle to the utility function I imagined.

>>6659422

IT'S NOT /SCI/ GET OUT WITH THIS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>6659459
1) It's a review of literature
2) It concerns a philosophical problem, and philosophy is /lit/

>>6659458
What? You didn't use that principle at all in what you wrote, you derived the desirability of the wealthy man giving away from comparing the harm to the utility gained.

>>6659459
It's not /r9k/, get out with this.

If the Gods actually answered human sacrifice with better crops and less storms, would it be moral to do them?

>>6659502
Yes, according to ancient Abrahamic ideals.

>>6659473

The principle is completely embedded in what I said. If I had some other principle I could have argued that stealing from the billionaire is wrong because people deserve what they bring on themselves. Without the principle of equality my derivations regarding money aren't built on any solid bedrock.

>>6659502

Depends on how much better crops and what amount of storms averted.

>>6659520
How much is a human life worth?

>>6659422
this, this a thousand times. He is literally a fucking hack, pretending like, or rather writing for, plebs that don't know there hasn't been secular moral philosophy for at least 200 years, that is much more well developed that his shit tier arguments. Whoa, you showed that "science" proves you shouldn't throw acid in women's faces! astounding! I once saw a questioner after one of his talks give this very same criticism in the form of a question after the talk, saying something like "how do your ideas improve upon any of the 200 years of secular moralizing, what new moral insights do you 'scientific method' entail and how is not just latching on to the low hanging fruit of 'don't stone women for no reason' masking as insight". He had no good answer of course

As I was writing this I found the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuuTOpZxwRk

this guy asks politely but he knows that Harris has no real answer to his question

>>6659512
Wait, so the utilitarian part of your argument was completely inoperative then?

>>6659526

As much as any other human life of similar sentience and age.

>>6659534

No, it was an application of the principle.

>>6658295
>flourishment
>well-being
>flourishment
>well-being

No, he is not a fool. He is a fraud. I think he knows about is-ought and shit. Him outright denying reason means that he's either a fool or a provocateur/only in it for cash. He has knowledge so I choose the latter.

TL;DW version?
Is it just a sciency-spiced/formalized utilitarianism?

>>6659556
How was it an application of anything? You used the principle that wealth should be equally parted to show that wealth should be equally parted.
Seems like deontology to me.

How does utilitarianism help in any of that?

>>6659577
>sciency-spiced
Kinda, at least he claims to.
>formalized
Ah, you wished.

>>6659577
Yes, except
>formalized

>>6659577
yes, except literally nothing new, of value is added by Harris.

>>6659129
You are a moron. Just stop.

>>6659469

No it doesn't, Harris isn't a philosopher any more than Oprah Winfrey is. In fact, she's probably more of one. He's a popular science professional atheist. Fuck him. Why is he here? It's not fucking literature. If it is, look out for my fucking Gary Spivey thread.

>>6659502

Yes, because if it reliably worked, nobody would ever have questioned the implicit assumption that it was a good idea.

>>6659581

"Sentient beings should prosper as equally as possible" is not a complex moral system, it's a premise. Utilitarianism is a system used to weigh different variables and determine the way in which this premise can be achieved.

I couldnt finish watching this idiot. And that clapping and chuckles when he says something "smart".

>>6659620
Literally what? So you've just given up on the general utility function?

>>6659666

No, I just can't presume to know on what premises that would operate so I have to use my own premises for the time being.

>>6659532
I can't believe this guy did his undergrad in philosophy. His argument is practically the same as this one: >>6659236

If economics is already a complicated enough subject that it's not currently possible to make objective normative statements about some problems, imagine trying to solve the problem of "optimal human flourishing," which involves not only economics, but psychology, biology, ecology, and politics, and probably more I can't think of.

>>6659719
I know. Simple minded utilitarians are the central planning marxists of morality

>>6659620
>"Sentient beings should prosper as equally as possible"
But then the net happiness would be lower. Don't you into basic economics?

>>6659742
How do i read this strange picture?

>>6658298
thread.

Don't come at me with that reasons for actions bullshit. They grant nothing worth the name of morality.
Don't fall for Harris' sophistry and illusion, cast it to the flames.

>>6659742

>But then the net happiness would be lower.

Net happiness isn't that important. Median happiness would be more important but that's not an accurate metric either.

>Don't you into basic economics?

"Prosperity" is more broad of a concept than economics.

>>6659765
>cast it to the flames

topkek

I'd like to see this fraud hooked by the lip to the back of a truck, and dragged along the road at 80mph until his cadaver was giblets.

>tfw when there are people that are respected and make a bunch of money for writing books with arguments fleshing out the thoughts of an intelligent, but philosophically untrained 14 year old

>>6659782
> Median happiness would be more important but that's not an accurate metric either.

Well that's easy to improve, just execute people with low utility.

>>6659843

Exactly, not very useful either.

You people like to trot out "is-ought" all the time, but you never consider that if moral realism is the case, moral facts ARE. There is no gap.

Most academic philosophers are realists, you know...

>>6659742
At any price point for a good on the market there is Buyer Surplus, which is the amount that buyers save who otherwise would have bought at a higher price; and there is Seller Surplus, which is the amount that sellers gain who otherwise would have sold at a lower price.

The equilibrium price of a good is the price at which supply equals demand. At this price point, the sum of buyer and seller surplus (or "welfare") is maximized. However, if measures are put in place to artificially enforce a different price (In this case a "price ceiling", a limit on the maximum price of the good), then the total welfare is lowered. This decrease in welfare is called deadweight loss and is a key form of economic inefficiency.

>>6659782
The vagueness of "prosperity" is one of the problems we are facing here, but it must be assumed that prosperity relies in part on the consumption (and so, necessarily, the production) of goods. Food and energy don't magically appear in our homes. Economics is always complicated, but the basic principles always work as rough approximations.

As for "median happiness," I don't understand how you could make an objective moral choice between maximizing net happiness or ensuring a particular level of happiness at the expense of efficiency.

As a STEMfag, I'd like to interject that his argument that goes "we can agree on the best state for humanity, we can agree on a worst state, therefore there's a continuum of ordered states in between" is absolutely, completely, provably wrong bullshit.
This does ABSOLUTELY not follow from that.
I'm triggered right now.

>>6659870
top part was meant for >>6659761 sorry

If someone is going to create cybermen (emotionless creatures for doctor who) it is going to be Sam Harris. This would be the ultimate way of getting rid of suffering.

>>6659850
you're begging the question bub

>>6659870

>I don't understand how you could make an objective moral choice between maximizing net happiness or ensuring a particular level of happiness at the expense of efficiency.

That on what premises you start from. Does every human deserve a certain degree of prosperity? Does everyone deserve similar amounts of prosperity?

>>6659892
How so?

>>6659900
>That on what premises you start from.
Budy, those "premises" you keep mentioning? They are your actual moral system, not utilitarianism.

>>6658295

>can we find answers to moral questions through science?

No, simply put. Science can only work on phenomena that is fundemental to the Universe. Morality isn't even fundemental to humans, its something that only the majority choose to take part in. Human interpretation and will doesn't speak scientific language.

>>6659921

Utilitarianism by itself doesn't state whether human X is more deserving of utility than human Y. It doesn't state anything about human rights. It can't just exist by itself it needs some premises.

>>6659942

>Morality isn't even fundemental to humans, its something that only the majority choose to take part in.

This is like saying language isn't fundamental to humans because some people have a brain that can't process language.

Just because some people have a malfunction in their brains that makes them sociopaths doesn't mean morality isn't integral to the human animal.

>>6659955
The whole premise of utilitarianism is to maximize some sort of utility function.
The utilitarians never referred to repartition of wealth as a "principle", it was a conclusion. According to them, since money has a strictly diminishing marginal utility, if you take money from a rich man and give it to a poor man, then you have increased total utility.
There is no "principle of redistribution" at work there.

Having some moral principles and looking for a way to promote them isn't utilitarianism at all, it's just... having moral principles.
The only thing that matters there is where you're pulling those principles from.

>>6659976

>According to them, since money has a strictly diminishing marginal utility, if you take money from a rich man and give it to a poor man, then you have increased total utility.

I see, but how do ideas like "the rich man deserves his money" fit into all this?

>>6659963

>This is like saying language isn't fundamental to humans because some people have a brain that can't process language.

Yeah it is. Then it isn't fundemental to humans.

>Just because some people have a malfunction in their brains that makes them sociopaths doesn't mean morality isn't integral to the human animal.

Yeah it is. Because in that case not all humans care for morality. For science to work, results MUST be consistant, repeatable, testable. Human behaviour and will is only to a certain extent, before science fails to describe it. The Human mind is an emergent phenomena. Some aspects of it are predictable, but most of it isn't, and the mere fact that its so sensitive to observation and meta-observation completely kills any sciencetific method of describing it. The mind is constantly changing goals, changing its will, changing its views. Science isn't built for that.

Not only that, but science doesn't make decisions for you. You can't come up with a moral reason why we shouldn't nuke Russia with science, or why we shouldn't build robots to replace us and kill ourselves as a species off.

>>6659996
Other utilitarians believe that redistribution leads to a general impoverishment of society, therefore reducing total utility.
That debate is actually a technical question that can be examined by science, in this case economics, as long as you agree with utilitarians of course.

>>6659997

>guy has his hypothalamus removed so he can't form any new memories --> memories aren't fundamental to human beings
>guy is blind --> seeing isn't fundamental to human beings
>guy is deaf --> hearing isn't fundamental to human beings

This is the logic you're employing here, shitheel.

>The mind is constantly changing goals, changing its will, changing its views.

The instincts within our genes are driven by millions of years of natural selection, they aren't constantly changing.

>>6660043

No it isn't. Those are mechanical changes. Someone can come to not care about morality purely through decision. If you think only sociopaths can disregard others you've been reading too much "psychology today". Huamns can act callously one minute and generously the next. Not in all cases, but in most. The brain is something can change itself. The Universe doesn't seem to be. Th elaws of phsyics are set and don't change. Ever. I could be a rationalist one week and a christian the next. Science isn't ever going to be able to describe that.

>The instincts within our genes

Stop. Human behaviour, worldviews and actions haven't been consistantly proven to be caused by genes alone.

>they aren't constantly changing

Well then how the fuck do you explain how Western society was hardcore Christian 300 years ago and now they're hardcore democratic materialist? Genes don't change that quickly. You also completely failed to address my statement about how science cannot give you a solid answer on how to spend your time and energy.

>>6658295
Maybe he's popular exactly because of his shortcuts in logic which he uses to make a case for these easy to digest constructs that a lot of people then sympathize with aka high demand good in the pop sci market that is tradeoff between intellect and accessibility. Why should I dismantle this. It's populism. He's all up in my face and he looks smugger than pepe. I don't want anything to do with him already. I don't want this in my LIFE, the idea that I have to pay extra attention to some smug fag on quasi TV or because he's a meme or ANYTHING. I want this nigger to get out my face. And I don't want to hear about it. Fucking done with this.

>>6660089

>Someone can come to not care about morality purely through decision.

Those are mechanical changes in the brain just like seeing.

>The brain is something can change itself. The Universe doesn't seem to be. Th elaws of phsyics are set and don't change. Ever.

Neuroplasticity is a thing, yes. That doesn't mean it's magic. It's still governed by the laws of physics.

>I could be a rationalist one week and a christian the next.

If something radical happened to your brain, sure.

>Science isn't ever going to be able to describe that.

Why not?

>Stop. Human behaviour, worldviews and actions haven't been consistantly proven to be caused by genes alone.

Of course they aren't caused by "genes alone", genes only exist as a function of their interaction with the environment. Gene-environment interaction is what results in those things.

>Well then how the fuck do you explain how Western society was hardcore Christian 300 years ago and now they're hardcore democratic materialist? Genes don't change that quickly.

We have genes that allow for great variation to occur in behavior as gene expression changes. To give a simple example we have genes that code for language yet we don't have a single language, we have thousands.

>You also completely failed to address my statement about how science cannot give you a solid answer on how to spend your time and energy.

Because I never disagreed with that.

Harris is a moron.

>>6660141

Mechanical changes brought about by oneself. Which makes the scientific method useless. If the Universe could sense humans where observing it and change the laws of physics to disguise its nature, or change its laws of physics on a whim, science would be useless on that too.

>Neuroplasticity is a thing, yes. That doesn't mean it's magic. It's still governed by the laws of physics.

Never said it was magic or not governed by the laws of physics. Obviously everyhting in the Universe is governed by the laws of physics. What I'm saying is Neuroplasticity renders science ineffective.

>If something radical happened to your brain, sure.

Sure. But the fact I can do that, again, defeats the object of science: to describe nature in a consistant way. You can describe the mechanism, but not the result.

>Why not?

See above.

>Of course they aren't caused by "genes alone", genes only exist as a function of their interaction with the environment. Gene-environment interaction is what results in those things.

So it isn't just genes then.

>We have genes that allow for great variation to occur in behavior as gene expression changes. To give a simple example we have genes that code for language yet we don't have a single language, we have thousands.

>To give a simple example we have genes that code for language

No we don't. We have genes that code for things that allow us to have language, not that code for language specifically. I also doubt we have "religion genes", merely seperate genes for conformity or higher reaosning that allow us to stipulate religion.

>Because I never disagreed with that.

Well then how the hell is Sam Harris going to find answers to moral questions through science?

>>6660155

>>6660188

>Mechanical changes brought about by oneself. Which makes the scientific method useless.

I don't see how that makes the scientific method useless. It's just a very complex system that changes itself. It's not like it can change itself into absolutely anything. It's a question of limited data and understanding.

>Sure. But the fact I can do that, again, defeats the object of science: to describe nature in a consistant way. You can describe the mechanism, but not the result.

What? If you can consistently show how a person can go from a rationalist to a christian in a week how is that not describing nature in a consistent way?

>No we don't. We have genes that code for things that allow us to have language, not that code for language specifically. I also doubt we have "religion genes", merely seperate genes for conformity or higher reaosning that allow us to stipulate religion.

Nice semantic quibbling but what you just said yourself perfectly answers the question you yourself posed earlier about why human societies can change so quickly without the instincts without humans changing.

>Well then how the hell is Sam Harris going to find answers to moral questions through science?

I never said I agree with Harris.