Anyone else wish their brain could be as smooth as his?

your confusion is noted

That Chomsky exchange is one of the most cringe things I’ve read. That was when I knew Sam had a completely smooth ball of dried mud for a brain.

>le
Okay. Seriously, if Harris is the only thinker you can name who "btfo'd christcuckery," or even if you think he's an important anti-theist, OR if you genuinely think he brought any new critiques to the table, then you're a psued. Harris, at best, is a mediocre rhetorician. Close the laptop and go to the library.

...This is a shockingly high IQ take. I've never met a Harris fan -- shit, not even a fan, just someone who took any of his ideas seriously -- who didn't also slobber over the State. Like, set his muh muslims and muh iq aside for a moment. His ideas about ethics and theology are so laughably flimsy, gussied up with sharp phrases and some muh data, that a clever undergrad could tear his works a new asshole given a bottle of Adderall and a weekend.

how do you disprove determinism?

Put your hand on a stove

ok?

Did you do it?

yes

Then you were determined to do it... by me. Suck it, "free-will"

Literally who?

Ahahaha free will blown the fuck out.

but I was asking how to disprove determinism not prove it?

The only possible thing I can think of is the classic super-computer or God that could predict the future then display the results. If the future were communicable to a human, couldn’t he just do the opposite of the prediction? This might prove that the future is unknowable, but I’m not sure if that disproves determinism.

Where can I view this?

Can't stand the guys voice and pace. Even his logic is completely weak, he can't even explain his core thesis well.

It probably feels really soft when you rub it

Guys wtf is "human flourishing"?
Lack of suffering doesn't count. No via negativa

Also he has never tackled the is ought question

>science can give us morals

Attached: 1540633978273.png (645x729, 82K)

It would be impossible to do a calculation for the velocity and position of every atom in the universe. So such a machine would be impossible. And the computer displays what WOULD have happened if the person hadnt seen it, that doesnt mean that defying that future wasnt always predetermined.

what the fuck kind of person needs someone else to prove to them what's moral and not?

>it should be clear to you that he is shockingly dumb.
You can disagree with him without saying things like this, otherwise you're really just discrediting yourself. Not to commit an appeal to accomplishment or anything, but shockingly dumb people do not get PhD's in Neuroscience. He can still have ignorant opinions, but he's probably a lot smarter than you

Much of modern Neuroscience is a complete joke. It is based on false paradigms like functional localization for higher-level cognition or overly reductionist neurobiological studies of receptor channels. I got my BS in Neuroscience, and I instantly regretted it.

>probably
Not that guy, but key word right there. My step-aunt has a master's and she borders on retarded. She has a meme degree (infant psychology) but still. That they hand out high degrees to people like her reduces the credibility of all higher education

I think you're just a projecting incel who's jealous of a woman getting a better degree than you.

No, even my mom calls her retarded. She is pretty helpless and can't even grocery shop. Not exaggerating

you're trying so hard

That's just it. I wouldn't give a shit about anyone with a psychology degree. There's no quality control in psychology, I've taken upper division classes and felt like I was in high school.
There is a distinct difference in a field like neuroscience. I am not crediting Sam Harris for having a graduate degree, I'm crediting him for having a graduate degree in a legitimate science. The experience of graduate education for an actual science and the experience of graduate education for something in the humanities are worlds apart. I say this as a philosophy major. I would still give credit to someone with a PhD in this field, but I know how far bullshit can get you. Much harder to bullshit your way through a data-driven science.

Fair enough, but still. Ideas are what are important, not their source (except him because he's a J).

>he is shockingly dumb

I don't think he's very impressive in any way but calling him shockingly dumb shows that you're an edgy pseud

I mean... it's not an unfair critique. I genuinely don't know how someone who's smart enough to have a fucking doctorate in neuroscience -- not fucking, I don't know, eastern pottery studies, but neuroscience -- can misrepresent his opponents as consistently and as badly as Harris does. At bare minimum, it shows that Harris is an utter narcissist with no regard for anyone's opinion but his own. At most -- if he has actually interacted with critics/philosophical lit like he claims -- he regularly misinterprets major schools of thought worse than a pretentious 9th grader speedreading Russell's History of Western Philosophy.

samharris.org/the-limits-of-discourse/

I change my opinion after reading this exchange and comparing it with others between him and other people I've seen. He does come across quite frequently as a higher-order brainlet - like a brainlet that tries really hard to be smart and can string sentences together but just gets "confused" about everything. His disagreements with people always just circle around to the beginning because he refuses to cede any flaws in his arguments while not fully understanding the other person's arguments

>I am happy to answer your question. What would I say about al-Qaeda (or any other group) if it destroyed half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S.? It would depend on what they intended to do.
yikes

>I genuinely don't know how someone who's smart enough to have a fucking doctorate in neuroscience -- not fucking, I don't know, eastern pottery studies, but neuroscience -- can misrepresent his opponents as consistently and as badly as Harris does.
That's because he literally bought his degree.