Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Experts Agree: Sam Harris Is A Joke" video.

  1. Exactly. He's a moron who regurgitates old philosophies. The only people dumber are those who buy his bullshit.
    3
  2. @Zackariah Schultz  "Well being" and utilitarianism are nothing new, but he acts like they are, and pretends he has made some kind of grand discovery. Those didn't prove Hume wrong the first time around, and still don't. His fearmongering about advanced AI then contradicts his own bullshit arguments for an objective hierarchy based on intelligence. Christians have been arguing against Muslims for centuries. Doing so is also nothing new. Whether you like religion, or not, freedom of religion was a step forward. Going backwards, to fearmongering and discriminating against those of a religion you don't like, is the definition of "regressive". He's an idiot, who spouts all kinds of subjective arguments in a calm monotone manner, fooling other idiots into thinking he has been objective.
    1
  3. @Zackariah Schultz If you say things like "I will argue", with zero reference to others arguing the same thing before, then you're presenting the argument as your own, not simply something you agree with. Might be fine for a casual conversation, but not for a lecture, article, or whatever, presenting yourself as a scholar in the field. What ... do you want an entire lecture, or article, quoted here, showing an absence of him giving credit to other philosophers before him? All his lectures and articles? Lol Criticizing a specific idea is different from fearmongering about people and arguing to discriminate against them. You know the difference between criticizing authoritarian forms of communism and regressively fearmongering against left leaning people of all sorts, like during McCarthyism, right? If you've never heard him present simply "Muslims" as a problem in a "thought" experiment, like with nuclear weapons for example, or never heard him argue to profile Muslims, then why are you so worried about someone you know little about? Do you also know there's a difference between a book and a religion? Harris has outright said himself that he just recently learned this from Nawaz, which then contradicts a number of his previous arguments, and validates the critics of those previous arguments. His AI argument has to do with an AI as advanced to us as we are to ants. He argues we'd have to worry about it having different values, that don't align with ours, and it turning against us. But, if you use the same argument he uses for Moral Landscape, then the AI's values should be objectively better than ours, and the AI should objectively have more value than us. Contradicting his own hierarchy argument, which gives us more value than ants, Sam still values humans more than the advanced AI. If his hierarchy was truly objective, then any future AI, or other species, found to be more advanced than us, should objectively have more value than us. No, simply calling someone else an idiot isn't idiotic. Repeatedly presenting arguments that contradict your other arguments is idiotic. Presenting old ideas as your own is idiotic. Not being able to get any further than what you already say is a given is idiotic. Constantly presenting non-analagous "analogies" is idiotic. Etc.
    1