Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Sam Harris and Eric Weinstein CANCEL Sam Seder" video.

  1.  @hikelfin  The idiot shouldn't even have a philosophy degree, he's so bad at it. "Well being" and utilitarianism are nothing new. He regurgitated old shit, and morons ate it up. His moral "analogies", used for his foundation, aren't even analogous. He's a dolt, and never actually got his moral argument beyond what he already stated was a given.
    4
  2.  @scoogsy  Harris agreed it was already a given that, if you set a subjective goal, science can help you achieve that goal. If I want to go to the moon, science can tell me if something I do objectively moves me closer or further from that goal. Likewise, if you insert your own subjective idea of "well being" as your subjective goal, then science can also help achieve that goal. If Harris doesn't provide anything that gets you beyond that given, then he completely failed at showing how science can tell us what our goal should be ... a purely objective goal. He failed. He defeated his own hierarchy nonsense in a seperate article, where he fearmongers about AI that is as advanced beyond us as we are to ants. If his hierarchy was actually objective, then he should be arguing that we should do whatever the AI wants, that it has objectively more value than us, as we supposedly have objectively more value than ants. He then claims that all moral systems are about the "well being" of conscious creatures. If that's the case, then there are as many concepts of "well being" as there are concepts of moral systems. But, Harris moves on as if there is a singular concept of "well being" ... his own subjective one ... by which he can then "scientifically" judge all other moral systems. He can't seem to make an analogous analogy to save his life: Chess is a game with rules. It's not analogous to morality. It's analogous to laws (rules). Laws may be a reflection of a society's current morals, but they aren't themselves morality. People can come along and argue a law is itself immoral, just like they can come along and change game rules, if they want, and play a new way. "Healthy" and "unhealthy" don't include oughts. "Moral", on the other hand, is how we ought to behave, and "immoral" is how we ought not behave. He seems to be totally clueless as to what "poisoning" actually is, claiming some totally objective difference between "poison" and "food". "Poisoning" is simply too much of something in your system. We eat cyanide in apples. We can get poisoned from too much water. Most "poisonings" are overdoses of medications that are supposed to make us healthier. Harris failed, and never provided anything beyond what he agreed was already a given. He also failed at some pretty basic philosophy.
    3
  3.  @scoogsy  Holy crap. You can't even keep the words in front of your face straight. I didn't mention both is-ought. I mentioned only "ought". The words "moral" and "immoral" have oughts in them ... how we ought and ought not behave. If it's okay to behave immorally, then the word has no meaning. It is okay to eat an unhealthy Big Mac, if you feel like it. There's no "ought not" in "unhealthy". It's just a fact it's "unhealthy". It's okay to go skydiving and unhealthily increase your odds of dying. If you likewise take the "ought not" out of "immoral", then immorality no longer refers to wrong behaviour. It's a shite analogy. I know full well the arrogant idiot thinks he solved the is-ought problem. He didn't, because his argument is based totally on subjectivity, not objectivity. He didn't get beyond his starting point. His hierarchy, which he does include, is subjective. Without it, he'd have to argue for veganism. His personal concept of "well being" is also subjective. The difference between cyanide, water, and being "poisoned" has more to do with amounts. A drop of cyanide won't "poison" you. A ton of water will. A bunch of alcohol will. A bunch of medication will. Etc. Etc. Yet, we willingly ingest all the time. Poisoning isn't even always a bad thing to do. We intentionally poison people to cure cancer. Another shite analogy. I think you're the one that needs to reread the book, without your fanboy glasses on.
    3
  4.  @resir9807  With respect to things Harris has said about Islam or race, or any other things Seder has specifically commented on, how has Seder misrepresented Harris?
    3
  5.  @scoogsy  I haven't misunderstood a thing. I'll assume you you didn't even grasp page 1, where he sets out what he's about to argue in the book. No, I'm not talking about a different way of looking at the is-ought gap. I'm talking about the fact that Harris didn't argue there are no moral oughts and ought nots. In fact, he entirely sets out to show that science can give us answers as to how we ought or ought not behave. Yet, he uses an "analogy" to health, which doesn't include oughts or ought nots. It's a shite analogy. It's a seperate issue from his moronic belief that he bridged the gap, and his arrogant claim that Hume was a "lazy" thinker. I have zero belief that you clearly understood an entire book, when you can't seem to understand a comparatively short YouTube comment.
    2
  6.  @Milanvaneijk  Meh, it would be kind of moronic to call US Libertarians, extreme "left". "Left" and "right" is economics. Either can be more, or less, authoritarian.
    2
  7.  @Milanvaneijk  I'm Canadian. I specifically used a capital "L", as in Ayn Randians or ancappers. They are considered far right because they are far right, and I consider corporate Dems to be right of centre. But okay, whatever.
    2
  8. His philosophy degree should have been revoked, based on that book. He never got beyond what he stated was already a given.
    1
  9.  @scoogsy  No, it's you that's wrong out of the gate. He agrees that science can help us get what we value. Whether I subjectively value going to the moon or subjectively value building a world destroying bomb, science can help me get what I value. That's a given. Unless someone can prove otherwise (which he doesn't), science will never tell me whether, or not, I ought to, or ought not to, do either of those things. That's because science doesn't give a crap, either way. Science has helped us do all kinds of absolutely awful things, as well as the good things. He does not have all conscious creatures equally balanced. He has a supposedly objective hierarchy, that's pure nonsense, with humans on top. He proves it's nonsense, himself, when he still puts humans on top of an AI that's supposed to be as superior to is as we are to ants. It's a purely subjective hierarchy, with him always valuing humans most. Yes, you've misunderstood. I'm saying he's a clueless idiot to claim there's a black and white distinction between "poison" and what is okay to ingest, which he did. The fact that we can get water poisoning, which we can't survive without, is the clearest evidence of this.
    1