Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:04 pm
Still, that interview with Lex Fridman now having attracted over 1M views in a month, if such a discussion were to ever come about, it would make for a significant audience to whom can be offered a substantive alternative in stark contrast.
I was... what interview??? And then, aha! Lex Fridman had SH as guest. Didn't watch that, the last two guests I watched (partly) were Vitalik of Ethereum and the Cardano guy.
BK talking with Lex would be very interesting, with possibility to dig much deeper in the conjunction of computation science and general philosophy.
Simon Adams wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:14 pm
Presumably Harris does a fair bit of meditating? It seems strange that someone who produces an app on meditation, can so badly miss-understand the experience and the understanding from people who have spent their whole lives doing it?
Meditation experiences are very wide and in all likelihood endless variety, and can also go "bad", in the sense of very painful and self-maiming experience. Just a general observation, not hinting anything towards SH of whom I know nothing.
To be honest, I didn't watch the entire interview. I find it too tedious and time consuming to spend time on slow methods of information transfer when i can find material to read. However, I did listen to some of it.
I am not a fan of Sam Harris but this seemed like a wide ranging interview touching on many different topics. It wasn't intended as a tightly argued philosophical position. If you think of this forum, this was in General Discussions not in Formal Philosophical Discussions. Bernardo seems to me to be completely overreacting to someone he does have disagreements with, but this is out of proportion to casual discussion tone of the interview.
So why? Does this reaction betray some fundamental insecurity?
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:18 pmSo why? Does this reaction betray some fundamental insecurity?
I don't think there's any need to psychoanalyze it. BK made it quite clear above what his issues with SH are, in that he finds his credentials highly dubious and exaggerated, and that while he has a talent for passing himself off as having a great degree of credibility, there isn't really any sound basis behind it—which of course others may disagree with. I just see SH as having an appeal to many who are now at a stage-specific point of beginning to explore the 'mystery' of consciousness, and he offers a kind of initial stepping stone for agnostics, not quite ready to drop materialism altogether, to begin that exploration, and so is serving a useful function in that regard. Indeed, there was a time about 40 years ago, when SH was still a child, that what he is now offering likely would have appealed to my own stage-specific sensibilities, long before I was ready for what BK is now offering. And so likewise, if and when someone feels inclined to go further, and dares to seriously consider the primacy of consciousness, they'll move on from what SH has to offer, and feel more inclined to perhaps consider what BK is offering. As such, I can't get overly worked up about it.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:18 pmSo why? Does this reaction betray some fundamental insecurity?
I don't think there's any need to psychoanalyze it. BK made it quite clear above what his issues with SH are, in that he finds his credentials highly dubious and exaggerated, and that while he has a talent for passing himself off as having a great degree of credibility, there isn't really any sound basis behind it—which of course others may disagree with. I just see SH as having an appeal to many who are now at a stage-specific point of beginning to explore the 'mystery' of consciousness, and he offers a kind of initial stepping stone for agnostics, not quite ready to drop materialism altogether, to begin that exploration, and so is serving a useful function in that regard. Indeed, there was a time about 40 years ago, when SH was still a child, that what he is now offering likely would have appealed to my own stage-specific sensibilities, long before I was ready for what BK is now offering. And so likewise, if and when someone feels inclined to go further, and dares to seriously consider the primacy of consciousness, they'll move on from what SH has to offer, and feel more inclined to perhaps consider what BK is offering. As such, I can't get overly worked up about it.
I have all sorts of issues with Sam Harris. I dislike his vehement atheism, his identity politics.
But I see a little of SH in BK in their personalities, their combativeness, and self-promotion.
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 4:08 pmI have all sorts of issues with Sam Harris. I dislike his vehement atheism, his identity politics.
Not so sure that ever since his extended exchange with Jordan Peterson that SH is as outspoken and vehement in his anti-religion mode as he once was, albeit I don't really follow much of his output, so perhaps he still takes a strong stance in that regard. The current state of US politics, regardless of which polarized view one identifies with, makes this heart feel little but despair, which is a sentiment that SH seems to share as far as I can tell. As for 'self-promotion', SH would win that contest hands down, if over 1M views in a month since the Fridman interview first aired is any indication.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
The fact that you, BK, and most on this forum are framing this in terms of debate tells volumes.
What's wrong with debate, Jim? Isn't that what people do on this forum? Don't you do that? How are you going to find out how good Portugal are unless they play Brazil? Friendlies are all very well but they won't draw the crowds.
The fact that you, BK, and most on this forum are framing this in terms of debate tells volumes.
What's wrong with debate, Jim? Isn't that what people do on this forum? Don't you do that? How are you going to find out how good Portugal are unless they play Brazil? Friendlies are all very well but they won't draw the crowds.
We can read Plato's case against sophistry, or Schopenhauer's 'Art of Controvercy', to get some idea what can be wrong with debate. When debate is limited to win-lose game, it tends to become lose-lose game.
On the other hand, when debate mode is contextualized as part of more general dialogue and investigation, it can be also very positive force that energizes and focuses dialogue.
