Bernardo vs Graham Oppy!!

[Mark Tetzner]

Of course, BK has not responded.

the pain of not being heard.
Viel Feind, viel Ehr.
(many enemies, much honor).

[Lou Gold]

Lou, my hunch is that you are simply wanting to evoke another kind of response from all of these fine minds. I don't get the impression you are scolding or saying we are doing things wrong, merely that you appreciate when this kind of conversation touches a bit more in the kinds of richer narratives that have less focus on abstractions and, instead, grab our hearts and souls in the narrative thrust of the matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but your approach typically is to find images and narratives that can work behind and underneath a lot of the heady mumbo jumbo. Thanks for the browser tip. I immediately found the article and look forward to reading.

Thanks FB. Yes, that's my drift. My sense of "compelling" is linked to meaning, which I find in story. The deeper the better. However, I guess a mathematician might find an elegant abstract proof as compelling so I guess the word "compelling" is hardly foolproof.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Of course, BK has not responded.

the pain of not being heard.
Viel Feind, viel Ehr.
(many enemies, much honor).

And the dilemma is that with BK not responding it serves to reinforce JW's conviction and assertion that BK is evading him, which in turn spurs JW on in goading-mode, and spurs me on to goadingly comment here about it, when I could be doing something less futile

[Mark Tetzner]

Of course, BK has not responded.

the pain of not being heard.
Viel Feind, viel Ehr.
(many enemies, much honor).

And the dilemma is that with BK not responding it serves to reinforce JW's conviction and assertion that BK is evading him, which in turn spurs JW on in goading-mode, and spurs me on to goadingly comment here about it, when I could be doing something less futile

At the same time sam harris, sean carroll and the pope are ignoroing BK which spur him on....its all a big troll-club of hurt egos shadow-boxing against whoever with ever ballooning egos
btw why might JW think that a non-analytic philosopher is a better fit?

[findingblanks]

Mark, sorry if this is a nerdy question which misses the point, but what specifically do you mean by 'ignoring' when you say that Sam Harris is ignoring Bernardo? Thanks!

[Mark Tetzner]

Mark, sorry if this is a nerdy question which misses the point, but what specifically do you mean by 'ignoring' when you say that Sam Harris is ignoring Bernardo? Thanks!

kinda this:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=395
(scroll until you find the entry by BK)

[findingblanks]

Thanks Mark. Yeah, I had read that originally. Personally, I don't see anything in it that leads me to think that Harris had been engaging with Bernardo directly and then started just ignoring him. Even if they had been engaging, we all know that there can be reasons to suddenly stop. Bernardo does not always even justify why he will stop conversations. We can hold a somewhat charitable understanding, though, I hope.

But maybe people think that since Bernardo's profile has grown so much it must mean that particular people are 'ignoring' him if they don't have him on their podcasts are talk about him outloud in public. I just can't get behind that reasoning, but my hunch is that is what people mean. I have no doubt Sam has heard of Bernardo. I'm sure he and his wife discussed her conversation with him. But to me that doesn't imply that Sam is ignoring Bernardo.

I just see so much reactivity in Bernardo and how many of us here tend to frame each other's behavior. Yes, I do that to when I claim that our shadows often creep in unaware, but I try to do so lightly by acknowledging my own shadow (annoying, stubborn, not very funny, a bit emotional, etc.) and never speculating about specific psychological reasons a person might be upset. Anyway, there is certainly a pattern with Bernardo's hostility and odd cherry-picking of who he aims it and and who he absolutely won't.

Actually, when I first read Bernardo say:

"My first challenge to him was in 2012, almost 10 years ago, as a reaction to a disgusting piece he wrote on Eben Alexander, dragging Eben's character and reputation through the mud..."

This caused me to go back and read Sam's article to see if there were more than one way to judge it. Wow.

1) Yes, I could see the elements of Sam's ego that would be annoying. And I certainly could see the aspects of reasoning that I disagreed with.
2) Bernardo's characterization was very one-sided and left out Sam's caveats and his geniune concerns, which leads to...
3) It made me go back and read Alexander's original account. I would say that there are legit questions about the reeasoning and rhetoric in the paper.
4) Bernardo is flat wrong when he states that Alexander presented his story in a very vulnerable way that did not attempt to lean into using his expertise.
5) Needless to say, when it comes to the arguments themselves about the nature of consciousness, I'm 100 with Bernardo. Although, I think it is an excellent thing that Harris has been applauding idealists outloud and not letting physicalists off the hook with regard to the hard problem.

Anyway, it ended up being much more complex than Bernardo suggested, but it helped me understand what kind of think make him irrationally upset and spew over generalizations. Harris does the same thing, too. And, ultimately, I think they are very similar when it comes to what annoys them most about a certain kind of presentational style.

All interesting. Thank heavens Bernardo's main thing is explicating a rigorous analytical idealism and not being a sociologist or helping us really understand then nature of greed (although when he does 'teach' about such things, I personally find it fairly annoying). And thankfully, Sam hosts a podcast that constantly challenges physicalists when they try to wave away consciousness and occasionally even demands his listeners take idealism serioulsy. His Harris well informed about idealism. Not very. That's too bad. Doesn't make him a monster or suggest his enthusiasm for idealism isn't helping more than hurting. But he is the enemy for many and I think he bares some responsibility for that, especially for much of his social commentary.

[Mark Tetzner]

Can you give (post) an example where SH is defending idealism?
Yes, calling SH article a "disgusting piece" is over the top.
Alexander, be he right or wrong, is probably is a character to
be distrusted.

[findingblanks]

Mark, I can't post it right now. Did I say 'defending'? Maybe, but if i said 'defending' I certainly didn't mean 'arguing for idealism.' I wish I hadn't said 'defend' but I'll look back and see if I did. But what I meant to say is that Sam has shown great respect for idealism by interviewing Donald Hoffman for over three hours. And, before that, he tweeted at least two times to his audience that they must listen to Donald's podcast interview with some man. He wasn't condescending. He wasn't saying they should listen so that they can mock Hoffman's very very very idealistic approach. So, no, he did not defend idealism as in saying it was right, but he clearly respects it as a basic search space of ideas that shouldn't be shoved under the carpet. I think i said that I don't believe Sam is very well informed about Idealism. And I think I was trying to say that he was emphatic that his listeners take Hoffman seriously whether or not they agree with him. That's not too horrible for somebody who admits he doesn't yet have a strong opinion about the hard problem other than that physicalists who deny it are flat wrong.

.....

Yes, if rational people can become skeptical about Alexander's character, then there is room for Sam to share that. And room for anybody to defend Alexander. I have become somewhat skeptical of Alexander's character. But I'm not finished or convinced either way.

When Bernardo says that Sam calls Alexander a 'butcher' just because Sam makes a snarky point that being a brain surgeon in now way should suggest the person has deep or accurate thoughts about consciousness, Bernardo reveals something about his personality. Sam's snarky point about 'cutting into brains' is MILD compared to the shots that Bernardo takes at people he dislikes. I don't agree with Keith Frank at all. But he's a good man and almost never mocks anybody in a mean way. So when Bernardo calls Frank a charleton trying to make money...ugh. But it was useful for me when I began to see that not only will Bernardo attack people in this way, he will also justify it as a moral duty for the future of humanity. Again, ugh. But it's human. And it doesn't take away from all the good Bernardo is doing by thinking carefully about idealism.

[Mark Tetzner]

I somewhat agree with you....BK is not perfect ;=