Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations. — Relativist

(this is not loaded by hte previous discussion - I think this is a really interesting question alone) Are you all good with the possibility that we cant know some empirical facts? I.e we should 'just give up', philosophically speaking, on answering certain Qs in practical terms?

I agree with all of this, being able to draw from the UK, Ireland, NZ and Aus.

Christianity is rarely mentioned, even if when it actually is important to the person (Judith Collins over here is a good example. Most mentions of her faith were by the opposed media).

I would recommend his interview with Helen Lewis, and another with Skavlan (in Scandanavia).

Both show him in a very different light and use his work as jumping points, rather than just political stuff. He explains his positions, is patient with interlocutors and takes the situation seriously. I genuinely think these two are worth watching, even if the Peterson side of it was as off-putting as Candace Owens. He says great stuff that's worth hearing

I think you're conflating a few things about him here. HIs demeanor is not anxious at all. He's quick-tempered. Perhaps you're seeing that? He usually sits laid-back, laughs through responses and concentrates adequately when it's required.

That said, you're right. We're just looking at appearances and they don't really matter. More substantially:

for a lot of disenfranchised boys. — Tom Storm

This is (perhaps true, in some sense) not accurate. He is a role-model for males without male role-models. There isn't some pre-disposition toward 'boys'. Women also find him extremely powerful, in large numbers, and defend him rigorously.

Again, Currently, i'm toward pitying the outcome of his last decade, but overall he's been an obvious good force for the male populations receiving his work. The idea that committing to short-term suffering for long-term gain; particularly interpersonal gain (family, community etc..) is the antithesis of how his work is framed: Anti-reason incel encouragement.

defended nothing in this thread. — Lionino

Twin studies. Not sure how you're missing your own comments?

methodological limitations (like every social science study). — Lionino

* flaws.

That is far from Nyquist's claim that twin studies have been discredited — Lionino

I don't think you read these sources, then. THey are clearly not doing what they have been purported to be doing. They aren't reliable, for basically anything they have been relied on. If that's not 'discredit'ing I can't understand what you'd think is, short of finding evidence for fraud.

The discovery that twins end up with very close IQs despite being raised in different environments is meaningful. — Lionino

If you have read these sources, I need only say 'Obviously not'.

Haha. I agree with that, generally. Still here; looks like I will be for some time :)

In short, if you want to deal with the bad faith actors of the world you must be, to them, a monster from the deep. — boethius

Yeah, but this is a weirdo forum for weirdos.

On this clarification, I am in the boat and paddling hard alongside you :)

The claim is, "That's not a moral claim, and I am unable to define what I mean by a moral claim." This is not a serious objection. — Leontiskos

This is your misrepresentation of the claim, sure. It doesn't involve the second part, in reality. Not sure what you were trying to do here, though. It's not serious if you don't take is seriously. But that's defining it out of seriousness for convenience.

What Harris has demonstrated is a "should" that is necessary and universal. If that's not a moral claim then I don't know what is. — Leontiskos

He absolutely has not. You take it to be one, because you agree with his premise. It is unsupported. It is a 'free miracle'. IFF his premise is correct, off to the races. I have already addressed this. You haven't presented anything new.

You probably missed it. Watch the section I pointed out above. — Leontiskos

I've watched the entire interview. He did not.

I do not, as just noted. I have, multiple times, pointed out that Perception is not an experience, but a process involving the body's hardware.
But, as you were, if the horses mouth isn't good enough. I've spent enough time trying to have peolpe read words.

One of the key disagreements here relates to the idea that there is a universal human end (happiness). If all humans desire happiness, and if Harris' doomsday scenario is the epitome of unhappiness, then it logically follows that we should try to avoid this doomsday scenario. — Leontiskos

To some degree, I agree, but this does nothing for the disagreement, imo. For Harris' "we should avoid" - this is a best-fit claim, not a moral one. IFF, then. Morally, why? No answer from Harris. Its, IFF. He's not making a moral argument at all, at the end of the day. He's saying "this is how we can get aesthetically moral-looking decisions out of states-of-affairs. And it's a good system to use - it's just not an objective moral system - and I actually think:

sophistry of Anglo-American moral philosophy that is now roosting at Oxford. — Leontiskos

It is exactly the above. The type of horse-crap people like MacAskill and Earp put forward as if it's profound thinking. It's not even in the field they claim it to be in. Parfit, unfortunately, started this wave of inanity. Sam hasn't escaped it, it seems.

he basically got O'Connor to admit that one could deny that 2+2=4 on the same Emotivist basis on which he denies Harris' claim — Leontiskos

He did not. But as I say, agree to disagree? LOL.

Personally, Emotivism is the only reasonable position and O'Connor has rightly landed on it.

:ok: Encouraging, even if it's misguided. I like to see everything on the table.

back in the Good ol’ Days, that perception was one thing, experience was another, just as you’re describing the confusion of the road with the destination. But that road has to be built, which requires machinery of a certain type, and that’s what’s been neglected here for 37 pages. — Mww

I take some exception to this. Through at least three pages, this was the specific distinction I made, and was duly ignored by all comes by Hypericin who, grammatically, disagreed, but got the point. THe bolded, is exactly the position I took up and eventually left-off due to it being wholly ignored in preference for views it can't support.

Other than a predisposition to assume his views require that type of personality, I can't see it (although, I allow for the year he actually had a breakdown lmao. That was baaaaad, including some of his output when he pretended it was over).

He comes across, to me, astute, well-read and forthright. The opposite of your description. He just is also wrong a lot lol.

I don't think you really read what I wrote, beyond that its not accepting your conclusions.

I would just say, please re-read it, noting quite clearly this line:

That does not mean it wont fit into that framework either. But currently, is not explained by it. — AmadeusD

This is hte point. This is true. And this is why we're talking about it. The emergence of life is mysterious. So we explore :) It's one of hte only things we cannot yet explain under that paradigm. That is interesting in itself, even if it proves merely a longer run-up.

I wouldn't try to tease this one out. Not necessarily a comment about 180, but these types of political discussions are basically snowballs. No one keeps track of their claims, everyone just ends up yelling at each other and nothing is achieved.

I initially expected better of this type of forum, but politics gonna politic i guess. Twitter nonsense is inescapable when its political talk.

I'm happy with that. Couple of hours either side works for me too!

There is absolutely no evidence the fact of life conforms to those criteria (which are a paradigm, and not infallible). NA is trying to work with those facts, best I can tell.

I agree. Pretending that everything will eventually fit a certain, current, descriptive paradigm probably isn't a good idea. THe emergence of Life is inexplicable in terms of what we know about physical systems. That does not mean it wont fit into that framework either. But currently, is not explained by it.

Yes?

I think its possible you're just not being honest here. I'm going to leave it, but suffice to say I'm of the opinion you are defending something no one really takes seriously.

Maybe we'll need to agree to disagree, but Harris has never said anything particularly note-worthy on this front to my mind. O'Connor bites many bullets Harris is clearly afraid of biting due to his political commitments. O'Connor has no such reputation to maintain.

I have seen the entire interview - I follow O'Connor quite closely these days. I think he was the quiet winner here. Harris continues to not address the holes in his theories (i.e what I put forward above) and just runs with them as if he hadn't made those initial leaps. And nothing in this supports his position beyond that, imo.

That definitely sounds like Peterson's kind of leap-frog conclusion. Which sucks - despite probably inviting the Hoardes, I think Peterson is great as a psychologist. The above proposition is a good one. I wasn't knocking either writer.

But I strongly dislike Nietzsche and have grown to really pity Peterson so *shrug*

Does anyone have perspective of it or an alternative theory? I am open to a natural explanation for life's origin, I'm just not sure an account can be given in natural terms without any miraculous occurrences. — NotAristotle

I think this is true. We cannot point at life. We can't point to the button, switch, mechanism etc.. that causes or in which consists, life. We must, given current facts, accept two scenarios:

1. We don't have all the facts, despite our attempts and we will (or not, i suppose) discover an empirical state of affairs that covers one of the two above (cause/consists in); or
2. Life comes from the non-physical - whether than be an emergence-type of thing (clearly, a force such as a life 'arising' from complexity in already-existing physical matter is not further physical matter to be discussed physically).

*shrug*.

Swoooooooning.

Which is what (in my opinion) a lot of Friedrich Nietzsche's writings are ultimately directing the readership to do, grow. — Bret Bernhoft

Sounds like Jordan Peterson.

I think Sam does a typically bad job of grouping his emotional position - that human well-being, on his account, is an objective basis for Morality.

Even in the video above, Alex doesn't push back on the idea that a world whcih has less suffering that the sum optimal suffering of all beings would be better....

But that's literally Sam's position on 'better'. It begs the question. If you give hiim the one free miracle all moralists need, he's away to the races and much faster and more accurate than the vast majority of thinking on the subject. But, it's still just his pet. There's nothing objective about 'assessing' something for a 'yes/no' action matrix. S is the source and the destination.

Are Chet and Kizzy the same guy responding to each other? Constant conjunction and all that...

There seem to be many critiques 2,, 3. and 4.

I've not fully vetted these sources.

Junkies do opt out when they have sufficient reason. I've done so.

And it is the opposite of suicide. You just have to dress up the same for both occasions.

One could easily conclude that the stutterer ought to navigate himself to silent professions or professions that involve minimal speaking. — BitconnectCarlos

I think that's a little far, But i'm, generally, with you.

But such pragmatism is ultimately stifling. — BitconnectCarlos

This seems to be a Universal consideration not derived from, or even best embodied in the Bible. It is probably best embodied in Shamanism. "..From each.." and all that. Your point is not missed, but It is absolutely irrationally bandied imo - but this goes to our 'grey area' elsewhere mentioned.

Think about you would deal with a son who stutters chronically. Should he shy away from speaking roles? Leadership positions? — BitconnectCarlos

I would recommend, unless it was his deep desire to speak publicly, to avoid it, yes. It would be odd to think someone incapable of clear, anxiolytical speech, should be encouraged to endure that suffering because it would make someone else feel a bit better about their moral position (this speaks to the other point about disabilities being preclusive in some cases). Mendable, or flexible, or progressive disabilities are a bit different because across time we need differing approaches to the same individual. But, realistic ones at all points. Stuttering, being one. If you need six weeks of speech therapy, apply for the job in six weeks.

It's not always clear where the line is though. Is the stutterer disabled or differently abled? Yes, natural limits exist but we should test them. Strive for better. That is how we uplift. "On Earth as it is in heaven." — BitconnectCarlos

That much is true, but the person with the disability should be encouraged to be realistic and not strive for something ultimately unattainable. Stuttering being a really bad example of the concept is one reason the story isn't great. It's soft as heck, in that regard. Try someone who is heavily dyslexic wanting to be a public record scribe. If you are not capable of adequately reading large amounts of complex text, you are disabled as regards a job that requires it. Nothing moral about it. Facts. But this should be borne out by hte individual. I would think allowing disabled people to choose their own work was morally good, but it allows for the disappointment above - particularly mental disabilities. You're talking about eccentricities, so far. And no one in Heaven is disabled.

I would recommend reading it with commentary and consider that most public copies are Christian-biased and problematic translations. I don't know which version you've read. You've read the entire thing? — BitconnectCarlos

In multiple versions, multiple times since the age of 7 when I first attended a few Sunday School sessions with friend's families. I tend to take commentaries more seriously - These are the people who claim to use the book. They are the ones I care about hte actions of. Not the fictitious weirdos in the book.

I certainly don't think scripture is trash. Some are better written than others though. You do know that the English translations are just translations. — BitconnectCarlos

Agreed. Do you ream Aramaic, or ancient Greek? Demotic? I've never seen a version, translated by anyone, that wasn't liable to the same criticisms.

Still an amazing work of lit. — BitconnectCarlos

I see.

Or perhaps humans have only ever mistakenly believed that they themselves, or anyone else, has communicated with God. — wonderer1

"Or they're... talking to themselves" - Metatron

Heh. They nearly got it right

Why are you talking to a non-existent audience in a performative act reminiscent of a broody 15 year old?

And further, why have you taken Twitter speak "Oh look, ..." and imported it to a comment where you apparently denigrate Twitter trolls? Bizarre.

I'd have takenthe advice.

I'm with it!

If you guys can throw out a date, I'll set another one up and hang out for longer.

My suggestion is to grow out of being a broody 15 year old. Might be taken seriously.

Ill take that rent now.

In Exodus 4 God deliberately assigns a man with a speech disability the task of talking with the Egyptian head of state and leading a nation. You see, in the Enki and Ninmah account the man with the speech problem would have been assigned a silent profession. But no, not here. God gets infuriated with Moses's insinuation that he should not lead on account of his disability but instead of punishing Moses while burning with anger he helps him by assigning him his brother as an aid. The story not only affirms the dignity of the disabled by affirming that they were created with divine intentionality, but also conveys that those who struggle are not intrinsically barred from certain elite professions like leadership. S tier. Divine revelation. — BitconnectCarlos

I have to say, I find absolutely nothing praise worthy in this story. It seems like weirdo childish moralising about things that don't make a huge amount of sense - and works, only in the infantalising context of a pre-school. The underlined, particularly require a certain type of suspension of other faculties I value, to make a lot of. But, this is a religious commitment. I wont have that avenue open, as you do (though, i comment again on that immediately below haha).

the ending where not even Ninmah can help the very disabled is a little sad. — BitconnectCarlos

It is realistic. Some people are disabled. Not differently-abled. The blind cannot be surveyors (the the typical sense - don't get hair-splitty).

By the way I am not particularly religious (it's been years since I've attended services), just a reader of books. I just call it as I see it. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. And i appreciate that. I'm actually probably, for a non-religious person, much more toward valuing religious text than most atheists (though, I am necessarily agnostic. Atheism fits perfectly too and reaches wider). But, I would posit that to come to the conclusions you have, there need be a resistance to, at least some of, the objections leveled at the Bible as a piece of literature. As noted before, I see several extremely obvious and pervasive literary problems with the Bible. It isn't a good work of literature unless it's got some Religious reality to it. IN that sense, its chaotic and self-contradictory tense is actually helping me take it more seriously. If there were not these aspects, it would be clearly the writings of a iron age buffoon.

Even if so, God is the cause of the everything, which includes our thoughts and imagination. I'd settle for "divinely inspired." — BitconnectCarlos

So, as noted, the entire basis for your reasoning is avoiding hte possiblity that these facts make the potential reality of God less likely. If the scriptures are trash, why would you continue the belief? But its too hard to lose. So, apparently, the scriptures aren't trash. That seems to be the reasoning. I suppose, I could here ask:

Imagine God is not the source of anything prior to human cognition. It is an invention. THe bible is written by hand of Human, sourced by the Mind of human.

Is it still the perfect piece of Lit?

You're very welcome. I quite enjoy these historical oddities.

I honestly don't see any basis that a Biden administration would likely be better than a Trump administration — boethius

There isn't one.

You could have not made your comment. But you did.

I shall collect the rent next time.

I don't understand how God communicating through dreams "flies in the face" of his nature. — BitconnectCarlos

It doesn't, so that's a reasonable response. But you have (imo, wilfully) misread the point. God communicating in any way that cannot be teased out from an hallucination or dream proper would. God is not taken to be hiding and fucking with us, on any account other than Bill Hicks'. But again, not my main point.

Genesis informs us that it is in his nature to communicate through dreams. — BitconnectCarlos

Given the preceding exchanges, this feels like a cop-out. ITs clearly my position that Genesis doesn't inform us of much, if anything. So you're pushing hte rock uphill with this claim. That you rely on Genesis to support that which, elsewhere, is not supported, speaks to my point.

unless you've had some personal experience you'd like to share — BitconnectCarlos

Plenty. But they are drug, or mental-illness-induced for the most part. Also, to my point.

I'm massively impressed by the sophistication of an account of a phenomena/how to frame it. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. But the reason to think it has some providence other than a human mind? Your discomfort with the potential that a human mind invented it. Standard. But not reasonable.

Show me a better literary account of disability than the one presented in Exodus — BitconnectCarlos

"better" begs the question, by ignoring it. why? Because you are religious and therefore disposed to this opinion. I personally think Enki and Ninmah is a better story.

I would figure the Bible is the greatest work of literature... at least western literature, that exists. I know of no better ancient account of disability. — BitconnectCarlos

This explains a lot, but gives me no reason to think your opinions relies on anything but discomfort with the counterfactual: It is not. It is inconsistent, Morally reprehensible, the source of untold suffering across thousands of years, stokes and encourages division, hatred and violence (which it does - Lets not pick and choose. It does. ), it is extremely badly written in terms of chronology, grammatical consistency, ideological consistency and form.

So, I am disposed to ignore the Bible in lieu of better writing, in your specific type of example. :)

On the contrary, Scripture (Genesis for sure, possibly Exodus?) does very clearly describe God as communicating through dreams. It is characteristic of the Elohist source (E). — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think you're adequately engaged with this exchange.
This does not say anything, whatever, about the claim quoted. That said, I appreciate what you are saying there and would further that point, to say when it runs into empirical problems, there's no good reason to remain with the Scripture.

I don't need to. If God communicates through dreams he can also communicate through what we'd call hallucinations. I'd wager hallucination is more likely than aliens. Ezekiel surely hallucinated and saw visions. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. And there's good reason to think Ezekiel was schizophrenic.

This goes directly to my point. There is absolutely no reason to even consider the possibility of 'divine intervention' unless one, arbitrarily, isn't comfortable with the Hebrew Patriarchs being mentally ill, but well-meaning.

Story doesn't mean false. Neither does myth. It may be embellished. I admit this is where my intuition kicks in. The story, imho, is just too sophisticated to have been written by ancient man inventing something. — BitconnectCarlos

Generally, historically speaking, it does. The Bolded is basically what I was trying to tease out. This all boils down to your personal discomfort with something.

It is superior to any modern treatment of the issue in literature or film that I know of. — BitconnectCarlos

Given we have more complex, more morally interesting stories from older periods than the Biblical, I cannot see how its reasonable - which was all I was speaking about/around. Regarding current moral writing, I cannot understand how it's possible this story strikes you with more import than does say Reasons and Persons, or Animal Suffering. Warm fuzzie feelies?

I think it would be a relatively short thread, for my part.

I am fine being in the experience machine.

I think I am pretty much on this same wavelength. None of it matters, ultimately. But its all a lot of fun!