EntertainingIdeas
EntertainingIdeas
  • 57
  • 119 267
Noam Chomsky's Opinion on Consciousness
This is a clip from a conversation I had with philosophy professor Richard Brown: ua-cam.com/video/XfOu1kyroeY/v-deo.htmlsi=xV45GDYuK-h3vYsx
💠Link to Richard Brown's Channel: 👉www.youtube.com/@onemorebrown/videos
Richard Brown's Website: 👉onemorebrown.com/
💠Please consider supporting me on Patreon: 👉patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas
To donate via paypal: 👉paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE
Переглядів: 1 900

Відео

Discussing Consciousness with Professor Richard Brown /@entertainingideas
Переглядів 3,3 тис.28 днів тому
✅Discussing Consciousness with Professor Richard Brown /@entertainingideas 🙏🙏 Watch The Video & Don’t Forget to Like, Comment, Subscribe, & Share 🧡 00:00:00 Intro 00:01:10 The Hard Problem of Consciousness 00:28:45 Panpsychism 00:52:00 Generic Subjective Continuity 💠Link to Richard Brown's Channel: 👉www.youtube.com/@onemorebrown/videos Richard Brown's Website: 👉onemorebrown.com/ 💠My Conversatio...
Are Animals Conscious? | Veganism
Переглядів 1,1 тис.2 місяці тому
Please consider supporting me on Patreon: / entertainingideas To donate via paypal: paypal.me/entertainingideas96... Animals display behaviors that suggest they have conscious experiences. Many species exhibit complex problem-solving abilities, emotional responses, and social interactions, which imply an awareness of their environment and internal states. Neurological studies show that animals ...
Discussing Metaethics with James
Переглядів 1 тис.2 місяці тому
Please consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas To donate via paypal: paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE Just as there are objective facts about physical health, there are objective truths about what contributes to or detracts from human flourishing. Actions that consistently promote well-being, reduce suffering, and foster positive social outcomes...
Craig Biddle Rejects Alex O'Connor's Hypothetical
Переглядів 4693 місяці тому
Please consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas To donate via paypal: paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE Alex O'Connor and Craig Biddle recently had a debate about whether morality is subjective or objective. Although I agree with Craig's position that questions of morality have objectively right and wrong answers, I disagree with the way he makes ...
Sam Harris Confused by Alex O'Connor's Color Analogy
Переглядів 6 тис.3 місяці тому
✅Sam Harris Confused by Alex O'Connor's Color Analogy 🙏🙏 Watch The Video & Don’t Forget to Like, Comment, Subscribe, & Share 🧡 💠Please consider supporting me on Patreon: 👉patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas To donate via paypal: paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE 💠I was elated to hear that Alex O'Connor and Sam Harris had finally met to have a conversation about morality. 💠Ever...
Why Consciousness Evolved | BBC Response
Переглядів 66110 місяців тому
Please consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas To donate via paypal: paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE
Endless War If "Justice is a Prerequisite for Peace"
Переглядів 1,4 тис.11 місяців тому
Please consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas To donate via paypal: paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE
Matt Dillahunty Rage Quit
Переглядів 4,2 тис.11 місяців тому
✅Matt Dillahunty Rage Quit @ChicoThePhilosurfer 🙏🙏 Watch The Video & Don’t Forget to Like, Comment, Subscribe, & Share 🧡 🔶 WATCH MORE EPISODES ✅ Generic Subjective Continuity | Professor Jones @ChicoThePhilosurfer 👉This Video Link: ua-cam.com/video/1CPxl_QKqAE/v-deo.html ✅Sam Harris Confused by Alex O'Connor's Color Analogy 👉This Video Link: ua-cam.com/video/Dxcy2BehEjw/v-deo.html ✅Mohammed Hij...
Debate with Moral Relativist @roennreeds
Переглядів 856Рік тому
This is an edited clip from a livestream on Roenn's channel: www.youtube.com/@roennreedsPlease consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas To donate via paypal: paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE
Straight White Male in Gender Studies Class | @PFJung
Переглядів 613Рік тому
This is an edited clip from a livestream on PF Jung's channel: www.youtube.com/@PFJung Please consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas To donate via paypal: paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE
Debating Free Will with @MadebyJimbob
Переглядів 2,1 тис.Рік тому
✅Debating Free Will with @MadebyJimbob 🙏🙏 Watch The Video & Don’t Forget to Like, Comment, Subscribe, & Share 🧡 🔶 WATCH MORE EPISODES ✅ Generic Subjective Continuity | Professor Jones @ChicoThePhilosurfer 👉This Video Link: ua-cam.com/video/1CPxl_QKqAE/v-deo.html ✅Sam Harris Confused by Alex O'Connor's Color Analogy 👉This Video Link: ua-cam.com/video/Dxcy2BehEjw/v-deo.html ✅Mohammed Hijab vs Ale...
Debate with Andrew Wilson @The_Crucible
Переглядів 2 тис.Рік тому
✅Debate with Andrew Wilson @entertainingideas 🙏🙏 Watch The Video & Don’t Forget to Like, Comment, Subscribe, & Share 🧡 💠This is an edited clip from a livestream on PF Jung's channel: 👉ua-cam.com/video/6GGYcfF5bb4/v-deo.html Please consider supporting me on Patreon:👉 patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas To donate via paypal: 👉paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE 💠Whether your sense...
Dan Dennett and The Illusionists | Tom Clark
Переглядів 629Рік тому
Please consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas To donate via paypal: paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE Link to Tom Clark's article "Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity": www.naturalism.org/philosophy/death/death-nothingness-and-subjectivity Tom Clark's Website: www.naturalism.org Recommended Literature on Consciousness: www.naturalism.org/philos...
Blame The Dalai Lama
Переглядів 795Рік тому
Please consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/EntertainingIdeas To donate via paypal: paypal.me/entertainingideas96?country.x=AT&locale.x=de_DE When a toddler hits, bites, or steals someone else's toys, we usually don’t think they ought to be held responsible like an adult. What is the reason for this? The young child usually doesn’t know any better or doesn’t have the impulse control o...
The Hard Problem of Consciousness
Переглядів 3,3 тис.Рік тому
The Hard Problem of Consciousness
Discussing Pragmatism with @PFJung
Переглядів 1,3 тис.Рік тому
Discussing Pragmatism with @PFJung
Too Many Jewish Guests on Joe Rogan
Переглядів 4 тис.Рік тому
Too Many Jewish Guests on Joe Rogan
Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson | @PFJung
Переглядів 1,4 тис.Рік тому
Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson | @PFJung
Michel Foucault and Lord Voldemort
Переглядів 1,3 тис.Рік тому
Michel Foucault and Lord Voldemort
Generic Subjective Continuity | Professor Jones @ChicoThePhilosurfer
Переглядів 1,3 тис.Рік тому
Generic Subjective Continuity | Professor Jones @ChicoThePhilosurfer
Free Will and Determinism
Переглядів 1,7 тис.Рік тому
Free Will and Determinism
Consciousness Explained | Tom Clark
Переглядів 1,2 тис.Рік тому
Consciousness Explained | Tom Clark
Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity | Tom Clark
Переглядів 3 тис.Рік тому
Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity | Tom Clark
Mohammed Hijab vs Alex O‘Connor | Islamic Ethics,@entertainingideas
Переглядів 2,5 тис.Рік тому
Mohammed Hijab vs Alex O‘Connor | Islamic Ethics,@entertainingideas
Is ChatGPT Conscious? | Artificial Intelligence
Переглядів 2,1 тис.Рік тому
Is ChatGPT Conscious? | Artificial Intelligence
Woke Science | The Blank Slate Theory, @entertainingideas
Переглядів 4 тис.2 роки тому
Woke Science | The Blank Slate Theory, @entertainingideas
Debunking Criticism of Consequentialism
Переглядів 9202 роки тому
Debunking Criticism of Consequentialism
Exploring the Morality of Abortion: Perspectives & Ethics?@entertainingideas
Переглядів 13 тис.2 роки тому
Exploring the Morality of Abortion: Perspectives & Ethics?@entertainingideas

КОМЕНТАРІ

  • @goimond3947
    @goimond3947 2 дні тому

    I think he said somewhere that like gravity, consciousness is a property of matter when arranged in a specific way. He was referencing Locke's ideas there I think. He said the problem isn't consciousness, because we can easily describe our experiences, but how an arrangement of matter produces consciousness. So I think he's saying we should study matter (the brain) rather than consciousness itself.

  • @jarosawmichalak6335
    @jarosawmichalak6335 2 дні тому

    I am afraid you are quite wrong here. 'Blue' is not an objective term. You confuse it with a light wavelength, but it is not the same thing. If it was, scientists would be capable of declaring: 'Blue starts with this exact lightwave value and ends with this one'. However, it is not possible, simply because for different people the ranges are different. It is not an objective fact that, say, 455 nm is 'blue' - some see it as blue and some do not (not to mention that this particular experience depends on other factors, see the famous 'blue/black dress' case). But you are also wrong that words have to pick out a specific objective thing or fact. That is definitely not so - another example might be 'cold'. If someone says 'it is cold here', he or she does not state an objective fact - as someone else might respond 'no, actually it is quite warm here'. They might have different metabolism, or they just might be wearing a sweater... Sure, 'cold' is RELATED to temperature, but does not map specifically to any particular range. Of course, naked people at the South Pole might all agree that 'it is cold', but even then it is just a consensus, not an objective fact.

  • @shawnsaul7759
    @shawnsaul7759 3 дні тому

    You are a naive realist...click bait trashy video and channel.

  • @BranoneMCSG
    @BranoneMCSG 6 днів тому

    I never understand why theists like Andrew think their belief in God makes sense of things like morality free-will. Apparently God is a brute fact or necessary, but other metaphysics can’t be?

  • @mattd8725
    @mattd8725 9 днів тому

    Simply speaking, asking "does consciousness explain what it is like to see the sunset" is a linguistic puzzle, not a scientific one. Literally speaking, it is painfully obvious. If you are not conscious and awake and looking at the sunset, you cannot see it. Anything more than that is simple self-inflicted linguistic confusion.

  • @R-yo5si
    @R-yo5si 10 днів тому

    The "hard problem" is a fallacy, bros. It's just your silly materialist paradigm taken to its conclusion.

  • @Kelty-yy5lp
    @Kelty-yy5lp 11 днів тому

    Chomsky is a giant giant ...brilliant and down to earth, must be frustrating for him being so easily misunderstood.

  • @typon1
    @typon1 12 днів тому

    Chomsky knows exactly what you are talking about but i think you are confused about what you imagine his position to be. He has talked extensively about this question in lectures. You should watch his lecture titled Ghost in the Machine.

  • @zelenisok
    @zelenisok 13 днів тому

    Chomsky is a bit vague when talking about this, but when you look up a bit more you can come across him stating some positions. One position he accepts is 'new mysterianism', that we will most likely never understand consciousness, either via science or via philosophy. Also I remember during some Q&A after a lecture of his he was asked about free will and how matter functions according to law of physics, and his response was to say that free will obviously exists, that that means we are not understanding how matter functions well enough, and that thats expected, being that we dont even understand what matter is. I remember him talking about that in several places, and saying stuff like that forces and fields are when you think about it this crazy idea that we just talk about (in allegorical terms like 'fields' and 'waves' etc), but cant really comprehend. I'm pretty sure he also accepts mysterianism about the fundamental nature of the (material) world in general.

  • @Adderkop88
    @Adderkop88 20 днів тому

    Oy Vey! SHUT IT DOWN! The goyim noticed!

  • @BranoneMCSG
    @BranoneMCSG 21 день тому

    I don't understand what Jimbob means by concepts informing rather than causing. Seems to me like when concepts informs us, they are directly influencing our actions in some way. That would mean concepts have a causal effect. Jimbob thinks that nudging or influencing actions is not causal, but those very things are the definition of causality. For example: The concept of geometry informs us of how shapes and angles work. An architect then designs a building utilizing these concepts. If it had no causal effect, the architect's reason for designing a building based off these geometric principles has nothing to do with these concepts. The architect's understanding of these concepts guides his actions.

  • @cgm4379
    @cgm4379 21 день тому

    Good goy

  • @pearidge2936
    @pearidge2936 22 дні тому

    You should think really hard about whether you can bridge the is/ought gap.

    • @entertainingideas
      @entertainingideas 22 дні тому

      I don‘t think there is a gap. If the totality of facts, everything that „is“, doesn‘t tell you what you ought to do, how else would you get that information?

    • @pearidge2936
      @pearidge2936 21 день тому

      ​@@entertainingideas Do you have access to the totality of "is" statements? You clearly don't, and therefore, your way of accessing "ought" statements is unworkable. If you believe you have access to an "ought" statement, then you need to present a different view.

    • @BranoneMCSG
      @BranoneMCSG 6 днів тому

      ⁠​⁠@@pearidge2936He doesn’t need to have direct access to the totality of what “is” in order to believe that it’s possible. He’s just stating that he believes that, given all the descriptive facts of any given experience, it is enough to get to an ought.

    • @BranoneMCSG
      @BranoneMCSG 6 днів тому

      @@pearidge2936By that logic, you don’t have access to every fact of your own experience therefore your experience and beliefs are “unworkable.”

    • @pearidge2936
      @pearidge2936 4 дні тому

      ​@@BranoneMCSG We're not talking about possibility. I am asking him what mechanism he uses to access "ought" statements. He nor you have access to the totality of "is" statements about a given experience so that can not be the mechanism.

  • @andystewart9701
    @andystewart9701 26 днів тому

    Great interview! I really enjoyed hearing Dr. brown’s views clearly stated. Thanks!

  • @real_pattern
    @real_pattern 28 днів тому

    richard brown is The Answer. choice. Absolute Consciousness Accessed. Higher Order Acknowledged.

  • @gentlechomp6952
    @gentlechomp6952 Місяць тому

    Just can't stop lying. 80 likes, 108 dislikes btw.

    • @entertainingideas
      @entertainingideas Місяць тому

      It‘s the truth, my friend

    • @Adderkop88
      @Adderkop88 20 днів тому

      @@entertainingideas You and the little hats are incapable of telling the truth

  • @allisterblue5523
    @allisterblue5523 Місяць тому

    I had the same thought, Michel Foucault and Thomas Riddle are very alike.

  • @dceezy15
    @dceezy15 Місяць тому

    I'd ask jimbob to name 1 thing he did using his free will, & I'd bet money that thing was determined on something totally out of his control. hell, him existing was even totally out of his control. it wasn't even in his parents control. they had no control over whether they were fertile or not in order to have a child in the first place. he had no control over whether he had a mental or physical disability. I don't think he's look at the big picture. that seems to happen a lot with theists.

  • @fitafanatomy3359
    @fitafanatomy3359 Місяць тому

    I noticed this a few years ago.. Joe said most of his team behind the scenes are Jewish so they obviously reach out and get other Jewish guests.. Joe Rogan is a shabbos goy

  • @PaulRossAviation
    @PaulRossAviation Місяць тому

    Thank you JimBob, these fools are unworthy of your time. Atheists are so dishonest, juvenile and dumb.

  • @natanaellizama6559
    @natanaellizama6559 Місяць тому

    As a theist, I don't think there's a particular hard case AGAINST determinism. In fact, theism is most likely a certain form of determinism(GOD being the sovereign ultimate cause of all). I also don't think it leads to a necessary epistemic issue, but the only way it doesn't is THROUGH theism. Here's the argument: P1) In order for a means to be a justified means to an end there must be a rational link between the means and an end whereby the means rationally lead towards the end. P2) Epistemic tools are means to an end(epistemic end). C) There must be a rational link between the epistemic means and the epistemic goal whereby the means rationally lead towards the end P1) Under a non-rationally determined Universe there can be no rational justification between means and ends. P2) Under a deterministic epistemology there must be rational epistemic justification between means and ends. C) All true deterministic epistemology entails a rationally-determined Universe. P1) A rationally determined Universe requires, ultimately, a rational determining entity. P2) An ultimate rational determining entity can only be a rational substance. P3) We refer to rational substances as mind. C) A rationally determined Universe entails, ultimately, a determining mind.

    • @occultislux
      @occultislux Місяць тому

      I'm determined to believe in free will

  • @nixpix814
    @nixpix814 2 місяці тому

    fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

  • @politicsinitsplace3244
    @politicsinitsplace3244 2 місяці тому

    My concern has always been between the hyper-rationalists and the irrationalists. (These people are different sides of the same coin.). I'd put Sam Harris as part of the former, of course. I would argue that one main driver of the Germans going down the wrong path (to eventually think of Jews as the problem) is precisely (at least leading up the troubles) their reduction of reason to the instrumental/factual/conceptual. If reason is seen as simply an instrument for determining the most efficient way to a given end, it fails to acknowledge the complexity of human experience. Imagine your whole society is like this (the goal is always efficiency and practicality). There are constant pressures to always get to the bottom of things. You literally strip away the essence of everything (including the human and human experience). The human being looked at instrumentally is not much different than seeing the human as a machine. You start to ask what are the implications/consequences of this person/this group and their consequence on society instead of an intrinsic interest in that person/the people. If you are impatient and see any issue as a problem to solve, you likely have a very reductive view of reason.

  • @bennyredpilled5455
    @bennyredpilled5455 2 місяці тому

    The host has refuted himself by showing up for a debate. His position states that he has no control over what he thinks, says, and does. Yet, he is convinced that his uncontrolled thinking is the most accurate. Ha! Thanks anyways, Much love

  • @IlBuddhaSnello
    @IlBuddhaSnello 2 місяці тому

    Beautiful video. It is more or less the same message of buddhism or the message within the philosophy by spinoza

  • @THEEMADDHEADDOCTOR
    @THEEMADDHEADDOCTOR 2 місяці тому

    She Also Falsely Assumed That A Neurosurgeon Would Know Everything There Is To Know About The Brain When The Fact If The Matter Is That There Are Many Things About The Brain That Hasn't Been Figured Out Yet...

  • @LuciferAlmighty
    @LuciferAlmighty 2 місяці тому

    Jimbob is a troll and a waste of time.

  • @mrepix8287
    @mrepix8287 3 місяці тому

    The fact of the matter is that Jews deserve the power they hold in society

  • @J.DeLaPoer
    @J.DeLaPoer 3 місяці тому

    Stop noticing the overrepresentation, coincidences and influential power around this particular group of people whom we cannot criticize..... This is why groups like AIPAC, ADL, et al are toxic and quite literally prove the "conspiracy theorists" and "hateful extremists" right. As soon one notices and points out anything remotely unusual about this particular group of people, it's like the Eye of Sauron spotlights them and all the sudden every academic, activist, NGO and so called expert comes out of the woodwork attempting to portray them as some kind of dangerous criminal, smear their reputation, and have them censored/deplatformed/banned. It's like the Kanye West thing where he mentions that particular group of people's immense influence and control in the industry; and that particular group of people literally go: "Hey he publicly spoke about our power and influence so in order to prove him wrong about his assertions, let's do exactly what he accused us of by smearing his reputation, getting his business deals ruined, get his contracts canceled, and steal his money". Then of course anyone noticing the utter mind blowing irony (the chutzpah, shall we say?) of this standard response is also targeted, smeared, and meets the same fate starting the cycle over again. I mean it's _almost_ as if they're not insane hateful nutjobs but actually have a valid point.

  • @maxfairclough3600
    @maxfairclough3600 3 місяці тому

    I literally thought of 7 and shit don't know if that was luck hahaha.

  • @giobd
    @giobd 3 місяці тому

    The immortality hypothetical is full of contradictions at every corner, if you think of it. Immortality does not mean a potentially limitless life expectancy, it means the absolute impossibility of dying. This immortality must then be unconditional, otherwise it means that the conditions of immortality can be destroyed, and we are still mortal - unless the hypothetical hold that the conditions of immortality would themselves be indestructible, unalterable. Now something that could not be subject to any change in our universe where everything is in motion is a contradiction. (This is one example.) You may think it’s not, like Hume who believed that saying the sun will not rise tomorrow does not imply any contradiction, since you can conceive it. And that is where lies the fundamental issue: what you seems to ignore here is the epistemological framework from which Craig operates, i.e. the Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics. Objectivism hold that logic is not divorced from reality, and that if something act in contradiction to what it is (say, a woman giving birth to an elephant), it break the law of identity which is the base of logic. I would advise you to read the article "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" by Leonard Peikoff (available for free online, just Google it) if you want to understand where Craig speak from. Then you will better understand why he dismissed this hypothetical, instead of accusing him of using excuse, which is an arbitrary assertion.

    • @giobd
      @giobd 23 дні тому

      @user-u9g8m Don't tell me you don't know Objectivism is an atheist philosophy... 🙄

    • @giobd
      @giobd 23 дні тому

      @user-u9g8m Where did I concede such a thing? What are you talking about?

  • @mike16apha16
    @mike16apha16 3 місяці тому

    if you are dumb enough to debate someone on freewill you have already conceded that free will exist as you are assuming you are able to change someone else mind as if they did have free will to do so if everything is determined then debate and dialog is utterly pointless as our conclusions are forgone and trying to engage in such things just exposes you as a hypocrite with an incoherent world view that you say one thing but do something completely to the contrary of what you are saying basically you can't walk the talk and you behave as if free will exist while being boneheaded enough to try and say it doesn't

    • @entertainingideas
      @entertainingideas 3 місяці тому

      Lol

    • @lucianmacandrew1001
      @lucianmacandrew1001 3 місяці тому

      "f everything is determined then debate and dialog is utterly pointless as our conclusions are forgone" That is not an argument against it being the case.

  • @maxtoborek
    @maxtoborek 3 місяці тому

    I was determined to do that.

  • @danwhythough
    @danwhythough 3 місяці тому

    I feel like this discussion is a great example of different goals between regular people and professional or hobbyist philosophers. Sam’s trying to offer a secular grounding for a basic ethical framework and get people to move away from viewing morality as magical thinking. Whereas Alex wants to do endless philosophising about the meaning of words and get lost in the weeds forever, which is great too. Both are absolutely valid, but most people have kids, jobs and limited time to navel gaze. Whereas professional philosophers don’t ever want a good enough moral framework cause they won’t have a job anymore. Sam’s moral philosophy won’t ever be as good as the philosopher sitting around thinking about this stuff full time, but that’s cause 99% of people don’t have that much time to obsess over the meaning of words to the point you can’t say any statements.

    • @manjukasoysa3901
      @manjukasoysa3901 2 місяці тому

      Good point. If people just accept secular (or scientific) frameworks aren't magically better , and admit they have built in biases and assumptions , philosophers should have no argument . If you want to make secular frameworks look superior just because they are secular, better make the argument philosophically sound. Otherwise you are expecting stupid people to religiously accept it.

  • @LameBushido
    @LameBushido 3 місяці тому

    Analytic Philosophy was a mistake

    • @danwhythough
      @danwhythough 3 місяці тому

      That depends on what you mean by “was”, “a” and “mistake”?

    • @gonx9906
      @gonx9906 3 місяці тому

      suuuuuure buddy.

  • @bran_donk
    @bran_donk 3 місяці тому

    The clip does not feature confusion so much as a challenge to the relevance of the analogy and what can be extrapolated from it. In short "what if an aesthetic was heavily preferred, would that not contradict your morality argument?" "Aesthetics are not morality." "But what if in this case aesthetics were perceived as morality?" "Then the analogy becomes fuzzy and begs more questions than it clarifies."

  • @naturalisted1714
    @naturalisted1714 3 місяці тому

    I was so disappointed by their discussion... They could have explored so many topics but ran in circles instead...

  • @BadOompaloompa79
    @BadOompaloompa79 3 місяці тому

    While i agree with Harris a lot its hard to take him seriously after he got taken in by right wing grifters and UFO scammers.

  • @xandre434
    @xandre434 3 місяці тому

    nope

  • @threethrushes
    @threethrushes 3 місяці тому

    People watching YT non-experts talk about moral philosophy is entertainment. A bit like watching a gibbon observing a magic trick.

    • @jarosawmichalak6335
      @jarosawmichalak6335 2 дні тому

      Sam Harris wrote a PhD thesis in cognitive science on human morality... A gibbon, you say?

  • @Holy_Reaper
    @Holy_Reaper 3 місяці тому

    Hey, I think I diagree with you quite a bit here, would you be willing to have a conversation about it, or a debate, whichever you prefer?

    • @Holy_Reaper
      @Holy_Reaper 3 місяці тому

      I'd be comfotable with you recording it and making a video about the differences if you like?

    • @entertainingideas
      @entertainingideas 3 місяці тому

      @Holy_Reaper Yes, that’s a good idea:) Send me your email address, so we can set something up!

    • @Holy_Reaper
      @Holy_Reaper 3 місяці тому

      Where can I send it?​@@entertainingideas

    • @entertainingideas
      @entertainingideas 3 місяці тому

      @Holy_Reaper christian.petschnigg(at)hotmail.com

  • @YoshioSan
    @YoshioSan 3 місяці тому

    But does good have to objectively make us feel good? Morality is about right and wrong, not the resulting reaction of the person that does the action.

    • @Shellackle
      @Shellackle 3 місяці тому

      In a completely ideal conceptual world, doing objectively good moral deeds will always produce a positive reaction in the one performing it if you're capable of recognizing the objective "goodness" in said deed. Can you think of any deed you consider personally to be good, but would reliably produce a negative reaction in the person performing it?

    • @YoshioSan
      @YoshioSan 3 місяці тому

      @@Shellackle Being civil in general. People have become increasingly selfish and disregard the well being of others. While I lose no sleep over my actions, I'm left with the feeling that if I was a bit more selfish I'd be better off.

    • @Shellackle
      @Shellackle 3 місяці тому

      @@YoshioSan What's stopping you from acting less civil and more selfishly, if you believe it'd improve your quality of life and happiness?

  • @tonygoodkind7858
    @tonygoodkind7858 3 місяці тому

    Yeah it was great to hear O'Connor criticize basically the only thing I disagree with Harris about: calling it "objective morality". I often point out we could've just as easily subjectively picked "obey the Bible" as our basis. At that point, we can objectively measure progress towards that goal. (Nearly every imaginable subjective moral goal can be objectively measured.) Yet if we call that "objective morality" it immediately results in self-contradicting absurdities. We'd have to simultaneously say it was objectively good *and* evil to own slaves according to the Bible's rules (good because it obeyed the Bible's instructions; bad because it reduced well-being). That said, even on the rest of the topic I agree with basically all of Sam's points: * well-being is a fantastic subjective moral goal * using science to figure out the best strategies for maximizing well-being will absolutely result in finding the best strategies currently available * and I'd even agree with something he said elsewhere where the way we use "morality" has always been about well-being. That's a good point, but the way we use "movie preferences" has always referred to a fairly specific thing too, yet that doesn't make them objective. Personally I'm a moral relativist, though I do need to investigate emotivism a bit (an idea O'Connor made me aware of, but I still don't know enough about it to know if I agree or disagree). Seems like the Venn diagram overlap between relativism and emotivism might be pretty high, but again I'm very unfamiliar with emotivism so maybe I'm completely wrong about that.

    • @buglepong
      @buglepong 3 місяці тому

      is sam arguing for some kind of platonic form known as "well being"? as an axiom it would be objective, but its everything downstream of that that is a problem

    • @gonx9906
      @gonx9906 3 місяці тому

      if wellbeing is the parameter by which you measure all other alternatives of morality, then wellbeing cant be subjective, if it was subjective, it would have the same value as all other alternatives and by your own logic it clearly doesnt.

  • @francesco5581
    @francesco5581 3 місяці тому

    Studies on thousands of NDEs shows clearly that "morality" is the only thing that matter for a dying person (it doesnt matter if are just hallucinations or visions or whatever). So IS a very relevant concept. Is a concept that was taught ? encrypted in our DNA ? in a concept from an higher consciousness ? is value in the universe ?

    • @tonygoodkind7858
      @tonygoodkind7858 3 місяці тому

      What do you mean by matters though? Because reports of morality often seem very passive (going towards the light being the common trope, but tons of other variations are also very passive). So how does morality enter into that? Are you describing reactions/changes to a person _after_ the experience? If so, what did we observe? Are those observations meaningfully different from experiences with psilocybin and similar hallucinogens?

    • @francesco5581
      @francesco5581 3 місяці тому

      @@tonygoodkind7858 So, what consistently happens is that a dying person who has an NDE (around 20% of cases but maybe many more who are simply forgotten due to the impossibility to store them in the brain) has also a life review (almost all in the more longer experiences, around 50% overall). In this life review the only things that matters to them is how the behaved, especially regarding what they did to other people, and the feel also the feelings of that other persons. And they feel guilty or happy about that (there is no judgement btw from other agents) and that the only thing that really mattered about their experience on earth. Not other things. Yes those experiences are very different from hallucinogens like DMT, since are serious and spiritual and life changing. I cannot say that are true glimpses of an afterlife BUT its important IF the most complex thing in the universe (our brain, our consciousness, human life) care about morality in the last moments of their existence... doesnt care about death for example that should be the first fear.

  • @weatheranddarkness
    @weatheranddarkness 3 місяці тому

    5:15 A tree doesn't need to have a mind to "be well" or not. I think making it a point of labels suggests a scope limited to the ongoing debates over theism. There can be objective wellbeing, without there being "objective good".

  • @ausglobeman
    @ausglobeman 3 місяці тому

    I don’t know if you could say that Sam Harris’s definition of good is a tautology, because he clearly defines it as opposed from bad. And unless your saying - good is the opposite of bad and bad is the opposite of good, is a tautology in and of itself - it holds no water

  • @georgepatton5380
    @georgepatton5380 3 місяці тому

    I was determined to click on this thumbnail which was suggested to me based on the UA-cam videos that I was determined to watch prior to this. I was determined to leave this comment. Every single character in this comment 🪃🪃🪃🪃🪃🪃🪃🪃

  • @Certaintyexists888
    @Certaintyexists888 4 місяці тому

    Seems you are finally starting to understand Jimbob at 31:35, but your “determination” took the conversation into another direction.

  • @powerofthetime
    @powerofthetime 5 місяців тому

    Satan's chosen

  • @TommyDavidVerbal
    @TommyDavidVerbal 5 місяців тому

    Antisemitism???? Really Go Kick Rocks Victim