Thoughts on Sam Harris

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, josh jones said:

@Carl-Richard having basic knowledge makes you a guru?

No. I meant to say that what you said is basic knowledge, which means that saying it ad nauseum tends to get... a little nauseating.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[josh jones]

2 hours ago, ajai said:

We need not loose calm brother, whatever the situation is if Leo is saying his argument is not baseless, that's all I can say.

I agree, I was specifically referring to this I guess I should have included it before, I'm new to this.

[Timur]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Sam's image of a "neuroscientist" or "researcher" is laughable. He does no research and practices no neuroscience.

Well, I would call someone like Jordan Peterson calling himself a psychologist misleading.

A title means whatever you think it means.

I challenge any psychologist with a PhD to a debate about the workings of the mind. Let's see who has a deeper understanding.

You spiritual people are so arrogant for no reason.

A psychologist with a PhD is so far ahead of you, Mr. Gura. In a debate you would have no chance whatsoever against a serious academic.

You trips and mind games are irrelevant.

I study at a Top University myself and know for a fact that the great Professors are thousands of miles ahead of you.

 

Sometimes I think that you spiritual people pretend/try to be successful in the online world because you failed to get a good degree from a great university. 

 

Same thing with Cold Approach monkeys. These monkeys know for a fact that they do not have it in them to live a "player" lifestyle and as a result cold approach five thousand chicks and sleep with fifty of them and then lie to themselves that this is how a real player lives.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Timur said:

I study at a Top University myself and know for a fact that the great Professors are thousands of miles ahead of you.

Lolz

[Timur]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Lolz

Speechless?

[Guest SirVladimir]

7 minutes ago, Timur said:

Sometimes I think that you spiritual people pretend/try to be successful in the online world because you failed to get a good degree from a great university.

Uh-oh. Captain, we've got a grasshopper on-board! 

[Preety_India]

 

You don't need an education from a university to have a great understanding of things. 

You need a good brain and an  honest mind to do your learning.. 

That's how I do it. 

Degree is just a symbol. 

What you do with your brain is all that matters. 

University hardly allows space for real growth. 

Real growth takes place in the real world, learning from people, using your own observation skills and being on alert.. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keeping yourself educated at all times.. Learning never begins In a university. Life is the only University you ever need. 

 

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, Timur said:

Sometimes I think that you spiritual people pretend/try to be successful in the online world because you failed to get a good degree from a great university. 

Being a self-made internet millionaire is much more impressive than following a culturally sanctioned, preordained career path that is laid out for you by some institution.

[Hello from Russia]

Quote

Sometimes I think that you spiritual people pretend/try to be successful in the online world because you failed to get a good degree from a great university. 

@Timur I don't mean to be offensive here, but If these psychologists professors are so good and you've been taught by them why you're struggling to get laid and call yourself an incel then in another thread?

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Hello from Russia

[josh jones]

there is something to be said about earning a doctorate degree for sure. Its not easy and takes dedication and discipline, and also then it's not just you saying hey I'm smart listen to me. We'd fall into chaos pretty damn soon without these types of credentials, if just anyone could say they were a doctor or therapist it prescribe medication. It also goes without saying that its not the end all be.all and there are of course corrupt doctors. But I wonder why Leo never debates anyone noteworthy who is in his field, he only monologues and talks to his followers on here who mostly have already drank the Kool-Aid. It would be interesting to see him debate someone like Sam Harris just to see how it went. I think its very important to debate with people who challenge you or you will never really evolve, you'll just coast on your unexamined unchallenged unconscious assumptions about things, I don't care how much self inquiry you do, you need to debate with people with other perspectives.

[Carl-Richard]

53 minutes ago, josh jones said:

But I wonder why Leo never debates anyone noteworthy who is in his field, he only monologues and talks to his followers on here who mostly have already drank the Kool-Aid. It would be interesting to see him debate someone like Sam Harris just to see how it went.

Sam Harris is a celebrity who picks his guests carefully. If you're not regularly in the mainstream media or mainstream academic circles, you'll pretty much never get to talk to him, atleast on his podcast or anywhere else publically. Besides, a debate about what exactly?

 

53 minutes ago, josh jones said:

I think its very important to debate with people who challenge you or you will never really evolve, you'll just coast on your unexamined unchallenged unconscious assumptions about things, I don't care how much self inquiry you do, you need to debate with people with other perspectives.

This is a very idealistic interpretation of debate. The most avid debaters are among the least openminded people out there. I have nothing against debate, but I don't buy this view that debate solves all problems (hyperbole). People very rarely change their minds after a debate. It often takes decades to change your view on something (unless you're Dave Rubin), because every belief system is to some extent internally consistent.

Among rationalists, it's not so much that a single argument exposes an internal logical contradiction that leads to the shift in beliefs, but instead it's due to a change in perspective; an uncovering of new and previously unknown territory (a revision of core assumptions). To truly change your beliefs, you have to slowly get introduced to a new system that "outcompetes" the previous one, and that doesn't happen overnight (infact, it rarely ever happens), certainly not over the course of a few debates.

Debates only go so far when you're familiar with systems thinking. When it comes to Sam, his belief system is mostly very straightforward (rationalism) and has been picked apart numerous times, and having a debate will most likely not uncover anything new. If you're familiar with a particular belief system, it's easy to find out what counterarguments they will levy against another belief system (in this case Leo's non-dual whatever), and a debate will more or less be to run a simulation of those dynamics in a very limited face-to-face conversational format, which in other words would be a waste of time.

Besides, trying to use a debate format (a rationalist invention) in order to convey a post-rationalist paradigm is also not very effective. Debate itself skews in favor of rationalism, so of course rationalism will turn out on the top. Spirituality and post-rationalist realms are discovered through inner knowing and guidance, not arguments and debate. Those things assume that there is something like an external and ultimate authority. This work entails discovering the fact that you are the ultimate authority, that all authority is only projected outwards from yourself to an external source because of a lack of self-love.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[josh jones]

I didn't say debate solves everything! But maybe in Leos case it would be as important or more important even for other people who follow him to listen to him debate someone, forget Sam.harris, just someone knowledgeable, or even just talk to someone else to see where he might be lacking. It can get pretty solipsistic when you're just watching one person talk against a black background.

[josh jones]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Being a self-made internet millionaire is much more impressive than following a culturally sanctioned, preordained career path that is laid out for you by some institution.

neither of those things are very impressive on their own. There are plenty of self made internet millionaire who are total scam artists.

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, josh jones said:

I didn't say debate solves everything! 

...which is why I added "(hyperbole)" behind that sentence, but I guess that type of analytic capability shouldn't be expected from this type of conversation (overly snarky comment ).

 

4 minutes ago, josh jones said:

neither of those things are very impressive on their own. There are plenty of self made internet millionaire who are total scam artists.

I think being a scam artist is very impressive too. Of course I could add the caveat "self-made ethical millionaire", unless you consider all this to be just a scam aswell (it's all relative anyway).

 

10 minutes ago, josh jones said:

But maybe in Leos case it would be as important or more important even for other people who follow him to listen to him debate someone, forget Sam.harris, just someone knowledgeable, or even just talk to someone else to see where he might be lacking. It can get pretty solipsistic when you're just watching one person talk against a black background.

Read my comment again. I did add something more about that.

[josh jones]

40 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Read my comment again. I did add something more about that.

I don't really see anything about that in your comment. Isn't this also kind of a really easy excuse not to have your ideas or ways of teaching ever challenged at all though?

[Opo]

9 minutes ago, josh jones said:

Isn't this also kind of a really easy excuse not to have your ideas or ways of teaching ever challenged at all though?

Isn't a debate just an excuse so you can blindly doubt everything the other person is saying while pretending you are open minded and challenging your beliefs because you heard what they said? 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Opo

[josh jones]

2 minutes ago, Opo said:

Isn't a debate just an excuse so you can blindly doubt everything the other person is saying while pretending you are open minded and challenging your beliefs because you heard what they said

no, legit debate is not that.

also, it seems to be Leo uses rationalist arguments himself quite a bit.

[Preety_India]

 

People can have the right to express their opinions without wanting to be debated on it. 

This is not always a debate contest. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, josh jones said:

I don't really see anything about that in your comment. Isn't this also kind of a really easy excuse not to have your ideas or ways of teaching ever challenged at all though?

Then you ignored my point about rationalism vs. post-rationalism.

[josh jones]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Then you ignored my point about rationalism vs. post-rationalism.

Leo definitely uses both rationalism and post rationalism, and seems to confuse the two quite a bit, and it's also no reason why it wouldn't be beneficial to see him have some of his ideas challenged.