Thoughts on Sam Harris

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, josh jones said:

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.

You're missing the point. Post-rationalism cannot be readily defended in a debate, because a debate is rationalistic.

[josh jones]

so don't call it a debate for Christ sake. I feel like this has become pointless semantics.

[josh jones]

i do get your point but people who have made some of the wild claims Leo has made should be held to some scrutiny, that's all. Lots of his followers are gullible. And some of the stuff Leo talks about does fit into rationalist arguments.

Edited September 28, 2020 by josh jones

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, josh jones said:

so don't call it a debate for Christ sake. I feel like this has become pointless semantics.

Should we call it arguing instead? Point still stands.

 

2 minutes ago, josh jones said:

i do get your point but people who have made some of the wild claims Leo has made should be held to some scrutiny, that's all. Lots of his followers are gullible. And some of the stuff Leo talks about does fit into rationalist arguments.

Some of it does, yes, and people like Sam would probably agree with many of those points. The "wild claims" is what I"m talking about.

[Preety_India]

The thing is that lovely boy Sam has done nothing for neuroscience. Starseed giggle hee hee hee. 

 

[josh jones]

leo uses post rationalist arguments to justify rationalist ideas and vice versa. Having a recorded dialogue between him and someone who could point out inconsistencies like that could be illuminating.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, josh jones said:

leo uses post rationalist arguments to justify rationalist ideas and vice versa.

That makes zero sense.

[josh jones]

I know, but he does do it if you watch his videos.

[josh jones]

hypothetical example: I became god so I know for sure and you must believe me 1+1=2

[josh jones]

@neutralempty I'm not interested in semantics or breaking down how we use language.

[josh jones]

Just now, neutralempty said:

@josh jones I don't see how it still wouldn't be for you. It's not about semantics.

huh?

[josh jones]

@neutralempty I don't know where you're getting all that about me...i didn't say any of that. Just that he mixes up the two methods in such a way that makes things unsubstantiable or unfalsifiable.

[josh jones]

saying "I know the mind of god, therefore x", cannot be argued with reasonably, even if x is a so called rationalist point.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, josh jones said:

hypothetical example: I became god so I know for sure and you must believe me 1+1=2

But that is exactly NOT what it's about. You're not supposed to take it on belief: you're supposed to go experience it for yourself. That is exactly why there is no point having a debate about it.

[josh jones]

@Carl-Richard I'm just saying, leo does this in his videos.

[josh jones]

honestly I'm so grossed out and put off by Leo that I'm probably gonna bail on this forum. I was just trying to figure out what kind of people follow him and why, and I think I kinda got an answer.

[josh jones]

whatev.

[Proserpina]

@neutralempty Too much thinking.  

Omg. I think I have Covid.

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, josh jones said:

honestly I'm so grossed out and put off by Leo that I'm probably gonna bail on this forum. I was just trying to figure out what kind of people follow him and why, and I think I kinda got an answer.

What was the answer?

[Jacob Morres]

8 hours ago, josh jones said:

leo uses post rationalist arguments to justify rationalist ideas and vice versa. Having a recorded dialogue between him and someone who could point out inconsistencies like that could be illuminating.

 What do you want to debate? Which ideas do you not enjoy? 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Jacob Morres