Very fair. He should've never idolizing Harris in the first place and should've just plucked whatever points he agreed with and moved on to the next person.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Very fair. He should've never idolizing Harris in the first place and should've just plucked whatever points he agreed with and moved on to the next person.
Have we actually talked about this, in this thread, yet? It's the main issue, isn't it? None of these people's views would be worth the attention we're giving them if it wasn't that too many people idolise individuals to the extent that they take their word as gospel even when they're talking about things they aren't knowledgeable on.
I don't see much in the way of idolizing on most of these characters in this thread. The reason this and other similar threads exist is because each of them are making a splash with the various ideas they are advancing, which are being both accepted by some and fiercely rejected by others. I generally agree with what Harris says in most of this videos (as does the guy whose video was posted a couple of posts up). We both agree that he falls short in several areas. The same can be said of Peterson and others. Some of their ideas resonate perfectly well while others don't. The trick is to pick and choose what works for you and apply it to your own views.
No, not in this thread but elsewhere.
Shapiro and Milo (before his downfall) were the 'cool kids' of the right and adored by young conservatives. Peterson has a large following of alienated young men, these days. Harris has been someone many atheists have looked up to an awful lot for a long time now. Christopher Hitchens has/had an almost cult like adoration for a long while.
I think the discourse is skewed because of idolization and rigid ideology. Oftentimes there is no nuance, the choice is binary: you either agree with everything these speakers say and are a "follower", or they represent everything you detest. The reality is that while this is true for some people, a broad spectrum of people can form their own opinion on an issue by issue basis. And Peterson, Hitchens, etc. have their areas of expertise, but just because they aren't expert in a field doesn't make them wrong or their opinion isn't worth listening to, and vice versa is potentially true also (if they are experts in something, they might not always be right).
I guess that the fanatics are the loudest on the internet (except perhaps in discussion forums such as this one). That skews and pollutes discourse.
So I was at a Sam Harris event a few weeks ago and want to add something I've been meaning to add.
He was interviewing a long time favorite of mine, Antonio Damasio, known for Descartes' Error and more recently The Strange Order of Things.
Damasio is probably one of the most important neuroscience researchers in the world at the moment. He and his wife are MD and PhD in neuroscience. Some of his key findings have been how despite a lot of popular myth, emotion is actual integral to reason and logical thinking. His new book delves into a lot of meanings behind the concept of homeostasis - which is explains is another concept mostly misunderstood in common parlance. Most people believe homeostasis is about maintaining "balance". But he points out that is not the right way to look at it. Rather a better way to describe homeostasis is that it is the body regulating and fighting against entropy.
The discussion was fascinating. Mostly Harris just asked questions to direct Damasio's talking and sometimes re-direct when Damasio was getting too technical (like when he was discussing the specific impact of neurons lacking a myelin sheath). Overall it was a superb experience and very enlightening. One thing I found absolutely crucial was when Damasio was discussing the problems with the strong AI crowd (people like Marvin Minsky, Daniel Dennet et al who believe that all it takes to achieve human level consciousness and self-awareness is enough computational power). While most of machine learning has moved away from strong AI concepts Damasio makes a fascinating observation. We have neurons that are non-synaptic. This is absolutely revolutionary to me, because our entire digital computers are based on the system of 0 or 1 that was originally modeled on how our neurons either fire or don't fire.
Yet we have neurons that don't operate in that strict 0,1 fashion. Its usually commonly understood that our neurons fundamentally function like logic gates in computers. But as we learn more, they actually do not operate in such a simple fashion.
All that babbling is basically so I can say that this is why I am now separating Harris completely from the others. This, to me, is really trying to educate the public and actually stimulate discussion that moves us forward as a society. Too much of public intellectual "debate" is just pointless trolling, name calling and self-promotion like Dyson or Hitchens. Harris is actually doing things to stimulate the public conversation in a much better direction than the "sjw vs. alt-right" paradigm or the people who careless just attack all religion. Those people are the problem that is poisoning public discourse.
Harris far more than any of these other people, seems to be really trying to push debate towards positive, meaningful discussion. He could have on the left and right trolls and probably get far more views and comments than showcasing a true academic like Damasio, so I have to give him a lot of respect for that. It also puts the Chomsky emails in a different light. Noam is known in academic linguistic circles to be a bit of an arrogant prick and I think re-reading those emails shows Harris in a better light than originally. Chomsky really gets more hype than I believe he deserves, but thats another post.
He was interviewing a long time favorite of mine, Antonio Damasio, known for Descartes' Error and more recently The Strange Order of Things.
Damasio is probably one of the most important neuroscience researchers in the world at the moment. He and his wife are MD and PhD in neuroscience. Some of his key findings have been how despite a lot of popular myth, emotion is actual integral to reason and logical thinking. His new book delves into a lot of meanings behind the concept of homeostasis - which is explains is another concept mostly misunderstood in common parlance. Most people believe homeostasis is about maintaining "balance". But he points out that is not the right way to look at it. Rather a better way to describe homeostasis is that it is the body regulating and fighting against entropy.
The discussion was fascinating. Mostly Harris just asked questions to direct Damasio's talking and sometimes re-direct when Damasio was getting too technical (like when he was discussing the specific impact of neurons lacking a myelin sheath). Overall it was a superb experience and very enlightening. One thing I found absolutely crucial was when Damasio was discussing the problems with the strong AI crowd (people like Marvin Minsky, Daniel Dennet et al who believe that all it takes to achieve human level consciousness and self-awareness is enough computational power). While most of machine learning has moved away from strong AI concepts Damasio makes a fascinating observation. We have neurons that are non-synaptic. This is absolutely revolutionary to me, because our entire digital computers are based on the system of 0 or 1 that was originally modeled on how our neurons either fire or don't fire.
Yet we have neurons that don't operate in that strict 0,1 fashion. Its usually commonly understood that our neurons fundamentally function like logic gates in computers. But as we learn more, they actually do not operate in such a simple fashion.
All that babbling is basically so I can say that this is why I am now separating Harris completely from the others. This, to me, is really trying to educate the public and actually stimulate discussion that moves us forward as a society. Too much of public intellectual "debate" is just pointless trolling, name calling and self-promotion like Dyson or Hitchens. Harris is actually doing things to stimulate the public conversation in a much better direction than the "sjw vs. alt-right" paradigm or the people who careless just attack all religion. Those people are the problem that is poisoning public discourse.
Harris far more than any of these other people, seems to be really trying to push debate towards positive, meaningful discussion. He could have on the left and right trolls and probably get far more views and comments than showcasing a true academic like Damasio, so I have to give him a lot of respect for that. It also puts the Chomsky emails in a different light. Noam is known in academic linguistic circles to be a bit of an arrogant prick and I think re-reading those emails shows Harris in a better light than originally. Chomsky really gets more hype than I believe he deserves, but thats another post.
Sam Harris has become the go to guy for controversial stuff about Islam, so spends a disproportionate amount of time talking about what he perceives as the jihadist threat. He said as much himself on a podcast recently. When he gets onto other, more interesting, less controversial topics is when he really shines. There's a clarity of thought in the way he communicates that is actually quite rare. If you get a chance, read his book about Free Will. IMO that is Harris at his very best.
I might look into that, Im reading Homo Deus at the moment and Yuval Noah Harari also covers the idea that there is no such thing as free will. Not sure if they rely on the same arguments.
That's on my "to read" list. Coincidentally, I first heard about Harari when he appeared on the Sam Harris podcast. They did seem to be pretty much aligned on everything.
Watched the whole Munk-debate, and bloody hell that Dyson guy was awful. 
Only person who came out of that in a positive light for me was Fry, who I've not had the pleasure to watch in debates before.
Only person who came out of that in a positive light for me was Fry, who I've not had the pleasure to watch in debates before.
Yeah, I thought Fry was fantastic - by far the best of the four of them.
Anyone who likes science and listening to Stephen Fry talk (who doesn’t?) should check out his new podcast, Great Leap Years. It’s incredibly well put together.
He was also brilliant In Blackadder as well.
I haven't heard anything of him recently on that. Wish he would just move on from that angle as just Bill Maher alone has worn it out.
I hope he moves forward with more authors like Damasio in the future because no one else is doing informative, meaningful events like that - outside of university events which are usually invisible to the general public. I know that Munk debate would probably be more "sound bite worthy" and "social media friendly" but the Harris-Damasio talk was infinitely more meaningful IMO.
So would a quantum computer solve this or did they not get into that?
They didn't go too much further but I don't think a quantum computer could solve that because the quantum computer is still based on 0,1 logic gates just at a much smaller level.
Damasio believes that we would need some form of analog computing simulation of the human body's entire nervous system. There is something about the way analog technology works that is analogous (pun not intended) to way biological intelligence works that digital simulation can't quite capture.
I thought the point of the quantum computer was it operating with a super position of 0 and 1 as opposed to the classical 0 or 1? But I have no idea whether it actually solves the problem you're describing.
Do you have a link to a podcast or video of this talk? Sounds fascinating.
Such methods might already exist. I found a paper on analogue quantum simulation. Maybe such a method could be used to complement existing biological simulation and to account for phenomena such as non-synaptic neurons. Or I could just be talking out of my arse (probably).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405428317300229
I suppose it comes down to the following question: what the feck is a non-synaptic neuron??
I can't answer that with any degree of expertise. But my guess would be that superposition of 0,1 is still 0 or 1 - or I guess technically both 0 and 1.
But its never a value of 3.14159265359..
I really don't know though, this is all very interesting to me but your questions reach the end of my knowledge
Its on here:
https://samharris.org/waking-book-club-2/
But I am not sure what you have to do to access it as I haven't tried yet. I'm sure eventually it will be easy to find for free but it might be behind his paywall for now.
I'll check out that paper, very interesting stuff
Sure that too. I just latched on to the first thing that popped into my head.Is there video of this?
I was asking a while back for charismatic, convincing spokespeople with a contrasting worldview to the blokes named in the OP. Stumbled across this guy. Some really compelling arguments about open borders and the need for basic income. Have ordered his book. Very much like the cut of his jib.
Also, Mark Blyth?
I dont understand why people need charismatic spokespersons. Surely you should be to think about the world around you without some hero who has all the answers.
Is this a serious comment?
Would you apply that to writers as well? No point in reading interesting ideas, you should be able to have them yourself?
I don't think Pogue's necessarily looking for a 'hero' as such, but it's undeniable (as shown with Peterson etc) that good, charismatic speakers can have an impact and influence over the average person and how they formulate their political views and opinions. Hero worship in general is a bit crass but I don't think it's ridiculous to take an interest in people who promote interesting ideas and theories etc.
I read and listen to lots of people. I just dont idolize any of them or think that one particular person has it all figured out. Hero worship is bizarre.
Personally, I'm quite happy to let some other dude crunch through dozens of meta-analyses of economic research on my behalf. Obviously @Eboue is made of sterner stuff.
How do you know if he has any idea of what he is talking about?
Plus that's not really the point I'm making. I wasnt aiming it entirely at you either. You see this with people who hang on Ben Shapiro's every word or who make YouTube playlists of Sam Harris.
Its the idea that complicated things can be explained in just a few minutes by someone who holds a microphone.
Ultimately, anyone who wants to learn about something new would be wise to listen to experts. And the experts who are the most fluent, charismatic communicators will be more likely to make a convincing argument for one approach or another. Ideally, we could take the personality out of it entirely and spend hours wading through assorted journals - from every field with even a vague relevance to government policies - but that's never going to happen, is it?
I agree that it would be nice to remove the cult of personality from this sort of thing but I don't think that's possible, so the next best thing would be to promote the views/opinions of interesting people who know a thing or two about the topics the "intellectual dark web" blokes shit on about constantly but with a different slant. If only in the interest of balance.
I agree that it would be nice to remove the cult of personality from this sort of thing but I don't think that's possible, so the next best thing would be to promote the views/opinions of interesting people who know a thing or two about the topics the "intellectual dark web" blokes shit on about constantly but with a different slant. If only in the interest of balance.
OK but you just introduced the idea of hero worship. Pogue asked about "charismatic, convincing spokespeople." I guess charismatic could be interpreted that way if you want to, but I took it to be the verbal equivalent of "good writer". Charisma as in engaging or compelling to listen to.
But there are people who I have read / listened to that I respect enormously, and who I can see are far more intelligent and far more knowledgeable about a certain subject than me. They might not have it all figured out, but I come to the conclusion theyve figured out a lot more than I have. Which is enough to make me want to listen to more of what they say.
Has this been posted? Sorry Im new to this thread and cast search back for 37 pages to check.
On a side note, that Ted talk is very light on content. I first heard about yer man on a podcast he did with Scroobius Pip, which goes into a bit more detail. Obviously, anyone who finds the ideas interesting should really read his book.
Yep, last page. A pretty good watch. He says he still agrees with much of Harris' material but has just taken his foot off the idolization accelerator.
Ha! I could probably have stretched to looking back that far. Oh well.
You can have good idea, but if you can't deliver it well then it will be lost.
Ok but take Jordan Peterson. He may have a (dubious) claim to be an expert in his field but what does he know about other fields? Nowhere near what he claims to.
What about Haidt or Cowen? Both can be engaging and make interesting points on certain subjects but on other topics they are completely full of shit.
People do this across the political spectrum, from Ayn Rand to the Chapo guys. I'm just curious about why it is.