03 Feb '14 22:50>
Sam Harris is described by Skeptic Magazine's youtube account as...
Personally, I've never heard of New Work Times, but I might just be a colossal smartass.
Hard to say, really.
This is the link to the video:
YouTube
At the onset of this video, Sam is fawned over, presumably well-deserved.
We are told how Sam can take 10,000 words and convey points which would require most philosophers 40,000 to produce the same results.
Over the next hour, he uses a little north of that former number to convey a mess of contradictory claptrap.
I would have spotted him 40,000 words, but he would have wasted those as well.
He purposes in this speech to do two things:
1. "...convince you that free will is an illusion... and incoherent idea..."
2. "... understanding this truth about the human mind actually matters as it will change the way we view questions of morality and human justice."
We could easily pick apart the next hour and 15 minutes, but let's start with just the premise.
He hopes to convince.
If we are to believe any of the dialogue which follows, Sam has a feeling of optimism and that this feeling is a direct result of chemicals and electrical impulses within his brain.
Sam has no choice but to hope for this: his brain (and all attendant aspects thereof) are responsible for this feeling.
This hope is pinned to an expectation that the hearer's mind will perceive the concepts presented and, as a result of chemicals and electrical impulses within their brains, will then change their normal thought patterns.
How freaking high does a body have to be in order to believe such nonsense?
the author of the New Work Times bestsellers, The Moral Landscape, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.
Personally, I've never heard of New Work Times, but I might just be a colossal smartass.
Hard to say, really.
This is the link to the video:
YouTube
At the onset of this video, Sam is fawned over, presumably well-deserved.
We are told how Sam can take 10,000 words and convey points which would require most philosophers 40,000 to produce the same results.
Over the next hour, he uses a little north of that former number to convey a mess of contradictory claptrap.
I would have spotted him 40,000 words, but he would have wasted those as well.
He purposes in this speech to do two things:
1. "...convince you that free will is an illusion... and incoherent idea..."
2. "... understanding this truth about the human mind actually matters as it will change the way we view questions of morality and human justice."
We could easily pick apart the next hour and 15 minutes, but let's start with just the premise.
He hopes to convince.
If we are to believe any of the dialogue which follows, Sam has a feeling of optimism and that this feeling is a direct result of chemicals and electrical impulses within his brain.
Sam has no choice but to hope for this: his brain (and all attendant aspects thereof) are responsible for this feeling.
This hope is pinned to an expectation that the hearer's mind will perceive the concepts presented and, as a result of chemicals and electrical impulses within their brains, will then change their normal thought patterns.
How freaking high does a body have to be in order to believe such nonsense?