Why Sam Harris is an Idiot

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Both sides uf the climate change and global warming debate have a consensus of scientists for their side. So when you read only one report that reports only the consensus of scientists from one side and not the other, then you are obviously going to be biased for that side. The truth is that the main cause is still uncertain.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You feel Sam Harris is important enough to call him a bigot, but you do not feel it important enough to offer us even one quote from him to support this claim? Also, I think it is impossible to defend your claim that the opinions of Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges form the consensus opinion about Sam Harris or anyone else for that matter.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Who's Nick Bourbaki?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Fair enough, but your response suggested you thought critics were more important than the words of the person in question. I just found that odd.

And I lack the time and inclination to go through it all chiefly because I don't regard
Sam Harris as important and I have more important things to do.
Well I think it would be fair then to abstain from remarking upon his character in such unflattering terms if you can't even be bothered to find out whether the criticisms you have heard are accurate.
I also wonder why you felt it necessary to criticise such a minor thinker and writer? Was there something about the topic of the thread that bothered you?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

It is not my job to do your research for you or defend your position. You made a claim that Sam Harris is a bigot, and offered no evidence to support it. Calling someone is a bigot is a serious charge, and should never be made without presenting evidence.

Also, you keep referring us to others to make your argument for you (argument from authority), and also keep referring us to people like Theodore Sayeed, Greenwald, and Hedges, who I think are difficult to defend as being authorities. Be prepared to make your own argument or don't call people bigots.

Criticizing Islam does not inherently make one a bigot.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Who's Nick Bourbaki?

I heard he's a guy who pretends to be a woman on the internet.

And in this thread, I don't need proof to substantiate the accusation.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I would be interested in any quotes/references (from Sam Harris, not his critics) that can back this up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would be interested in any quotes/references (from Sam Harris, not his critics) that can back this up.

Why don't you do your own research and come to your own conclusion and leave the lady alone? You may be bordering on sexual harrassment. Who knows these days?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am going to need a lot more detail.
What is 'personal'? If your choice is determined by brain cancer (a part of your person) is it still personal? If you are not conscious of how the choice was made, is it still personal? Sam Harris is treating consciousness as the 'person' and all other brain function as external to that.

When you say 'not determin ...[text shortened]... hink I have now, so answer my questions above and ask for further clarification where necessary.

What is 'personal'? If your choice is determined by brain cancer (a part of your person) is it still personal? If you are not conscious of how the choice was made, is it still personal?
The levels we function upon are, indeed, many.
But to claim that our wills are not free is essentially saying we lack a will altogether: he makes the repeated case how anything dependent upon anything else is somehow no longer free.
Is the lamp independent of the table, or must it be identified by the thing which holds it aloft?

So if for example the choice of city in Sam Harris's question was determined by life experience, then that would not be free will, but if it was determined by a truly random quantum dynamic effect in the brain, then that would be free will?
Absurd.
He told the audience to think of a city.
One can only think upon things they already know.
If he'd told the audience to think of a phlorentiem--- any phlorentiem--- the audience would have been scratching its collective head: none would know what he is referencing.
They would be free to imagine what a phlorentiem is and then think of all the ones they know, but the result would still be a massive blank.
His failed experiment folded in on itself, as he asked them to consider things they know and then randomly pick one of the things they know.
In doing so, they were free to think on any one of the cities which came to their minds.
His contention that whatever came to their minds was an example of their brain functioning on its own irrespective of their conscious determination is superfluous: a systematic analysis of every city known to each of them would still result in the eventual (inconsequential) choice of a city.
To highlight a subconscious act as anecdotal evidence of one's inability to freely choose is sophomoric at best.

Try again, and this time think about how you made your choice of city. Did your consciousness make the choice? Using what process? How many cities did you consider?
Even better: consider whether or not you're going to answer the question.
A free person is able to make the determination.
Being free, some people opted to think on a city name, others did not.

To what extent did those limitations affect the results?
We have free will in the face of many obstacles.

It just seems to me that theism puts a lot of stock in free will but doesn't put forward a coherent concept of what it is - and most theists are quite confused about the subject as a result.
I think part of the problem is the over-think; the concept isn't really all that complex.
When someone of Harris' obvious learning puts forth such erudite sounding arguments to say something so patently absurd and glaringly self-contradictory, what was once crystal clear and obvious becomes muddled and confusing.

Here's another issue which appears to elude Harris' thinking.
His claim is based upon the timing of measurable activities within the brain, relative to the supposed appearance of the thought upon the stage.
Is he sure he's seeing the precursor and not the result?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am going to need a lot more detail.
What is 'personal'? If your choice is determined by brain cancer (a part of your person) is it still personal? If you are not conscious of how the choice was made, is it still personal? Sam Harris is treating consciousness as the 'person' and all other brain function as external to that.

When you say 'not determin ...[text shortened]... hink I have now, so answer my questions above and ask for further clarification where necessary.

.... courtesy bump for twhitehead: your detail's been provided.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I heard he's a guy who pretends to be a woman on the internet.

And in this thread, I don't need proof to substantiate the accusation.

Surely you are not implying that Nick Bourbaki is pretending to be Duchess64 are you? It is hard for me to imagine a man in his right mind pretending to be a woman.