Has he ever been wrong?

You're trolling. How the fuck is applying neuroscience to every problem in the world considered philosophy now?

That applies to literally every mordern pop philosophy

He has too much of a one-track mind, to the point of supporting Shillary and even commenting positively on retards like Ben Carson.

That aside, nothing I've heard him say is unreasonable. The way he triggers Veeky Forums is fucking hilarious, you weenies can't come up with any critique of his positions and resort to fedora level meme-ing.

He certainly did not. Coming into a discussion with a narrow and grumpy attitude and then dismissing an open and measured dialogue is not blowing someone the fuck out.

Presumably on the ought-is gap. Am not the one you responded to.

Also, his philosophy is not superior to Hume's. If anything, Hume is way superior than Sam Harris, even today. A lot of philosophy remains "timeless" due to philosophy's deductive style of reasoning. It may be quite unsound etc., but as philosophies go, even if Sam Harris may have more facts straight, then Hume>Harris.

>I read the /pol/ comic the post

Never been on /pol/.

>Harris says the idea of free will is incoherent and "cannot be mapped on to any conceivable reality."
Does this man even Kant? Or any metaphysics for that matter?

>Brain scans => moral values
Hume

this man is meme-tier

>muh medicine factory that clinton bombed
>muh bodycounts
>muh intentions are irrelevant
come on

>Because a philosopher made a good argument in the past, then the counter philosophy is destroyed and cannot be used anymore
The religion of philosophy

He said carson is an insane maniac, and hillary the lesser of the evils.
You make it sound like he actually sees them as good people.

Christ man if you're using Kant to refute the neuroscience of behavior than you need to find a church.

Did he bridge the is-ought gap? Why does he claim certain brain states are "good"? Why does he presuppose well-being is the optimal state which should drive morality and not something else? Placing well-being as the ultimate good to me represents a desire for stagnancy and comfort rather than growth. See Genealogy of Morals.

No conceivable reality is way too broad. To solve the free will problem you have to solve the mind-body problem, because the core of the issue is asking whether irreducibly mental causes exist. Evidence for physical causes influencing behavior does not preclude mental causes, and mental causes cannot be found with science. You can say "Can't see it, doesn't exist," but saying any conceivable reality is a gross exaggeration because you're presupposing materialism.

more info
trippleblue.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/sam-harris-free-will-book-review-a-kantian-critique-of-the-scientific-notion-of-no-free-will/

that image pathetically stretches the statement on the left. The first paragraph is literally just defining the statement.

...

>a desire for stagnancy and comfort rather than growth
No, if its true that our wellbeing is best achieved with growth and expiriencing growth, then taht should be incorporated into how we should live our life.

I meant that he endorses Hillary on no other stated reason than her warhawk status - despite himself acknowledging that he is nothing but a robot opportunist - and he said something about Carson being a better choice than some other people for similar reasons, I can't remember the quote exactly now but it sounded kind of retarded.

Basically I think he has a really rational view of things but is overplaying the immediacy of the problems of Islamic jihad. Overplaying it, not inventing it or anything like that. That's what I mean when he has somewhat of a one-track mind as of late.

Sure, I'd agree if it was true, except I'd posit that a certain level of anxiety/discomfort is necessary for growth, so maximizing well-being would not maximize growth. When you are content, why strive for change and growth? Why challenge yourself to learn more, work hard, etc?

Well, he presupposes what he considers scientific responses to morality and value, so maybe.

Uh, he did never say anything like "he is nothing but a robot opportunist".
And on Carson he said that Carson is insane and a nutjob, but as a christian fundamentalist he takes islamist fundamentalists seriously. And that is a problem, and so he agrees with him on that one point. Because even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Quote: "Ben Carson is a dangerously deluded religious imbecile[.] [...] [T]he fact that he is a candidate for president is a scandal[,] [...] but at the very least he can be counted on to sort of get this one right. He understands that jihadists are the enemy. " Doesn't sound retarded to me?

You seem to be kinda readin some weirdass sites from what you sound like. How about some direct quotes and sources and not putting words in anyones mouth?

*waits patiently for someone to post the comic*

Are you joking?

>If I don't like it blame /pol/
>If I have no argument blame /pol/
>If I can get away with it blame /pol/
Business as usual

Hello Sam Harris
I see you're shilling on Veeky Forums now

Hi there.

He's never been right.

You sure showed him.

You sure showed him.

You sure showed him.

You sure showed him.

You sure showed him.

A th-th-th-that's all, folks!

I hate this board so much.

You sure showed us.

you sure showed us

You sure showed me.