• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Rich Roll interviews Sam Harris...and Annaka Harris

jasperkent

Bluelighter
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
6,343
Location
Chattanooga, TN
I don't remember what I was looking for when this popped up but it doesn't matter-- this is exactly what I needed. I guess the algorithm knows me better than I know myself.

I had never even heard of Rich Roll and I was only vaguely familiar with Sam Harris, but this is the best interview of any kind I've heard in a long time.

If you are deeply religious or politically extreme at either end of the spectrum, Harris will likely anger you at some point. But if you are intellectually curious and have a relatively open mind, you'll get a lot out of this. They cover a lot of topics and Harris goes deep, but it is well worth listening to:

 
Thanks for posting, no idea who Rich Roll is, even having listened to all of that

I started to actually enjoy it once Sam got over his obligatory rant about Islam. I'll say I used to be a pretty big fan of Sam Harris but recently I've come to find him more and more tiresome, exactly because of this issue, his absolute unwillingness and inability to acknowledge the slightest possibility of nuance when it comes to the evils of religion, and one religion specifically, or his own gigantic bias surrounding the possibility that some of the problems of the world might not necessarily be because of Muslims.

Right off the bat he just can't help getting into his Death Cult, protests at universities schtick... for someone who talks so often about the importance of "good faith," I struggle to understand where the good faith is in taking such an uncompromisingly combative line against a religion that almost 25% of the population of the Earth will have been helplessly born into, through no fault of their own. I never thought I would be actually speaking in defense of Islam but the escalation and repetitiveness of Sam's rhetoric has driven me to it.

I do think Islam is fundamentally silly. I do think the West is best, I am an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy in many cases, but there is a point where we have to consider that there are 1.9 billion Muslims in the world and the way to demonstrate that Western culture is indeed morally superior to theocracy or overt authoritarianism and that the religious maniacs of the world are just that - unhinged idiots or psychopaths - is probably NOT by alienating a large chunk of those 1.9 billion people by constantly repeating that a significant part of their cultural heritage is a Death Cult and something to be sneered at relentlessly. Somehow Sam has managed to obliviously radicalize himself on this one specific issue to the point of swallowing and repeating even Trumpian style untruths about the pro-Sharia law populace of the UK or whatever other bullshit I've forgotten to mention.

That said, he is listenable when he can detach himself from this topic, and this viewpoint is less of an immediate danger to the future of humanity even if it is frustrating when compared to many other public figures who have just become so broadly deranged as to be unlistenable. That sounds like a fairly depressingly low bar to set for "intellectual speakers" but, I guess that's where we are as a species. I am mostly in total agreement with Sam Harris on almost every other topic and I appreciate that they talked about the nature of mind and consciousness in this interview after getting through stuff relating to the sad state of world affairs.
 
OP, are there any points you can extract from their conversation for the sake of conversation in this thread? That video is 3 hours long.
 
Thanks for posting, no idea who Rich Roll is, even having listened to all of that

I started to actually enjoy it once Sam got over his obligatory rant about Islam. I'll say I used to be a pretty big fan of Sam Harris but recently I've come to find him more and more tiresome, exactly because of this issue, his absolute unwillingness and inability to acknowledge the slightest possibility of nuance when it comes to the evils of religion, and one religion specifically, or his own gigantic bias surrounding the possibility that some of the problems of the world might not necessarily be because of Muslims.

Right off the bat he just can't help getting into his Death Cult, protests at universities schtick... for someone who talks so often about the importance of "good faith," I struggle to understand where the good faith is in taking such an uncompromisingly combative line against a religion that almost 25% of the population of the Earth will have been helplessly born into, through no fault of their own. I never thought I would be actually speaking in defense of Islam but the escalation and repetitiveness of Sam's rhetoric has driven me to it.

I do think Islam is fundamentally silly. I do think the West is best, I am an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy in many cases, but there is a point where we have to consider that there are 1.9 billion Muslims in the world and the way to demonstrate that Western culture is indeed morally superior to theocracy or overt authoritarianism and that the religious maniacs of the world are just that - unhinged idiots or psychopaths - is probably NOT by alienating a large chunk of those 1.9 billion people by constantly repeating that a significant part of their cultural heritage is a Death Cult and something to be sneered at relentlessly. Somehow Sam has managed to obliviously radicalize himself on this one specific issue to the point of swallowing and repeating even Trumpian style untruths about the pro-Sharia law populace of the UK or whatever other bullshit I've forgotten to mention.

That said, he is listenable when he can detach himself from this topic, and this viewpoint is less of an immediate danger to the future of humanity even if it is frustrating when compared to many other public figures who have just become so broadly deranged as to be unlistenable. That sounds like a fairly depressingly low bar to set for "intellectual speakers" but, I guess that's where we are as a species. I am mostly in total agreement with Sam Harris on almost every other topic and I appreciate that they talked about the nature of mind and consciousness in this interview after getting through stuff relating to the sad state of world affairs.

Are there any facts Sam got wrong about his takes on Islam? Because I've listened to him for hours and I think your summary of his views is a bit misleading. Nothing about him is "Trumpian" and he has always taken time to acknowledge the existence of moderate Muslims. But he also does not cower in fear like others do when discussing the obvious problems the world is facing. If he were alive in the 11-12th century , I'm sure his primary focus would be on Christianity...
 
It's been a while since I listened but when I wrote that I was thinking primarily about his comments on support for Sharia law among muslims in the UK, I believe he said "a majority" and quoted a figure like 75% or something, although correct me if I'm wrong. I said it's Trumpian because it reminds me of US conservative talking points about there being no-go zones in whatever UK cities that are supposedly already under Sharia law and I think Sam Harris laboring over this point relentlessly is reminiscent of that.

I also take issue with his profoundly one sided take on Israel vs Palestine, yes he pays lip service to the existence of moderate muslims but that's pretty much all it is, as far as I can see. I'd venture to say that I'm not even sure it's entirely clear that Islam is currently the greatest danger to human civilization at present given the resurgence of fundamentalist Christianity as a mechanism to spread right wing propaganda, and the more immediate threat of previously or currently relatively democratic Western nations turning to authoritarian leaders en-masse, Donald Trump being the most obvious example. And I do appreciate Sam's uncompromising attitude towards Donald Trump obviously, but I would feel less strongly about the Islam thing if he would at least call Christianity a Pedophile Cult occasionally, for example.
 
This is a short video that really illustrates this entire dilemma perfectly. Harris articulates his point calmly and logically, and before he even gets finished you can see Ben Affleck seething. It affects him so much he is nearly incoherent. Putting words in Sam's mouth left and right...the entire panel fighting straw men rather than truly absorbing his point.



I think this was the appearance that went viral and led to his conversation with Cenk Uygur. That is much longer and he goes into much more detail with receipts. You can look that up too if you're interested.

but I would feel less strongly about the Islam thing if he would at least call Christianity a Pedophile Cult occasionally, for example.

This might interest you. He has been pigeonholed as the Islam guy but there is no shortage of videos like this:

 
Thanks for posting, no idea who Rich Roll is, even having listened to all of that

I started to actually enjoy it once Sam got over his obligatory rant about Islam. I'll say I used to be a pretty big fan of Sam Harris but recently I've come to find him more and more tiresome, exactly because of this issue, his absolute unwillingness and inability to acknowledge the slightest possibility of nuance when it comes to the evils of religion, and one religion specifically, or his own gigantic bias surrounding the possibility that some of the problems of the world might not necessarily be because of Muslims.

Right off the bat he just can't help getting into his Death Cult, protests at universities schtick... for someone who talks so often about the importance of "good faith," I struggle to understand where the good faith is in taking such an uncompromisingly combative line against a religion that almost 25% of the population of the Earth will have been helplessly born into, through no fault of their own. I never thought I would be actually speaking in defense of Islam but the escalation and repetitiveness of Sam's rhetoric has driven me to it.

I do think Islam is fundamentally silly. I do think the West is best, I am an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy in many cases, but there is a point where we have to consider that there are 1.9 billion Muslims in the world and the way to demonstrate that Western culture is indeed morally superior to theocracy or overt authoritarianism and that the religious maniacs of the world are just that - unhinged idiots or psychopaths - is probably NOT by alienating a large chunk of those 1.9 billion people by constantly repeating that a significant part of their cultural heritage is a Death Cult and something to be sneered at relentlessly. Somehow Sam has managed to obliviously radicalize himself on this one specific issue to the point of swallowing and repeating even Trumpian style untruths about the pro-Sharia law populace of the UK or whatever other bullshit I've forgotten to mention.

That said, he is listenable when he can detach himself from this topic, and this viewpoint is less of an immediate danger to the future of humanity even if it is frustrating when compared to many other public figures who have just become so broadly deranged as to be unlistenable. That sounds like a fairly depressingly low bar to set for "intellectual speakers" but, I guess that's where we are as a species. I am mostly in total agreement with Sam Harris on almost every other topic and I appreciate that they talked about the nature of mind and consciousness in this interview after getting through stuff relating to the sad state of world affairs.

This is a total stretch and obviously biased in favor of misled tacticizing - he's very precise, factual and balanced about islam and has criticized christianity a lot too.

I agree that he could be more nuanced in the gaza situation but it's slightly beyond his scope and i accept that at some kind of face value level Israel is in the right against primitive fanatics and their retarded enablers. To criticize Israel would be to step out of his own intellectual brand, which is sad but understandable.

The interviewer seems like a good guy, haven't seen him before. Didn't watch the whole thing yet.
 
@mal3volent - I haven't watched those videos yet but I will give them a watch, thanks for sharing.


@Mjäll - biased in favor of misled tacticizing? In what direction am I biased? Against Sam Harris? Towards Islam? Tacticizing? I think this is a stretched interpretation of anything I said.

Mjjäll said:
I agree that he could be more nuanced in the gaza situation but it's slightly beyond his scope and i accept that at some kind of face value level Israel is in the right against primitive fanatics and their retarded enablers. To criticize Israel would be to step out of his own intellectual brand, which is sad but understandable.
Well yeah, that's essentially my point except that I disagree showing nuance in a significant geopolitical event is "beyond his scope," or that we should excuse this lack of nuance as being "out of his own intellectual brand." It is understandable yes, but I don't find it so easy to excuse.

Of course, Israel is in the right "against primitive fanatics and retarded enablers," but for the most part when people criticize Israeli foreign policy they are referring to one of countless examples of extreme overreach, brutality, and violation of internationally recognized laws regarding the conduct of war. Do Islamic extremists care about rules of war? Of course not. Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to repeated violations by a supposedly Western-aligned, heavily militarized nation? Categorically not.


I will say to both of you (and anyone else who might be reading, of course) I have listened to Sam Harris for a long time, used to pay the yearly subscription to Making Sense, and still do listen to the majority of his podcasts, despite my misgivings about his approach to both Israel and Islam, so I believe I have a fairly good understanding of the nuances of his position. I really have very little disagreement with him on the vast majority of his takes.

I don't even necessarily disagree particularly strongly, in a vacuum, with anything he actually says about the idiocy of Islam and the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism - my issue is primarily with his choice of focus. Again, in a world where there are 1.9 billion Muslims, for better or worse (maybe worse), I don't think he's changing anyone's mind with his current approach, he's just preaching to the choir, and alienating anyone who might otherwise benefit from listening to him. I mean, this is his choice, fine, he can talk about what he likes, in the way he likes, but in a world where explicitly divisive rhetoric is coming from all directions I think there's an argument for taking extra care not to stoke the fires of tribalism.

I am aware of Sam's perspective on Islamophobia and how it doesn't really exist, or perhaps more correctly, has been weaponized and applied way too broadly and inappropriately, I think this is somewhat true, although the same can be said about antisemitism, which I can't recall Sam ever talking about. However the situation in Palestine is a perfect example, in my view, of Sam's bias - he is just unable to recognize that Israel too, is guilty of some moral crimes, because of his bias against Islam.

This is a difficult thing to quantify and to an extent I recognize that this entire argument is somewhat about the paradox of tolerant societies versus totalitarian theocracies and dictatorships, that it's possible to be so tolerant that we unwittingly permit the rise of backwards and dangerous ideas (of course this has already happened, even if not yet to a significantly socially destabilizing extent with Islam in the same way as it has with alt-right ideologies). I'll concede it's possible that I'm wrong and that what's needed is the kind of approach that Sam has, I just find it intuitively difficult to accept that this is the case given that I myself, a long time listener and fan of Sam Harris without any love for or attachment to Islam, find his approach to this topic frustrating and veering dangerously close to explicitly divisive tribalist rhetoric in some cases.

If I wanted to be nicer about it and not rattle anyone who sees nothing wrong with anything he's ever said I could have just said that some of what he says is "needlessly exaggerated" rather than "Trumpian" which perhaps is itself a controversy-magnet type of term to use. I read over what I originally said though and while I was vague in some areas and clear about my frustrations I don't believe anything I said was misleading. Again - my issues with the specific video posted in the OP were specifically related to:
  • his comments on pro-Sharia law Muslims in the UK, which are just not correct.
  • his comments on The Palestine Situation and everything surrounding this, including, importantly, his inability to criticize Israel.
...both of which I think show his blindness towards his own bias that he never addresses. This bias may well have grown out of some perfectly sensible ideas, it doesn't mean it isn't a bias or that no-one should ever call him out on it. I'll say also that just because he is a lucid speaker, and on the vast majority of topics a very lucid thinker doesn't mean that he can never misjudge anything, and it is my opinion that he has misjudged his nuance on the topics I have mentioned.

Obviously if I had the option I'd still choose Sam Harris to decide how human society should be organized over whatever random Muslim cleric, that's not in question, and I'd encourage anyone to read The Moral Landscape or probably any other book Sam has written before they read the Quran, that's also not in question. My expressed opinion on the aforementioned topics should not cast any doubt on that, but the very fact that there is nuance to these issues means there is room for differences of opinion, it doesn't mean I myself am biased against Sam Harris or in favor of Islam and I think that implication is frankly absurd.

I am biased against anything that might stoke the fires of tribalism - that's it.
 
Well said @Vastness . While I'm sure we have differences of opinion on the Israel issue (not that I dispute they have done some wrong, but to what degree, and in the face of what) , I appreciate your thoughtfulness. You clearly think about things from all angles and I think that is very refreshing to see.
 
Another great Rich Roll interview and discussion-- this time with Sam's wife, Annaka Harris



Imagine the conversations Annaka and Sam have in private!
 
@mal3volent - I haven't watched those videos yet but I will give them a watch, thanks for sharing.


@Mjäll - biased in favor of misled tacticizing? In what direction am I biased? Against Sam Harris? Towards Islam? Tacticizing? I think this is a stretched interpretation of anything I said.


Well yeah, that's essentially my point except that I disagree showing nuance in a significant geopolitical event is "beyond his scope," or that we should excuse this lack of nuance as being "out of his own intellectual brand." It is understandable yes, but I don't find it so easy to excuse.

Of course, Israel is in the right "against primitive fanatics and retarded enablers," but for the most part when people criticize Israeli foreign policy they are referring to one of countless examples of extreme overreach, brutality, and violation of internationally recognized laws regarding the conduct of war. Do Islamic extremists care about rules of war? Of course not. Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to repeated violations by a supposedly Western-aligned, heavily militarized nation? Categorically not.


I will say to both of you (and anyone else who might be reading, of course) I have listened to Sam Harris for a long time, used to pay the yearly subscription to Making Sense, and still do listen to the majority of his podcasts, despite my misgivings about his approach to both Israel and Islam, so I believe I have a fairly good understanding of the nuances of his position. I really have very little disagreement with him on the vast majority of his takes.

I don't even necessarily disagree particularly strongly, in a vacuum, with anything he actually says about the idiocy of Islam and the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism - my issue is primarily with his choice of focus. Again, in a world where there are 1.9 billion Muslims, for better or worse (maybe worse), I don't think he's changing anyone's mind with his current approach, he's just preaching to the choir, and alienating anyone who might otherwise benefit from listening to him. I mean, this is his choice, fine, he can talk about what he likes, in the way he likes, but in a world where explicitly divisive rhetoric is coming from all directions I think there's an argument for taking extra care not to stoke the fires of tribalism.

I am aware of Sam's perspective on Islamophobia and how it doesn't really exist, or perhaps more correctly, has been weaponized and applied way too broadly and inappropriately, I think this is somewhat true, although the same can be said about antisemitism, which I can't recall Sam ever talking about. However the situation in Palestine is a perfect example, in my view, of Sam's bias - he is just unable to recognize that Israel too, is guilty of some moral crimes, because of his bias against Islam.

This is a difficult thing to quantify and to an extent I recognize that this entire argument is somewhat about the paradox of tolerant societies versus totalitarian theocracies and dictatorships, that it's possible to be so tolerant that we unwittingly permit the rise of backwards and dangerous ideas (of course this has already happened, even if not yet to a significantly socially destabilizing extent with Islam in the same way as it has with alt-right ideologies). I'll concede it's possible that I'm wrong and that what's needed is the kind of approach that Sam has, I just find it intuitively difficult to accept that this is the case given that I myself, a long time listener and fan of Sam Harris without any love for or attachment to Islam, find his approach to this topic frustrating and veering dangerously close to explicitly divisive tribalist rhetoric in some cases.

If I wanted to be nicer about it and not rattle anyone who sees nothing wrong with anything he's ever said I could have just said that some of what he says is "needlessly exaggerated" rather than "Trumpian" which perhaps is itself a controversy-magnet type of term to use. I read over what I originally said though and while I was vague in some areas and clear about my frustrations I don't believe anything I said was misleading. Again - my issues with the specific video posted in the OP were specifically related to:
  • his comments on pro-Sharia law Muslims in the UK, which are just not correct.
  • his comments on The Palestine Situation and everything surrounding this, including, importantly, his inability to criticize Israel.
...both of which I think show his blindness towards his own bias that he never addresses. This bias may well have grown out of some perfectly sensible ideas, it doesn't mean it isn't a bias or that no-one should ever call him out on it. I'll say also that just because he is a lucid speaker, and on the vast majority of topics a very lucid thinker doesn't mean that he can never misjudge anything, and it is my opinion that he has misjudged his nuance on the topics I have mentioned.

Obviously if I had the option I'd still choose Sam Harris to decide how human society should be organized over whatever random Muslim cleric, that's not in question, and I'd encourage anyone to read The Moral Landscape or probably any other book Sam has written before they read the Quran, that's also not in question. My expressed opinion on the aforementioned topics should not cast any doubt on that, but the very fact that there is nuance to these issues means there is room for differences of opinion, it doesn't mean I myself am biased against Sam Harris or in favor of Islam and I think that implication is frankly absurd.

I am biased against anything that might stoke the fires of tribalism - that's it.
Idk but it kinda feels like claiming antisemitism doesn't exist when arguing that islamophobia doesn't exist. There is so much hate, bigotry and paranoia circulating about Islam. We could call it antiislamism or something if people find that more fitting but to just say islamophobia doesn't exist kinda grinds my gears tbh.
 
Idk but it kinda feels like claiming antisemitism doesn't exist when arguing that islamophobia doesn't exist. There is so much hate, bigotry and paranoia circulating about Islam. We could call it antiislamism or something if people find that more fitting but to just say islamophobia doesn't exist kinda grinds my gears tbh.
Yeah I agree with you, it grinds my gears too. Since I commented on that Sam released a podcast entitled "Antizionism is Antisemitism" just to absolutely bash everyone over the head with the exact problem I was talking about and make absolutely clear the extent of his bias, when he let an Israeli politician speak for 2 hours plus, about how careful the IDF always are to avoid civilian casualties, without pushing back once. A choice quote (or close to it, was a while since I listened) "the history [of the region] is not important" meanwhile at least 1 hour of that was devoted to talking about the horrors of the Holocaust. Just to clarify my understanding of Zionism though to be clear about the issue with that - since it's pretty clear that people are operating on different definitions of things without ever actually defining the concepts they're arguing about - my understanding of Zionism is unchecked Israeli expansionism, more specifically the continuing occupation and settlement of greater and greater chunks of what was historically Palestine, usually but not necessarily justified by some Old Testament religious mandate which is irrelevantly part of some flavors of interpretation of Judaic scripture. If Zion just means Israel and Zionism is simply the belief that Israel should exist then OK yeah maybe antizionism is antisemitism, Israel is a country that people live and most of them I'm sure don't subscribe to Sam's own obliviously theologically fundamentalist interpretation of the world. But, ugh... on the scale of podcast-philosophers Sam's bias ranks extremely low on the scale of Things That Actually Matter in the World Right Now, to the point that I'm feeling like I'm being some kind of negative nancy having even bothered to write this paragraph.
 
Yeah I agree with you, it grinds my gears too. Since I commented on that Sam released a podcast entitled "Antizionism is Antisemitism" just to absolutely bash everyone over the head...
Yeah, that aspect of Sam's views really annoys me. And frankly it surprises me.
On most issues he tries to find a balanced middle ground-- or he used to.

I've also noticed that recently he's been much more critical of the far Left in the US than of the far Right. At one time his trademark was pissing off both ends of the spectrum equally.

That said, I still like and use the Waking Up app. I've benefitted greatly from it.

And let's not dismiss Annaka just because of what her husband is saying. I found this conversation fascinating and intriguing. Mind-blowing, in fact.
BTW, she doesn't mention politics at all.
 
I've also noticed that recently he's been much more critical of the far Left in the US than of the far Right. At one time his trademark was pissing off both ends of the spectrum equally.
Yeah, I've noticed this kind of thing to a greater or lesser extent with a lot of people I used to consider to be appropriately rational (can't think another way to put that right now even though it might sound a lil disingenuous.. fuck it), that there seems to be a kinda irresistible urge to overcorrect on making sure everyone knows before they say anything else that they are most definitely against the most gobbledegook expressions of "Wokeness"... in the process just "signal boosting" (to use a kinda Sam-Harris-ism) the deliberately divisive memetic weapon of autocrats that the political Right (as much as I cringe at having to even say Woke, Right, Left in this context, bleurgh) have most fallen for, hook, line, sinker, and fishing rod or whatever, to a far greater extent than the opposition, who it seems a waste of words to keep talking about how they didn't do enough to counter that... actually now I think about it that seems like kinda just more of the same problem. Everyone just needs to stop fucking talking about Wokeness and how the Left failed and all that shite, there's a time and a place to do that but it will be if the human species survives the currently unfolding shitshow and after the human embodiments of that shit are defeated, deposed, removed from power, whatever.

That said, I still like and use the Waking Up app. I've benefitted greatly from it.

And let's not dismiss Annaka just because of what her husband is saying. I found this conversation fascinating and intriguing. Mind-blowing, in fact.
BTW, she doesn't mention politics at all.
Oh yeah I've found the Waking Up app very useful in the past. I haven't used it much recently but I'm a bit disorganized with everything potentially healthy recently. And I am a fan of Annaka, perhaps moreso than Sam right now although I've certainly listened to Sam talk more - perhaps for almost exactly that reason, the lack of politics - although I guess they're kinda apples and oranges in that regard, I still enjoy listening to both of them when Sam can stick to just talking about the philosophy of being and such. Obviously there is just less of Annaka talking about stuff though.

Her book, "Conscious" I particularly enjoyed also and would very much recommend if you haven't read it. Haven't listened to that particular video just yet, but I'd say I certainly am going to. Maybe I can then reply to this thread with something more positive. :LOL:
 
Hah, OK cool... every time I go on the internet recently somehow I feel like I end up ranting about something. Anyway I'm about halfway through listening to that last video you posted now and yeah, pretty damn thought provoking. Interesting also that this should pop into my awareness or - oh, holy crap, literally was just recorded a day ago - well that's damn interesting coz just in the last few days for some reason I've been kinda thinking about panpsychism and the panpsychist perspective of the nature of consciousness - hazily defined though it might be - and basically that it's maybe kinda a loopy or at least underdeveloped idea and doesn't actually explain as much about anything as I once thought it did. Not that it necessarily makes any claims to any attempt at "explanation" I guess, but for a while I've kina thought that it just makes a sort of inherent sense... which maybe it still does, but my understanding of it is just incomplete, but either way my perception of it as a philosophy of being has shifted just recently. IIRC one of my takeaways from reading Annaka's book actually was exactly that panpsychism makes a lot of sense, although I don't think she ever self-proclaims as a panpsychist exactly, just kinda explores a lot of panpsychist-overlapping or panpsychist-adjacent ideas, so I guess it just kinda articulated more clearly my pre-existing inclinations about the nature of existence and whatnot. But so far my takeaway from this interview video thingy is kinda that she also has since writing the book developed a new kinda appreciation for the fact that we still really can't explain consciousness satisfactorily at all.

This stuff is very interesting to think about even while being a somewhat unsolvable and possibly somewhat irrelevant conundrum, I think, and not to dismiss panpsychism entirely, I think it still makes sense that consciousness is something fundamental rather than something emergent, which I guess is the core idea. But it's somewhat incomplete I think, it's moreso an observation than it is an explanation of anything. And speaking just for myself leaning too far into panpsychist ideas I've noticed can result in setting the bar for consciousness or self-awareness a little too low and inadvertently getting too caught up in some kinda strange ideas, like the potential sentience of current Large Language Model AIs, again to bring up my personal case-in-point, haha. For a little while I admit to definitely strongly entertaining the idea that LLMs are somewhat dimly sentient, but the extreme panpsychist conceptualization of "consciousness" potentially allows consideration of the consciousness of even a rock, if not "sentience" which is completely undefined by any consensus as far as I'm aware but is kinda just a higher level complex type of consciousness, to my understanding. So if a rock might be somewhat dimly conscious then it's a very tiny leap to say that a computer program that can converse in human language is possibly more conscious than a rock, but on the other hand when most people talk about AI consciousness they're talking about something other than the universal consciousness-field that might imbue the most static, inert matter with some kind of metaphysical, immeasurable sense of being - and it's kinda a bit disingenuous and possibly deranged to use extremely loose panpsychist definitions of consciousness to say that current LLMs might be conscious. Not that, of course, either rocks or calculators are 100% not sentient or conscious, whatever any of that means. Just that for me panpsychism caused those terms to kinda lose their meaning a little.

Heh, they just started talking about AIs. Yeah I mean I can't say I've ever thought differently to the stuff Annaka said about the obvious fundamental difference between human consciousness and any other types of "being" - but I think I kind of forgot that a lot of the time people's mental definition of the word "consciousness" is essentially just "human consciousness" or "consciousness as we understand it easily as humans", in casual conversation, rather than some kind of deliberately anthropocentric willful blindness or something, I dunno. I kinda forgot where I was going with this ramble. Oh yeah - hah actually I'm pretty sure my own recent realization was somewhat kicked off by stumbling across a reddit community of people just trading reports of conversations with various AIs and convincing themselves that these things were demonstrating some kinda human-relatable inner world that they most definitely were not - IMHO - I mean not that they definitely don't have any inner world just like rocks might also have some kind of inner world, but almost certainly not any kind of world that we could recognize or understand anymore than we can understand what it's like to be a raindrop, a cloud or one of the tiny tiny moonlets of Pluto.
 
Cool I used to follow him years and years ago, Richard, but I read my fair share of Sam Harris book quotes
Rich Roll has interviewed some very interesting people. He tends to interrupt them too much, but he does ask intelligent questions.

I still like Sam Harris a lot, but I'm starting to like Annaka even more.
 
Top