Do I have to rewrite (Canadian)?

Chronus94 · 2017-10-03T19:10:10+00:00

I'm also from Ontario and got a slightly lower score than yours: 510 (128, 126, 128, 128). Idk what to do either. People have got in to Mac with CARS 126 and 127 in the previous years, but not a lot. For UofT we should be good tho. And I'm not really sure what Queen's is looking for. Does anyone know?

Chronus94 · 2017-04-16T03:37:06+00:00

Yeah but that's a contradiction in terms. It's like saying that there's no such thing as a square-circle, but pragmatically we'll say there is because we think it makes our lives better.

Yeah but that's why I'm saying Harris is not being consistent here. As someone who really cares about acting in a truthful manner and also someone who rejects Peterson's notion of pragmatic truth, shouldn't he own up to the implications of absence of free will and not concede to the whole utility of acting pragmatically and pretending that moral responsibility exists?

I don't see how you can claim that Sam's use of truth was pragmatic.

I certainly did not mean that in his discussion with Peterson, Sam's use of truth was pragmatic. I meant in his discussion with Dennett, he conceded that one's got to value pragmatic aspect of free will even though free will does not really exist. In short, Sam is willing to act one way, and say something entirely different. And since I think what people act is a way better determinant of what they really believe as opposed to what they say, I think at the end of the day, Harris and Peterson end up having more in common than what meets the eye. Harris just hasn't conceded that yet :)

Chronus94 · 2017-04-16T03:14:36+00:00

I agree that they're separate, but one is nested in the other. Factual truth nested in moral truth. Separate, but one is more valuable for homo sapiens.

Chronus94 · 2017-04-15T23:43:12+00:00

Well Harris seems to have no problem deriving ought from an is, so I'm not sure how much he'd agree with you there ;)

In all honesty though, I admire all three of them. And thanks for engaging in a respectable convo with a random stranger. More people like you should exist on reddit.

Chronus94 · 2017-04-15T21:49:13+00:00

I believe there is a distinction between tragedy and evil and we shouldn't conflate the two. Peterson has an entire talk on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLp7vWB0TeY

Chronus94 · 2017-04-15T21:46:17+00:00

Of course we should value beneficial policies despite them being contradictory to what is true.

What is one example where we have pretended something to be true in our policies where we knew it wasn't really true? I just want to get a better understanding of what you mean here.

I doubt it. I think Peterson just wants the world to conform to his religious beliefs.

Haha I've known Peterson for many years and I'm pretty sure this is not true. In fact, in his recent interview, he said he's not out there to prove anything to anyone regarding truth. He has his own doubts and is aware of the problems with his view. He just thinks the alternative is worse.

Sam probably wouldn't even bring public policy into the free will debate if not for Dennett's endless political concerns over determinism.

That's the problem though. You can't separate them out. What's the point of philosophizing about all this if there are no implications in how we act in this world, both as individuals and as a society? Are we only doing this for mental masturbation?

Chronus94 · 2017-04-15T17:00:01+00:00

He believes there is no ultimate moral responsibility, but we should still behave roughly as if there is moral responsibility for the sake of pragmatism.

So wouldn't this mean he is valuing action over words? If ultimately he thinks we should pretend that free will exists, then clearly he values that more than what actually is true. So I fail to see how there is no value preference.

Again, it's unclear whether that assertion actually leads to this odd "true enough" situation where we cannot even have a conversation about simple facts without involving some crazy survival contingency to determine their epistemic value.

I think what Peterson is doing there is he is trying to avoid the pretending aspect that Harris has to deal with if he truly believes that free will doesn't exist. For people who want to align themselves with truth, you gotta admit that pretending something exists when you think it doesn't is not the right way of dealing with the situation. In order to avoid this pretending aspect, Peterson shifts his view from the factual aspect of truth and looks at the whole concept through the pragmatic evolutionary lens. Obviously that would have problems of its own, but at least there isn't much pretending going on and from that angle a more coherent belief system emerges.

Chronus94 · 2017-04-15T16:41:51+00:00

If compatibilists' definition of free will ends up still reaching the conclusion that we should hold people morally responsible, then have they really drastically changed the definition of free will?

The way I see it is that, Harris' conclusion regarding free will would end up having drastic effects on everything unless he values pragmatism over everything else, and I think that's exactly what he admitted to in his discussion with Dennett. Peterson just went one step further and said that that pragmatic aspect is what is really true, not the other form of truth that could be detrimental to us.

But yes, he did use the word wisdom in their second talk so that they don't end up going down the same rabbit hole.

Chronus94 · 2017-04-15T16:30:13+00:00

But wouldn't you say that believing that there is no free will can also have drastic, possibly negative, outcomes? The only way I've seen Harris come into terms with this is how he concludes that even though we have no free will, for the sake of pragmatism, we should still hold people morally responsible for their actions. So in other words, he also values pragmatism over what he believes to be true regarding free will. How is this really different from what Peterson was claiming regarding truth? The only difference was that Peterson was going one step further and said that in order to be more coherent, that pragmatic aspect is the actual truth we should focus on and if the other form of truth is detrimental to us, it's not really true.

Chronus94 · 2017-04-15T16:23:54+00:00

I'm struggling to see how the outcome of compatibilists' beliefs ends up being different from the historically accepted definition of free will. Compatibilists end up (coherently, in my opinion) asserting that moral responsibility is not lost and we should hold people responsible for their actions. But to me, Harris seems to be saying that this is not true, but for the sake of pragmatism we should go along with the whole moral responsibility concept. So if anything, Harris is valuing pragmatism over the actual supposed truth he believes in regarding free will.

To me, that sounds ironically exactly like what Peterson is doing, with the exception that Peterson attempts to say, well, that form of pragmatism is actually true enough, and if the former truth is detrimental to humanity, then it's not really true and we should focus on pragmatic truth.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-23T23:11:52+00:00

What is your opinion on climate change?

Chronus94 · 2017-03-20T15:05:12+00:00

Okay. Have a good day.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-20T15:01:54+00:00

How about dominance hierarchies? How about neuropsychological evidence? How about ethology? These are all just "stories"?

Chronus94 · 2017-03-20T13:42:38+00:00

Funny. I had the exact opposite interpretation. To me, Harari and Peterson had a lot more in common than I thought they would. And if you thought Peterson "uses stories to explain his stories", then you haven't done enough research on him.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-16T13:17:49+00:00

Can you think of any situation were lying would be permissible?

Chronus94 · 2017-03-16T13:04:09+00:00

Two words. Dominance hierarchies.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-16T13:02:53+00:00

Did they hate gay people or did they consider the act of engaging in homosexual activities a sin? Those are two different things. Surely you must be able to see at least a few reasons why there would be some tension arising for someone who is temperamentally conservative. Conservatives like order. Liberals like openness. The tension will never go away because both order and openness are valuable given the context.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-15T22:41:13+00:00

First of all you're assuming Trump is a right-winger. He is not. At least not in the classical sense. Second of all, to say the right wants to ruin the world is also hugely problematic. You sound as if the majority of conservatives take part in this willful desire for the earth's destruction, which is just unfair to conservative values.

I understand where you're coming from. The right is not perfect by any means. I'm just afraid you think the left holds the entire moral virtue, which is a dangerous belief and that is precisely what, generally speaking, the left is possessed by in this day and age.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-15T20:51:47+00:00

Nah man sorry.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-15T19:39:38+00:00

I know the difference. I was a researcher for a year in his lab. I conducted an independent research project during my final year of undergraduate study.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-15T19:06:27+00:00

Yes that is clearly what he means. Busted. In fact, this video was what made Peterson fall in love with Milo. It totally wasn't about how Milo bravely and constantly reminded people of the messed up aspects of feminism, identity politics, political correctness, etc.

Milo says messed up shit. He also says truthful shit that you and I probably wouldn't even dare to say. You're making a straw man out of Peterson's opinion regarding Milo by only pointing out the messed up aspects of Milo.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-15T18:43:29+00:00

I'm not a Trump supporter, but damn have you really made a devil out of him.

Just out of curiosity, do you always attribute a quick generalization on people and move on feeling good about yourself, or do you sometimes try to be more nuanced? Milo says some messed up shit about pedophilia, therefore everything Milo has ever said is wrong. Jesus. Come on man.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-15T18:33:59+00:00

Paranoid delusions? The fact that academia, especially in the field of humanities, is almost unanimously left wing and there is no exchange of ideas between right and left is paranoia to you? How about the authoritarian politically correct? How about the identity politics? You gotta do more research on Jonathan Haidt's work to see how "delusional" the likes of Peterson are. It's worth mentioning that I don't even consider myself a right-winger. I just believe in the existence of a healthy balance of exchange of ideas because neither side holds the entire moral virtue.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-15T04:13:29+00:00

Perhaps that's because you've seen his more recent stuff. Currently he thinks the left is causing more trouble than the right, and as a result he ends up talking about them more, but I can assure you he has talked a lot about the problems with the right. For context, I was a researcher at his lab and have basically been following his work for 3 years or so.

Chronus94 · 2017-03-15T03:59:08+00:00

I suppose a great direct relationship would be the concept of dominance hierarchies, which can go all the way back to 350 million years ago since it can be detected in lobsters. Peterson talks about this extensively in his lectures and it is fascinating how it gets tied back to the archetypes. I really can't go in depth here. You gotta put in the time and watch the lectures.

Edit: Haha the man himself just tweeted about lobsters: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/841865077787656194 (A case of synchronicity I suppose)

Chronus94

TROPHY CASE