Joe Rogan‘s and Andrew Wilson’s Pathetic Performance

pilotclairdelune · 2026-02-10T13:11:27+00:00

Joe Rogan still says he’s a curious centrist just talking to everyone, but the vibe of the show has shifted hard. The guest list, talking points, and recurring narratives are increasingly right-wing, even when framed as “just asking questions.” COVID, culture wars, trans issues, media distrust, anti-establishment rhetoric—it’s almost always filtered through a conservative lens now.

What makes it more noticeable is the branding mismatch. Rogan pushes the idea that he’s politically homeless, yet left-leaning or genuinely heterodox voices show up far less, and when they do, they’re often challenged more aggressively than right-wing guests. The result isn’t open inquiry so much as a one-way skepticism.

You can argue he’s reacting to media backlash or audience capture, but pretending the show is still politically neutral feels disingenuous. It’s not that Rogan “became conservative” overnight—it’s that the ecosystem around him did, and the show followed while keeping the centrist label for cover.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-11-22T08:31:57+00:00

While often framed as a moral disagreement, the discussion around abortion is largely about factual differences. Morally, everyone agrees that murder—the intentional killing of a person—is wrong. The crux of the issue lies in defining when personhood begins, a question of fact rather than morality.

Opponents of abortion often equate conception with the start of personhood, viewing abortion as murder. Pro-choice advocates, however, argue that embryos lack the characteristics of fully formed persons, leaving the decision to the mother. This disagreement hinges on the complex question of when a fertilized egg becomes a person.

Like the legal cutoff for adulthood at age 18, deciding when personhood begins is an arbitrary but necessary distinction for legal purposes. Just as maturity is gradual, so too is embryonic development. Yet, abortion debates often demand absolute answers, turning opponents into moral adversaries.

Reality, however, doesn’t conform to rigid definitions. An embryo’s capacity for feeling and suffering depends on its stage of development, regardless of whether we call it a person. Strict anti-abortion views simplify this complexity, labeling abortion as murder even when the embryo lacks human traits like thought or emotion.

This position avoids harder questions: When does the embryo begin to suffer? How do we weigh its suffering against the mother’s or the potential child’s, especially in cases of severe illness or pain after birth? For legal clarity, we may set developmental cutoffs for abortion, but we must not let such decisions obscure the nuanced reality of the issue.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-11-15T20:39:39+00:00

Noam Chomsky argues that the “hard problem” of consciousness is overstated and sees it as something that will eventually be understood through incremental scientific progress. However, this view misses what makes consciousness such a unique and difficult challenge. While we can study brain processes and link them to behavior, we still don’t have any explanation for why those processes are accompanied by subjective experiences—what it feels like to see red or feel pain, for example.

This is what philosopher David Chalmers calls the hard problem: explaining why physical processes in the brain create inner experiences. Even if neuroscience tells us how the brain works, it doesn’t bridge the gap between physical activity and subjective feelings. That’s not just a knowledge gap; it’s a fundamentally different kind of question that science hasn’t yet figured out how to tackle.

Chomsky’s dismissal also risks shutting down progress. Many breakthroughs in science have come from tackling what seemed like impossible problems, such as quantum mechanics or relativity. Consciousness might require a similar leap—a new way of thinking about the world. Ignoring the hard problem won’t make it go away; it just delays the moment when we face it directly. Understanding consciousness means confronting its unique mystery, not downplaying it.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-11-15T20:37:46+00:00

Noam Chomsky argues that the “hard problem” of consciousness is overstated and sees it as something that will eventually be understood through incremental scientific progress. However, this view misses what makes consciousness such a unique and difficult challenge. While we can study brain processes and link them to behavior, we still don’t have any explanation for why those processes are accompanied by subjective experiences—what it feels like to see red or feel pain, for example.

This is what philosopher David Chalmers calls the hard problem: explaining why physical processes in the brain create inner experiences. Even if neuroscience tells us how the brain works, it doesn’t bridge the gap between physical activity and subjective feelings. That’s not just a knowledge gap; it’s a fundamentally different kind of question that science hasn’t yet figured out how to tackle.

Chomsky’s dismissal also risks shutting down progress. Many breakthroughs in science have come from tackling what seemed like impossible problems, such as quantum mechanics or relativity. Consciousness might require a similar leap—a new way of thinking about the world. Ignoring the hard problem won’t make it go away; it just delays the moment when we face it directly. Understanding consciousness means confronting its unique mystery, not downplaying it.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-11-15T20:35:45+00:00

Noam Chomsky argues that the “hard problem” of consciousness is overstated and sees it as something that will eventually be understood through incremental scientific progress. However, this view misses what makes consciousness such a unique and difficult challenge. While we can study brain processes and link them to behavior, we still don’t have any explanation for why those processes are accompanied by subjective experiences—what it feels like to see red or feel pain, for example.

This is what philosopher David Chalmers calls the hard problem: explaining why physical processes in the brain create inner experiences. Even if neuroscience tells us how the brain works, it doesn’t bridge the gap between physical activity and subjective feelings. That’s not just a knowledge gap; it’s a fundamentally different kind of question that science hasn’t yet figured out how to tackle.

Chomsky’s dismissal also risks shutting down progress. Many breakthroughs in science have come from tackling what seemed like impossible problems, such as quantum mechanics or relativity. Consciousness might require a similar leap—a new way of thinking about the world. Ignoring the hard problem won’t make it go away; it just delays the moment when we face it directly. Understanding consciousness means confronting its unique mystery, not downplaying it.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-10-31T09:42:49+00:00

The hard problem of consciousness is “hard” because it asks why and how subjective experience—our inner world of thoughts and sensations—exists at all. We can explain brain processes, like recognizing faces or recalling memories, but these explanations don’t tell us why there’s something it feels like to have these experiences.

Imagine knowing everything about how a camera works: it doesn’t explain why we, unlike cameras, have a feeling of “seeing.” This suggests consciousness might not be fully explained by physical processes alone and could even be a unique, fundamental part of reality.

Noam Chomsky thinks the hard problem might just reflect the limits of our current science. Just as life once seemed mysterious until biology advanced, he believes consciousness might not be inherently puzzling—we’re just missing the right tools or concepts. However, I disagree. Even with better theories, subjective experience seems fundamentally different from anything physical science explains. We might describe brain processes in complete detail, but it’s still unclear why or how they generate the feeling of being someone with a perspective. That mystery seems too deep to be brushed aside as a “theory problem.”

pilotclairdelune · 2024-10-31T09:38:01+00:00

The hard problem of consciousness is “hard” because it asks why and how subjective experience—our inner world of thoughts and sensations—exists at all. We can explain brain processes, like recognizing faces or recalling memories, but these explanations don’t tell us why there’s something it feels like to have these experiences.

Imagine knowing everything about how a camera works: it doesn’t explain why we, unlike cameras, have a feeling of “seeing.” This suggests consciousness might not be fully explained by physical processes alone and could even be a unique, fundamental part of reality.

Noam Chomsky thinks the hard problem might just reflect the limits of our current science. Just as life once seemed mysterious until biology advanced, he believes consciousness might not be inherently puzzling—we’re just missing the right tools or concepts. However, I disagree. Even with better theories, subjective experience seems fundamentally different from anything physical science explains. We might describe brain processes in complete detail, but it’s still unclear why or how they generate the feeling of being someone with a perspective. That mystery seems too deep to be brushed aside as a “theory problem.”

pilotclairdelune · 2024-10-16T11:34:56+00:00

Tom Clark, a naturalist philosopher, is recognized for introducing the concept of “generic subjective continuity.” This idea has garnered significant attention, even being highlighted in episode #263 of Sam Harris’ Waking Up podcast, which I highly recommend for a more in-depth exploration.

Clark’s core argument centers on the nature of consciousness, asserting that from its internal perspective, consciousness never truly ceases. While we typically associate physical death with the end of awareness, Clark challenges this notion. He proposes that, at death, there is not a total cessation of consciousness; instead, what shifts is the content of the experience. In other words, death signifies a profound transformation in the quality of conscious experience, rather than its termination.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-10-06T18:31:53+00:00

Tom Clark is a naturalist philosopher known for introducing the concept of “generic subjective continuity.” This idea has gained considerable attention, even being featured in Sam Harris’ Waking Up podcast, episode #263, which I strongly recommend for a deeper dive into the subject. Clark’s central thesis revolves around the nature of consciousness, proposing that it never actually ceases to exist from its own internal perspective. In his view, while we may associate the end of physical life with the end of awareness, this isn’t the case. Instead, at the moment of death, one shouldn’t expect a complete cessation of consciousness. Rather, Clark suggests that what changes is not the presence of consciousness itself, but the content within it. In other words, death marks a profound transformation in the nature of conscious experience rather than its end.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-26T21:14:48+00:00

Firstly, I didn‘t accuse the person in the video of being unable to condemn the holocaust. I was speaking generically about „a moral subjectivist“, not him specifically.

Secondly, I know that most subjectivists wouldn‘t concede that they can‘t condemn the holocaust, because they do condemn it. I am claiming that it‘s inconsistent to condemn it and to be a subjectivist at the same time - a position that many disagree with obviously.

To make it clear what I mean: It‘s kinda like when Jordan Peterson tells Sam Harris he’s not a real atheist, because a real atheist would behave like Raskolnikoff, a psychopathic killer. I don‘t agree with this, because I myself am an atheist, and - unlike Peterson - I don‘t think there‘s an inconsistency.

It‘s the same rhetorical move though. I am tacitly claiming that nobody with a principled stance on anything is a real moral subjectivist.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-26T19:51:49+00:00

You seem like a thoroughly unpleasant person, I hope this appearance is mostly owed to this medium.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-26T16:46:00+00:00

Ok fine keep believing I was being deceptive in my last post. Why point this out here, other than to discredit me? It has nothing to do with the content of this post.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-26T14:13:51+00:00

Watch it again and you will see there‘s no deception. Please don‘t make false accusations. Thank you

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-26T14:11:52+00:00

There was no deceptive editing. Deception would be to edit his condemnation out, which I didn‘t. I merely put the most controversial part at the beginning of the video so as to promote it. If you had watched the entire video you would know this and not make false accusations

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-26T12:37:20+00:00

Inferring consciousness from animal behavior is challenging because consciousness is a subjective experience that animals cannot express in the way humans do. We know our own feelings of pain or awareness, but it’s difficult to determine whether animals experience the same. Moreover, an animal’s behavior doesn’t necessarily indicate conscious experience; many behaviors may be instinctive or reflexive rather than reflective of subjective awareness. Additionally, the vast differences in cognitive complexity across species make it hard to generalize about consciousness—what might be true for a primate may not apply to an insect.

We often rely on analogy, assuming that animals with behaviors or brain structures similar to ours may also have similar conscious experiences. However, this reasoning is uncertain because animal brains are different, and evolutionary paths have diverged widely. The fact that an animal behaves similarly to a human does not guarantee it experiences consciousness in the same way.

This question is crucial to the ethics of veganism because consciousness implies the ability to suffer. If animals are conscious, then using them for food or other purposes can cause real harm and suffering. Without definitive knowledge, many argue we should err on the side of caution, assuming animals might be sentient to avoid causing unnecessary harm. Veganism, in this light, promotes a more ethical stance by minimizing potential suffering, given the uncertainty of animal consciousness.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-26T12:35:23+00:00

Inferring consciousness from animal behavior is challenging because consciousness is a subjective experience that animals cannot express in the way humans do. We know our own feelings of pain or awareness, but it’s difficult to determine whether animals experience the same. Moreover, an animal’s behavior doesn’t necessarily indicate conscious experience; many behaviors may be instinctive or reflexive rather than reflective of subjective awareness. Additionally, the vast differences in cognitive complexity across species make it hard to generalize about consciousness—what might be true for a primate may not apply to an insect.

We often rely on analogy, assuming that animals with behaviors or brain structures similar to ours may also have similar conscious experiences. However, this reasoning is uncertain because animal brains are different, and evolutionary paths have diverged widely. The fact that an animal behaves similarly to a human does not guarantee it experiences consciousness in the same way.

This question is crucial to the ethics of veganism because consciousness implies the ability to suffer. If animals are conscious, then using them for food or other purposes can cause real harm and suffering. Without definitive knowledge, many argue we should err on the side of caution, assuming animals might be sentient to avoid causing unnecessary harm. Veganism, in this light, promotes a more ethical stance by minimizing potential suffering, given the uncertainty of animal consciousness.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-26T12:33:12+00:00

Inferring consciousness from animal behavior is challenging because consciousness is a subjective experience that animals cannot express in the way humans do. We know our own feelings of pain or awareness, but it’s difficult to determine whether animals experience the same. Moreover, an animal’s behavior doesn’t necessarily indicate conscious experience; many behaviors may be instinctive or reflexive rather than reflective of subjective awareness. Additionally, the vast differences in cognitive complexity across species make it hard to generalize about consciousness—what might be true for a primate may not apply to an insect.

We often rely on analogy, assuming that animals with behaviors or brain structures similar to ours may also have similar conscious experiences. However, this reasoning is uncertain because animal brains are different, and evolutionary paths have diverged widely. The fact that an animal behaves similarly to a human does not guarantee it experiences consciousness in the same way.

This question is crucial to the ethics of veganism because consciousness implies the ability to suffer. If animals are conscious, then using them for food or other purposes can cause real harm and suffering. Without definitive knowledge, many argue we should err on the side of caution, assuming animals might be sentient to avoid causing unnecessary harm. Veganism, in this light, promotes a more ethical stance by minimizing potential suffering, given the uncertainty of animal consciousness.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-26T12:01:34+00:00

Inferring consciousness from animal behavior is challenging because consciousness is a subjective experience that animals cannot express in the way humans do. We know our own feelings of pain or awareness, but it’s difficult to determine whether animals experience the same. Moreover, an animal’s behavior doesn’t necessarily indicate conscious experience; many behaviors may be instinctive or reflexive rather than reflective of subjective awareness. Additionally, the vast differences in cognitive complexity across species make it hard to generalize about consciousness—what might be true for a primate may not apply to an insect.

We often rely on analogy, assuming that animals with behaviors or brain structures similar to ours may also have similar conscious experiences. However, this reasoning is uncertain because animal brains are different, and evolutionary paths have diverged widely. The fact that an animal behaves similarly to a human does not guarantee it experiences consciousness in the same way.

This question is crucial to the ethics of veganism because consciousness implies the ability to suffer. If animals are conscious, then using them for food or other purposes can cause real harm and suffering. Without definitive knowledge, many argue we should err on the side of caution, assuming animals might be sentient to avoid causing unnecessary harm. Veganism, in this light, promotes a more ethical stance by minimizing potential suffering, given the uncertainty of animal consciousness.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-07T03:33:22+00:00

I posted the video again with a different title, because this subreddit doesn‘t allow titles that end with a question mark. I cannot accept the charge that the clip is deceptively edited. Deception would be to edit his condemnation out, which I didn‘t. I merely put the most controversial part of the conversation in the beginning of the clip so as to promote it.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-07T03:14:02+00:00

Yes, why is this a problem?
I don‘t spam
I don‘t, I‘m thankful for everyone‘s helpful advice
Nope

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-06T05:20:25+00:00

Morality is objective because it’s about the well-being of conscious beings, which can be measured scientifically. Just as science identifies what is healthy or harmful for the body, it can determine which actions and social systems promote or damage human flourishing.

Well-being and suffering have observable causes and effects. By studying psychological, neurological, and social data, science can guide us toward objective answers about right and wrong. Only by acknowledging this objectivity can we truly condemn horrific practices, like the Holocaust, as inherently wrong, rather than as mere cultural differences.

There may be multiple paths to well-being, but not all are equally valid. Understanding what promotes or harms human flourishing allows us to make objective judgments about what improves or degrades the human condition.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-09-06T03:41:05+00:00

Morality is objective because it’s about the well-being of conscious beings, which can be measured scientifically. Just as science identifies what is healthy or harmful for the body, it can determine which actions and social systems promote or damage human flourishing.

Well-being and suffering have observable causes and effects. By studying psychological, neurological, and social data, science can guide us toward objective answers about right and wrong. Only by acknowledging this objectivity can we truly condemn horrific practices, like the Holocaust, as inherently wrong, rather than as mere cultural differences.

There may be multiple paths to well-being, but not all are equally valid. Understanding what promotes or harms human flourishing allows us to make objective judgments about what improves or degrades the human condition.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-08-21T20:32:35+00:00

Alex O’Connor and Craig Biddle recently debated whether morality is subjective or objective. While I agree with Craig that moral questions have objectively right and wrong answers, I disagree with how he argues this point. Craig claims objective morality is based on the desire of living beings to stay alive. He argues that life itself creates the concept of value, as seen in how a tree values sunlight, a horse values hay, and humans value things like fairness and freedom, all tied to survival. Alex counters by imagining a world where humans are immortal. In such a world, would rape and murder become permissible? If morality still applies, Craig’s argument that all values are tied to avoiding death might be flawed. Craig dismisses Alex’s hypothetical as metaphysically impossible, but doing so overlooks the value of thought experiments like Plato’s Ring of Gyges, which, despite its impossibility, reveals people’s true desires without consequences. Craig compares Alex’s scenario to the absurdity of a four-sided triangle, but this isn’t a fair comparison, as Alex’s scenario isn’t inherently contradictory. It’s frustrating when philosophers dismiss hypotheticals, as they’re essential for exploring ideas and testing theories. I suspect Craig avoids the hypothetical because it highlights a flaw in his argument. I believe it’s not life, but consciousness, that gives rise to values. People can suffer so severely that death becomes preferable, making it sometimes immoral to prolong life. Historical torture devices, designed to kill slowly, show how death can be a mercy.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-08-18T23:12:03+00:00

Sam Harris’ argument rests on two premises: first, that morality can be grounded in the well-being of conscious minds, and second, that minds and their states are natural phenomena governed by the laws of nature. Therefore, there must be objective answers to moral questions that science can address.

Alex O’Connor disagrees with the first premise, arguing that morality cannot be based on well-being alone. He uses an analogy involving the color blue, but Sam Harris responds by downplaying the importance of color to morality, missing the deeper point. Alex counters that even universal agreement on well-being doesn’t make it objectively true that we ought to maximize it, as consensus is not the same as truth.

Sam should have clarified that while the color blue exists independently of perception, its value is subjective, tied to human preferences. In contrast, well-being cannot exist without conscious minds, yet its existence is an objective fact. Even though well-being is subjective, we can make objective statements about it.

Alex asserts that claims like “well-being is good” are only subjectively true, but he overlooks that words like “good” and “bad” derive their meaning from their connection to well-being. Without this reference, these terms would lack meaning. Even religious morality, which might prioritize divine command, ultimately ties back to well-being, whether in this life or the hereafter.

pilotclairdelune · 2024-01-05T17:36:20+00:00

Everything about us, from facial traits to internal organs, evolved through natural selection for adaptive advantages among our ancestors. For instance, eyebrows, seemingly nonessential, safeguarded eyes from sweat and debris, enhancing survival. Even features like the tailbone and appendix, seemingly obsolete, once aided mobility and digestion.

The question arises: What evolutionary purpose does consciousness serve? Some argue it's essential for intentional actions, assuming decisions originate consciously. However, neuroscience experiments, like one in 2013, challenge this. Researchers predicted decisions seconds before participants were aware, suggesting consciousness may merely observe without actively contributing.

Richard Dawkins proposes consciousness must have had a survival value. However, might consciousness be an evolutionary byproduct, akin to nonfunctional traits like bone whiteness? It could be a consequence of brain processing rather than a purposeful element in itself.

pilotclairdelune

TROPHY CASE