Podcast Summary
Exploring the Foundations of Morality: Physicist David Deutsch challenges Sam Harris' perspective on morality, emphasizing the substrate independence of information and knowledge, and questioning the connection between knowledge and moral truths.
In this podcast episode, Sam Harris and physicist David Deutsch discuss the foundations of morality. The conversation came about after David read Harris' book, "The Moral Landscape," and wanted to share his disagreements with Harris privately. However, Harris urged him to record the conversation for potential public release. The resulting podcast is a raw Skype call with some cuts, and while the audio quality is not ideal, the conversation is worth listening to for those interested in Harris' thesis and Deutsch's unique perspective. The conversation delves into the connection between knowledge, information, and morality, with Deutsch's views on the substrate independence of information and knowledge influencing their discussion on the wrongness of coercion. Despite not directly discussing their scientific work, the background influence of their views on physics and knowledge make for an intriguing exchange. Listeners are encouraged to first listen to Harris and Deutsch's previous conversation, "Surviving the Cosmos," for context.
Navigating through a sea of inconsistent ideas: Philosopher David Deutsch challenges the traditional view of knowledge as something systematically constructed, suggesting instead that it's about making inconsistent ideas consistent through conjecture.
According to philosopher David Deutsch, knowledge and thinking are not about building up consistent ideas from scratch or from external sources, but rather about navigating through a sea of inconsistent ideas and trying to make them consistent through conjecture. This perspective challenges the traditional view of knowledge as something that is constructed systematically. Additionally, Deutsch suggests that Sam Harris' book on morality was not primarily driven by intellectual reasons, but rather by a desire to defend civilization against existential threats such as moral relativism and religious dogmatism. Harris aimed to establish the intellectual space for defending the belief in moral truths, which he argues can exist and be right or wrong.
Morality and values can be discovered through reason: The speaker advocates for a moral theory based on reason and science, acknowledging the possibility of being wrong and the existence of new truths to discover.
Morality and values, like facts, exist on the same footing and can be discovered through reason, which is a method similar to that of science. The speaker's intellectual purpose in developing a moral theory was driven by morally-motivated desires and the belief in objective right and wrong. However, they do not view their current moral intuitions as infallible or the foundation of their theory. Instead, they acknowledge the possibility of being wrong and the existence of a horizon of truths yet to be discovered. The disagreement between them lies in the proposed foundation for moral theory, with the speaker advocating for a foundation based on science, particularly neuroscience.
Moral truths are equal to scientific truths: The speaker argues that moral truths and scientific truths should be considered equally valid and factual, despite the differences in their methods of discovery.
Morality and truth claims related to morality should be considered on par with other types of truth claims, such as those made in science. The speaker argues that while the methods used to establish truths in morality and science may differ, the claims themselves are equally valid and factual. He uses the example of John F. Kennedy's state of mind before his assassination to illustrate that there are facts about subjective experiences that can be known even if we cannot directly access the data. Additionally, the speaker distinguishes between two types of objectivity: one in which the truths of a field are a subset of truths about another field (e.g., chemistry being a subset of physics), and another in which the truths exist independently (e.g., the existence and properties of integers). The speaker suggests that morality falls into the second category, as the truths about morality are not reducible to truths about other fields, but exist as independent truths.
Objective truths vs. subjective experiences in morality: Objective truths exist independently, while morality is rooted in subjective experiences and their influencing factors.
Objective truths, like those in physics, exist independently of human minds and can be discovered, while subjective truths, like experiences and emotions, depend on conscious minds. Morality falls into the realm of subjective experiences and their influencing factors, such as neurotransmitters, neurons, economic systems, and social structures. While objective reality can be discussed without the presence of a human mind, the ultimate goal in discussing morality is to understand and enhance conscious states and well-being. The ontological distinction between objective and subjective truths can be useful but may not be the most relevant aspect when discussing morality. Instead, it's essential to explore the material and social requirements that influence conscious experiences and morality's role in shaping them.
Beyond the Physical: Abstract Concepts and Conscious Systems: Abstract concepts like integers and subjective experiences are part of reality, and science can study their relationship to human well-being. Laws governing these concepts are substrate-independent, but the nature of consciousness remains debated
Reality encompasses various aspects beyond just the physical world we perceive. This includes abstract concepts like integers and the subjective experiences of conscious systems. While some argue that these abstract concepts exist independently of material reality, others believe they emerge from it. Science, as we use the term, can be applied to these abstract concepts and their relationship to human well-being, leading to fields like neurophilosophy and epistemology. Interestingly, the laws governing these abstract concepts are substrate-independent, meaning they apply regardless of the physical substrate they are instantiated in. However, the debate continues on whether consciousness is an emergent property of information processing or a distinct constituent of physical reality.
Actions shape our theories and vice versa: Our actions have far-reaching consequences, affecting not just ourselves but others and their interpretations of experiences. Balancing individual autonomy and long-term benefits is crucial.
Our actions, even if they seem insignificant, have far-reaching consequences. Morality isn't just about following rules, but about being part of a universal machine that shapes our theories and theories that try to be universal. When we lie or commit crimes, we change not just the external world, but ourselves. This change, in turn, affects those around us. The interpretation and value of our experiences are heavily influenced by the conceptual frames around them. While respecting human rights and consent is crucial, there may be instances where unpleasant experiences can be beneficial. The key is to strike a balance between individual autonomy and potential long-term benefits. Ultimately, our actions and experiences shape who we are and impact those around us.
Extreme experiences lead to growth, but ethics matter: Extreme experiences can foster growth, but ethical considerations are crucial to ensure consent and human rights are respected during the process.
Extreme experiences, even those that involve hardships and challenges, can lead to significant psychological and physical growth. This growth can be seen in individuals who have undergone rigorous training, such as Navy Seal training. However, it's important to consider the ethical implications of exposing individuals to such experiences, especially when consent and human rights are involved. The principle of consent and human rights should not be disregarded, but should be balanced with the potential for growth and the possibility of correction if a theory is found to be false. Ultimately, the goal is to promote human flourishing and move towards better experiences, while leaving room for refinement and fallibilism. Consent is a fundamental feature of handling ideas and ensuring that growth is ethical and beneficial for all involved.
Impact of unpleasant experiences on people's perception: Manipulating unpleasant experiences to increase compliance or perceived benefit can backfire, negatively impacting individuals' perception and willingness to cooperate.
Enforcing an idea on someone who disagrees, or subjecting them to an unpleasant experience under the guise of it being beneficial, can actually hinder progress and negatively impact their perception of the situation. The Nobel Prize-winning research on colonoscopies is an example of this. The study found that people's judgments about their experiences were largely influenced by the peak intensity and end of the experience. Leaving the apparatus in for an unnecessary time at the end, despite being unpleasant and medically unnecessary, actually reduced their reported suffering and increased their willingness to return for future procedures. However, it's important to note that deceiving someone about the necessity of the procedure could potentially undermine the placebo effect. It's crucial to find alternative ways to encourage compliance and improve experiences that don't rely on enforcing ideas or prolonging unpleasantness.
Misinformed Consent in Medical Experiments: People's consent in medical experiments might not be valid if they're unaware of the placebo's true nature, leading to ethical dilemmas and disputes.
The concept of informed consent in medical experiments is more complex than it seems. While people may appear to consent when they're unaware of the placebo's true nature, it doesn't necessarily mean their consent is valid. The speaker argues that such individuals might not truly understand what they're agreeing to, and their consent could be considered misinformed. However, it's important to note that not everyone's perception of reality or ethical standards aligns with the majority. In such cases, it might be necessary to limit their influence on public policy and interpersonal relationships. Overall, the goal is to maintain institutions and relationships that resolve disputes peacefully and without coercion.
Measuring the quality of institutions by their ability to resolve disputes: Institutions that rely on coercion are considered irrational, and their quality should be judged by their effectiveness in resolving disputes between people.
Institutions that rely on coercion to enforce their rules or beliefs are considered irrational. Sam Harris argues that the quality of an institution should be measured by its ability to effectively resolve disputes between people. He acknowledges that no institution perfectly achieves this, but it should be the standard by which they are judged. Listeners who want to access more of Sam Harris's conversations can subscribe to his podcast, Making Sense, at samharris.org. The podcast is ad-free and relies on listener support, offering access to full-length episodes, bonus content, and AMAs.
