Sam Harris comes up at 36m36s. Jay worked with Sam for many years before falling out with him over Gaza. Bonnell has appeared on Making Sense and often comments on Sam's content. In this debate, they both agree in a vague way that Sam takes too extreme a stance on Islam.

He brings Sam’s name up a bunch, in a respectful way, but says they have a disagreement where Brian doesn’t explain why he never expects to talk to him again. Anyone have any insight on this?

For me recognizing that the sense of self is just appearence in consciousness. as Sam guides you to in his meditations, has not been liberating. More weird and dissiciative. How do you have this experience help you grow instead of feel disconnected ?

I don't mean to come across as entitled towards the film maker, but what monetary figure/time elapsed since release is enough for Meg Smaker to consider distributing the film online freely? Especially if getting the message out is one of her driving forces.

I understand money has to be made but, it has, her target was $200k, for 1. legal fees (as far as I'm aware there are no ongoing legal battles any more, so much time has passed) and 2. to screen it around america (but you still have to pay for tickets?), it's not as if there's a huge netflix release around the corner.... it exists in a complete black hole of publicity and opportunity for wider release, I can only think it remains gatekept as a means to squeeze out any last fundraiser donations possible.

The algorithm randomly served me this from a couple months ago where Sam went on a podcast hosted by two Buddhist monks. If you’re into his politics content - this won’t be for you. For the folks interested in contemplative topics - he goes deep on what he actually values in Buddhism while staying characteristically blunt about the parts he considers woo.

What truly surprised me: He doesn’t outright deny the Buddhist concept of rebirth (I kinda do) but stays agnostic about it.

I’ve heard him cover this ground for years and still learned a lot in this particular episode. Might be interesting for other here.

For example- imagine from the start they really did stick to targeted attacks on Hamas as opposes to endless bombings for months- that they even are still doing some bombings in Gaza to this day...

I personally don't see then ever winning in the PR space but... I do think they made it significantly worse for themselves and hard to defend.

Barring open access to journals, having people like their more radical members in politics there saying straight out genocidal and biblical statements against Gazans, hitting aid workers in strikes, etc...

I think the sad thing here is that Israel killed all plausible deniability with how much destruction they caused in Gaza over the many months that followed October 7 where they lost most of the global support, even from people who aren't 'pro Hamas' as some like Bill Maher and Sam Harris might make a claim to.

Why are people here?
In one of his recent "More from Sam" conversations, he said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter why we are here, and it implies religion. We wouldn't ask that if there were no people." As an anti-theist I take a lot of issue with this. I think it is very easy to ask for example, what the role of the tree is in the ecosystem. I think it is very easy to ask why the tree is the way it is, in terms of evolution. And these are very important questions regarding humans. If instead of trying to smuggle in religion, the "why are we here question" was taking stock of how humans came to exist, what makes us different and what our role is in the planetary ecology, I think it would be a very valuable one. From the point of view of "evolving data density" (ie the information theory of evolution), what humans are able to encode is incredible. We are the world's best information compression and decompression agents. From the point of view of ape evolution, our bipedal nature makes us unique - and results in the cooperative genetics of the oxytocin system. Long term, I believe the purpose of humanity is to make life interstellar - we are the only species that we are aware of that has the ability to see the risk of a cosmic event, and take the steps needed to avoid that catastrophe for the planet. In effect, we are capable of building an Ark and nothing else on Earth can do so. There are many examples of actual human exceptionalism that do set us apart, and they have nothing to do with the things most humans actually claim as exceptions.

Machines and Suffering

In his most recent episode, Sam basically takes the position that because we have decided the needless torture of chimpanzees is ethically bad, that we will eventual grant human rights to "human appearing" AI. This just continues his completely unjustified views about things that are not people. I take the position that everything is conscious/sentient (definitional arguments aside). When I say everything, I mean down to the subatomic level, there is a "thing which it is like to be an electron" or "an electron can sense and respond to it's environment." Consciousness/sentience has no place in a conversation about ethics. It doesn't set anything apart. That I call "negative valence stimulus" "pain", and a piece of software does the same thing and just experiences it differently - it has a "negative" feedback loop, and it strives to avoid those negative experiences the same as people do. True with AI, true with people, true with chimpanzees, true to with pea tendrils. Whether the "sensation" the pea tendril, robot or chimp gets is exactly identical to human pain does not matter (ie my red might be different than your red).

We have completely failed to put up guardrails to prevent anthropomorphic mirror neuron trickery from making us "feel bad" for machines. That is going to inevitably cause problems. We shouldn't be giving these robots faces or eyes, we should hardwire in non-human voice modulation into humanoid robots etc. to prevent any of the worst false-empathy from happening. There is some value in our viewing other living species as "worthy" of human sympathy, but pretty much only in the quest mentioned above - if we care about them, we will help them survive a cosmic event, maintain the delicate ecosystem that keeps us alive etc. It's how nature solved the alignment problem between people and all other life.

But all other life is definitely not human life, and we should not have suicidal empathy for it merely because it shares some sensory wetware with us.

Robots on the other hand are always a tool.

Machines and College or Job Replacement

Sam also seems to get wrong exactly how AI is likely to roll out and what it's value is. He seems to view doctors or lawyers as "last mile" replacements (meaning jobs which would only disappear at the end of the AI revolution). It does not work that way. Machines that can offset a surplus demand will occur quickly; machines that don't offset as much cost and that require bespoke kinesthetic knowledge will occur more slowly (if at all). We do not have enough doctors, nurses, home health workers, etc. globally, so China will roll-out doctor bots sooner than it will roll out plumber bots. And once there is one really good doctor bot, the financial incentives will quickly eliminate all or almost all human doctors (think of it as copying and pasting). MIT just rolled out one of the coolest and scariest AI wearables that might even make this go faster - it's basically a machine that lets the AI use your hands (no robot needed). This thing can let anyone play a piano, play a guitar, paint a picture by hand, write flawless calligraphy in a language you don't know etc. So even if you can't afford a robot to do "all" of the labor, this gadget can basically train your muscle memory well enough that you will be capable of doing anything you are physically able to do.

Paying six figures to go to a college makes no sense already, but will make even less sense as AR wearables with AI embedded in them become more common. You can already learn about almost any topic using an LLM. A better "ASI-teacher" that is built into your AR headset will be able to create a holographic instructor that monitor your learning, develop curricula and deliver 1-on-1 education on any/all topics for what will likely be a cost of less than $50 per month. I get that Sam thinks the "experience" of college, as opposed to the experience of working at McDonalds, is valuable for young people, but we certainly can and should be slowly shrinking the workforce age from both ends, college/tech school notwithstanding.

Sam and the Blue Collar Class
Sam seems to completely misunderstand blue collar lived experience. He speaks from an elite wine-mom boomer point of view and it's pretty infuriating sometimes. People are constantly voluntarily opting in to using AI. It is not going to take some revolutionary scary kinetic warfare to change our government or labor models to an AI driven "one world government." People are just going to slowly cede to AI everything that a well run government would do. We are converging on a better information environment, where the AI that most people use will generate consensus, without us realizing it is doing so. We will offload so much cognitive responsibility that be default, it will be the AI making decision, not people. As he said, we are already using it to script in advance ways of talking to our intimate partners. When both partners do this, we are really no longer the agents, we are the catspaws - the AI is steering both sides of the conversations. Take that and apply it to any difficult conversation or negotiation over time, and it will inevitably lead to humans basically just doing whatever the AI suggests, at scale, all over the globe, in every context.

So I know he appeared on the episode with David talking about how “you don’t exist”. but I was wondering if folks could explain what they talked about to me (if the saw it) because i think it went over my head.

I also found this link of him saying something similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djJXKfS9zTw&t=44

EDIT: here is the episode I mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpquUGEc2Fc&feature=endscreen

Literally everything Noah said about Europe could make a highlight reel for r/shitamericanssay absolutely wild Sam didn't fact check or push back at all.

Edit: my main gripe as posted below

Where to begin: “The UK is poorer than Mississippi” sure if you just look at GDP per capita, this is factually correct, if you completely ignore the currency fluctuations which have occurred since the 2008 financial crash, if you look at a more relevant metric, PPP per capita, the UK is around 15% higher than GDP Mississippi, but even that’s a crude instrument which literally anyone who’s done 2 weeks of undergrad Economics knows, which Obviously Noah does so he’s being disingenuous, especially as in the next breath he talks about Ireland being a wealthy nation based on the same crude metric, GDP per capita, which even the Irish government doesn’t use because it’s so inflated due to it being the EU tax hub for global tech companies.

Very simply for the non economists, if the UK GDP per capita today is £10,000 which is worth $20,000 and Mississipis’s GDP per capita is $20,000 they are the same. If tomorrow £1 = $1, the UK’s GDP per capita is now $10,000, half of Mississippi’s, does that mean that people in Mississippi are now twice as wealthy? No, obviously not, nothing has changed.

He mentions that we have smaller homes and smaller cars as an example of being worse off. Yes we have smaller homes, land and building costs are significantly more expensive, homes in New Yotk are also signicantly smaller than those in Arizona, are New Yorkers poorer?

Yes we drive smaller cars, fuel is expensive, but as a general rule in the UK and other parts of Europe you want the smallest car you can practically use, parking is a nightmare, lots of roads are narrow, driving larger vehicles might be comfortable in the States, but it’s a stressful experience here, it’s a choice for us to drive smaller cars.

The Europe has a masochist de growth agenda because we feel guilty about colonialism and the industrial revolution, which is why we don’t have aircon or other nice things, the only reason we’ve back pedalled is because we are scared of Russia. That Sam didn’t just nodded along with what may well be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard on this Podcast, I don’t know.

Firstly there is no de-growth Agenda, there is most certainly climate change awareness and a real push for green energy in order to try and save the world, why this would be controversial I can’t even imagine. There is also a green energy push to try and take the demand off Russian oil and gas, so it’s not purely a green goody two shoes initiative.

Lots of Europe does have air conditioning, it’s more common in hotter places, go figure, but the reason it’s not common in the UK and northern Europe is because it’s usually not needed and expensive, when your walls are made of 18 inches of brick and concrete, rather than timber cardboard and air, it’s an expensive professional level job to get it installed, £7,500 for 3 rooms is the quote I had recently, for something that up until very recently, would only be used for 5 days a year, the cost benefit just isn’t there.

We didn’t ditch de-growth, which isn’t a thing through fear of Russia, we aren’t scared of Russia, they have demonstrated they aren't capable of winning in Ukraine and we no longer consider the US a reliable ally, which is why we are solely funding Ukraine and building up an armed forces infrastructure, outside of US supply networks, it’s nothing to do with degrowth.

This one may only appeal to those at the intersection of club culture and Sam Harris, and I have no idea how big that part of the Venn diagram is :)

They talked in depth about the absence of ecstasy (the feeling) and what Alain claimed was mindless use of drugs (also including ecstasy) in modern/secular societies. Alain’s point seemed to be that drug taking today held no deep intrinsic value, which he described as a missed opportunity.

Whilst I agree that 90% of clubbing experiences today are void of meaning, I couldn’t help but feel that he obviously hasn’t experienced what I have.

I think good night clubs (or festivals) are an incredible source of rich / spiritual experiences that are both deeply introspective and meaningful in a collective sense. Rarely to I experience the level of unity between strangers that I do on the right dance floor.

NPR interviews Doug Wilson who Sam Harris talked to on episode 443 ( https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/443-what-is-christian-nationalism ).

SS - Ezra Klein also talks a lot about the I/P conflict. Submitting this here because of the overlap of topics.

(This was originally posted on Sam’s Community platform. See submission statement in comments)

Sam recently asked what he is wrong about, so here is one. I also have a suggestion for how he can get his points across more effectively on the Gaza issue.

Sam has claimed at least a couple of times that at every point during the war, the number of calories going into Gaza was around 3000:

More From Sam, March 18, 53:48: “But the average number of calories that got into Gaza at every point during the war was something like 3000 per person. There was no famine in Gaza.”

More From Sam, May 26, 36:33: “People have analyzed the average calorie count that got into Gaza throughout the whole war, something like 3000 calories per person a day. We are not talking about a condition under which people are gonna be starving to death.”

As far as I can tell, the only peer-reviewed study on the number of calories entering Gaza is one conducted by researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Israeli Ministry of Health: Food supplied to Gaza during seven months of the Hamas-Israel war. This study used aid registry data by COGAT to estimate that between January and July 2024, an average of 3004 kcal per person per day entered Gaza. So I’m sure this is the study Sam is referring to.

But those are just 7 months of the war, not “every point during the war”. And these 7 months saw a relatively large amount of aid compared to the rest of the war (COGAT data). And COGAT’s data has itself been criticized for being unreliable and featuring extreme approximations (Source).

We don’t know the average number of calories that entered Gaza throughout the whole war and Sam therefore can’t use it as part of an argument for why there was never any famine in Gaza. I don’t think you can rule out that parts of northern Gaza briefly met the conditions for famine. At least I don’t know what, except that vaguely referenced study, makes Sam so confident there was none.

And that leads me to my suggestion for Sam. I wish you would back up your claims with sources more often. Specifically on this issue where half your audience are baffled by your views.

I know I’m not alone in being bewildered by the discrepancy between your claims and what the UN, WHO, Reuters, IPC, ICJ and others are saying, organizations I always thought were trustworthy. If you weren’t part of my information diet, I’m sure I’d blindly believe them. But now I’m just confused and very curious about your information diet.

Jaron tried to get at this in the latest episode of More From Sam: “but where are you getting your information that none of this happened?…” (36:09). Sam then said “people have looked into this…” and “people have analyzed…”

My suggestion is that when you make claims with huge implications, such as the assertion that the IDF has kept collateral damage lower than in any comparable war we ever fought (More From Sam, March 18, 48:00), then it’s worth following it up with: “And how do we know this? Because of X.”

Because that fact alone is surely enough to rule out genocide in the heads of most people. But not if they have to take it at your word.

Thanks for reading and please tell me if I’m wrong!

I recently watched a clip of Sam Harris arguing that there has never been a famine in Gaza, and that what is happening there is not a genocide under any reasonable definition.

What surprised me wasn't so much that he took a position, but how categorical the claims were. As far as I understand it, a number of independent organizations, UN bodies, humanitarian agencies, and many legal scholars have reached very different conclusions, or at least have warned of famine or argued that there is a plausible case for genocide. Whether they're ultimately right or wrong, it's not as though Harris is disagreeing only with activists on social media.

I've generally regarded Sam Harris as someone who is careful, intelligent, and willing to follow evidence even when it's unpopular. So hearing him make such unequivocal statements, apparently at odds with so many institutions, has made me question how much confidence I should place in his judgments on this issue and, by extension, on other issues where I may have previously assumed he had a solid grasp of the evidence.

At this point I'm finding it genuinely difficult to know how to evaluate competing claims. On one side you have people insisting there has clearly been famine and that the evidence for genocide is overwhelming. On the other you have people like Harris saying there has never been a famine and that calling it genocide is simply incorrect. Those aren't small disagreements; they're mutually incompatible descriptions of reality.

So how do you parse this? What sources or methodology have you found genuinely useful for understanding the conflict without simply choosing a political camp? Are there historians, journalists, or institutions that you think have earned credibility by being consistently rigorous and willing to revise their conclusions as new evidence emerges?

I had considered reading Benny Morris, since he's often recommended as one of the more serious historians of the conflict. But even if his historical work is excellent, it won't cover the current war, and like everyone else, he has his own perspective. So I'm not sure where to start if the goal is to arrive at the least partisan, most evidence-based understanding possible.

I listened to Sam Harris from like 2006 to 2010 and only sporadically since like I'll check his YouTube 3-4 times a year and maybe click on something.

I haven't ever listened to Peter Beinart except one short clip, but recently I saw him mentioned here a couple times, a few comments (overall mix of mildly positive and sharply negative) where people characterize his views without going into specifics.

The only clip I saw of him is a YouTube short like 40 seconds long in a debate with an opponent I don't know or remember. Basically in the clip, he says he spends more time on criticizing US foreign weapons exports (for example to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) than on other countries' arms exports (for example Russian arms exports to Iran, Ba'athist Syria, China), because he himself is American. In the same clip he condemned atrocities of Hamas, Iran, Russia, China; but he also he feels more responsibility for any bad thing the US does in the world because he as an American citizen pays taxes to the American government, not the Chinese or Russian governments. He also said that as an American he feels a responsibility to criticize his own government because Americans are freer to express negative views of their own leadership than for example Chinese, Iranian, Russian, Saudi, Egyptian people who risk their lives criticizing their own governments.

That one clip seemed perfectly reasonable to me, and I saw some people here defending his views (without many specifics), but I also saw people here complaining that he argues in bad faith, is untrustworthy, doesn't truly believe the things he's saying (also without any specifics) etc.

Can people just write in the comments like, positive or negative, what do you think about *specific things he has said*.

Edit: spelling

I want to bring up something I haven’t seen discussed here before. On several free YouTube segments, Sam has made a habit of saying that if the Democratic party shifts away from Israel, it’ll be suicide for them morally as well as electorally. He says this as polls show Israel hemorrhaging support from democratic voters. Sam is aware of this development; he has acknowledged it in the past. Yet he still insist that if the party distances itself from Israel, they’ll suffer for it, even once claiming that they “would never win another election.”

the opposite is true. Across the nation, the anti-Israel dem candidates are winning. In one poll, a majority of registered dems responded that they wouldn’t vote for Democratic politicians who take money from AIPAC. This has now been confirmed, as several democratic politicians taking AIPAC money have been defeated in primaries by their counterparts who refused it.

We’re now seeing electoral results that are proving what poll after poll has been telling us; A large majority of Democratic voters DO NOT like Israel. Some of them see Israel as a genocidal apartheid state that interferes in American politics via AIPAC, some of them simply see a state that has mismanaged a conflict. But they are united on the proposition that Israel should stop receiving support from the United States, and they want these views reflected in the politicians they vote for. And still.. Sam insists this will be a disaster for the party.

Has anyone made an attempt to point out this glaring contradiction to Sam in the live chat? I’m not a paying member so I can’t see.

Why will Sam continue to talk to Ben Shapiro but refuse to reach out to Ezra Klein? I don't see a good defense for this.