OS vs ROM— A framework for reconciling Harris and Peterson

Summary:

Consider a three level analogy between a PC and a human brain :

PC Brain 1. Circuits:Logic gates | Neural networks: Neurons <- Harris 2. ROM:BIOS | Subconscious:Archetypes <- Peterson 3. OS:Windows | Consciousness:Value systems <- Harris

Harris, as a neuroscientist and philosopher is most concerned with levels 1 and 3.

Peterson, a psychologist is concerned with level 2.

Harris’s view provides (to my mind) an accurate account of the physical nature of the brain, and how we might proceed from moral axioms (once we have those axioms!) to a scientific approach to acting in line with those axioms

Peterson’s view provides a possible explanation of where those moral axioms, along with ideas of value and meaning might come from.

Peterson’s ideas need to be tested to my mind, but if they’re found to be correct, supplementing Harris with Peterson (if he’s right) would provide:

An explanation as to why religious thinking is so powerful

A guide to achieving meaning in life, even for those who pursue rationality

Insight into how moral axioms could be generated

Reasoning:

As a fan of both Sam Harris and, more recently, Jordan Peterson, the first of their shared podcasts was a little disappointing (as I think both would agree). The second was more positive but I felt that both were a little chastened after their first encounter so fell back to politely stating their own views rather than get into a truly shared understanding.

It’s taken a while but I think I may have stumbled on a way (and thanks to the many contributors to r/samharris and r/jordanpeterson who’ve been invaluable in this) of reconciling their positions into what could be a powerful shared model.

Assumptions (to which both Peterson and Harris seem to ascribe):

There is an external objective reality

At least one definition of truth is ‘closeness to reality’. [I think it’s uncontroversial to assume Harris ascribes to this view, Peterson does use other versions of truth but does, for example in his lectures, use scientific results to back up his points]

Reason and logic are valid ways of establishing truth.

If you reject these assumptions, then the rest of this article is not for you!

Harris’s hypotheses

The human brain is composed only of physical matter which is constrained by the same rules as all other matter in the universe

The conscious brain can run different software eg. islam / christianity / scientific reason or a hybrid. [The analogy here being the ability to run eg. linux or windows on the same hardware]

Reason and logic lead us to the closest possible representation of external reality (ie closest to the truth), which in turn means that reason and logic are the best method of achieving (any) goals

Given some agreed moral assumptions / values / goals, we can conclude that reason and logic are the best way to achieve those goals and in turn optimal outcomes for humanity

What is missing / not addressed / out of scope for Harris that Peterson provides

Harris treats the unconscious mind almost as a black box. We know it takes in sensory inputs and we know that these manifest themselves in the conscious mind. The bit in between is almost considered ‘brain stuff’. Note this isn’t necessarily a criticism.

This leaves us with the question of where do shared values eg ‘compassion’ come from? Not in the evolutionary sense but in the sense of popping into consciousness.

What does human flourishing mean? If we could invent a drug which harmlessly produced euphoria, why would it better to produce a masterpiece than spend one’s life taking that drug?

Human motivation is not something which responds well to reason and logic. We all know that, logically speaking, we should work harder, eat better, drink less and get more exercise. I assume most reading this know that there is a big gap between knowing we should do something and actually doing it.

Peterson’s hypothesis

While we can run different software on the conscious brain, there is an underlying software [analogy to the BIOS of your computer], evolved over millions if not billions of years which is concerned with living in a social environment inside a dangerous natural environment.

This underlying software is built on primitive neural circuits concerned with, among other things: predator avoidance, hunting, procreation, social status, and family relationships. It is these circuits that give us the feeling of meaning, purpose and value in our lives.

If Peterson is correct, understanding these neural circuits and their conscious manifestation (ie archetypes) would neatly fill many of the gaps in the Peterson view.

Where Peterson is (IMO) mistaken

Peterson seems to have gotten the wrong end of the stick when he talks about Darwinian truth. He seems to think that believing in evolution somehow commits one to the belief that ‘what survives is true’.

Darwinism is more concerned with ‘fitness’, it is accurate to say that there is no objective standard of ‘fitness’ in a Darwinian sense other than ‘that which survives’ but neither Darwin nor as far as I am aware any other Darwinist believes this has a bearing on what is true.

Next steps