I agree with a lot of what Harris says but I think there is an overlooked element of cultural imperialism like the guy mentions at the end. if for a culture religion plays a huge role why shouldn't their behaviors fit what ensures the benefits of what they believe to be true. Those women Harris talks about clearly don't go around with the same state of mind or consciousness as a western educated woman would if she was in the other womans shoes.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

I now love Sam Harris.

"...if you define an exception, then there is no such thing as moral truth."

The basis of corporal punishment for children isn't explicitly religious/Christian because it exists (or existed) in pretty much every culture around the world. It's more a sign of how advanced a culture is, or how easy life is in that part of the world. The nature of parenting is to expose your offspring to the kind of life that you experienced. That's why first-generation immigrants to America raise their kids in a much more strict manner than second or third-generation immigrants.

It's counterproductive to scapegoat religion instead of look to the source of the issue. Telling third-world cultures to stop using third-world ideologies is like telling obese kids to stop eating too much. The underlying cause of the behavior has yet to be addressed.

^I don't think he was regarding religion as the origin of corporal punishment. Rather, he is suggesting that suffering is not necessary for learning, as is frequently & unfortunately indicated by religion.

can you change the title of this video to "Sam Harris single handedly destroys nihilism"?

^Isn't it more cultural relativism he destroys, or political correctness?

- but we're from different countries, so i guess we'll have to agree to disagree

I got into a discussion with a friend the other night on the dangers of statistics. Eventually, I brought up economic systems and how any economic system makes moral judgments. He disagreed, saying that economics have nothing to do with morals, especially in a capitalist system. I think that argument is somewhat strange, since the lack of moral judgments can be construed as a negative.

So what's my point? That Mr. Harris's talk is exactly why I believe my friend is wrong. I believe there are right and wrong ways to do things and that some things which are regarded to be valid opinions today will, in the future, be perceived as wrong or ignorant by the vast majority of the planet's population...if we survive that long.

>> ^Trancecoach:
^I don't think he was regarding religion as the origin of corporal punishment. Rather, he is suggesting that suffering is not necessary for learning, as is frequently & unfortunately indicated by religion.


At 7:00 he says, "The rationale for this behavior is explicitly religious," regarding corporal punishment for school children. He's either suggesting that religion caused this behavior, or that to defend the behavior, advocates point to religion. I think neither of these are true. I've talked to several conservatives about spanking children and their rationale is that without it their children wouldn't be disciplined enough to succeed in life. I don't agree with them, but it's certainly different than saying "The bible says so."

It seems like he's talking about inventing a new culture with solid moral rules, a transition from "anything goes" secularism to a rules-based secularism. However, culture exists to prepare us for our environment, and there are incompatibilities between certain cultures and certain environments. I would rather we look at it solely based on environment, because that's guaranteed to yield results. When rural or impoverished areas of the Middle East are economically stable and politically stable, it's guaranteed that their Dark Age practices will diminish and disappear in a relatively short amount of time.

Doesn't this talk go against the idea that you don't need a moral rulebook to be morally just? Sam Harris isn't the first guy in the world to get the great idea of making a morality rulebook for everyone to follow. I still think morality is relative, and any attempt to pin it down will be thwarted by time and changes to our environment. It's always worked out that way in the past.

This is absolutely a must-see!!

Cultural imperialism? I guess when a doctor discovers a cure for a disease in the western world they shouldn't go "impose" it on the rest of the world, since that would be cultural imperialism too...

There is nothing imperialist about coming to a scientific conclusion before someone else.

Be careful about which diseases you're talking about. Because, when it comes to mental health, scientific/cultural imperialism seems to be alive and well:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122490928

Obviously when you're talking about a cure for something like Polio (cured) or Malaria, AIDS, etc, it's a different story...but arguments like the one you're making often bleed over into things like mental health when people don't preserve the nuance. You can make "scientific" claims about psychology as well and be horribly wrong. Mr. Harris is talking about more concrete science that will come from more precise study of the brain in the future. If you asked him, I doubt he'd be willing to make moral judgments based on current psych.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

One thing that I have difficulty with is my belief in natural selection. I believe it's true -- but so utterly rational and heartless that I can't easily abide living by its tenents.

Is there morality in natural selection? I think not. Only math and survival.

Mammals under threat will eat their offspring to reclaim the calories and live on to procreate again. Is that much different than the compulsion of the Muslim father to kill his raped daughter - and therefore prevent the inclusion of unwanted genes in his offspring's offspring?

It breaks my heart to think of the biological reasons that drive all life on this planet.

^I don't see any reason to convert any science fact into an ideology that should be followed - like he says, rules & exceptions are all about the context, and our context is so different from offspring-eating animals, governed by their instincts.
We should naturally be aware of our own human nature, our impulses and weaknesses, and formulate a rational morality on that (complicated) basis.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^No, the ideology is just the way we rationalise the horrible things that nature has programmed us to want to do.

I agree, it would be great if we could rise up and master our instinct-driven inclinations. But I'm not sure we can and still be considered human. Everything about us is driven by millions of years of hard-wired evolution. It's baked into us.

Maybe Crake, you could design some little blue people to go live on a beach somewhere - who don't have these flaws.

Solution is simple, stop being human. I, for one, am looking forward to a cybernetic overlords.
>> ^dag:

^No, the ideology is just the way we rationalise the horrible things that nature has programmed us to want to do.
I agree, it would be great if we could rise up and master our instinct-driven inclinations. But I'm not sure we can and still be considered human. Everything about us is driven by millions of years of hard-wired evolution. It's baked into us.
Maybe Crake, you could design some little blue people to go live on a beach somewhere - who don't have these flaws.

^well the crakers' success comes at a price, as you well know. But if you're ready to pay it, I have a funny little browser game about extinct animals you might enjoy

- but in all seriousness, I have a hard time believing in that argument about mankind being hardwired for depravity. There are plenty of examples of depravity, sure, but does it necessarily follow that it was caused by a hardwired blood thirst? In my opinion most of the depraved stuff (like genocide) is caused by tension, ignorance and unfortunate feedback mechanisms between cultures/tribes/individuals.
I don't really believe "evil" exists in real life.

Weakness, shortsightedness, fear and ignorance, sure, but not a priori malice.

inb4 "you ignorant, naive little child, tsk tsk tsk"

I'm still kind of fuzzy on how science is determining the morally correct path here. I get what he says about scanning the brain and finding "peaks" and "valleys," but like the guy at the end pointed out and he even admitted, completely delusional people will be able to achieve those "peak" states even when engaged in actions that would cause "valleys" in the rest of us. How then do we judge the behavior as moral or immoral? His answer is that you have to think about the majority and not an individual case. But isn't that a moral judgment right there? Once you take that step you're no longer relying on science but on an arbitrary proposition that what is good for the majority must be good for everyone. I'm not saying that proposition is necessarily wrong, I'm simply saying that it doesn't come from science and has nothing at all to do with science.

Why does he keep sniffing so deeply?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

There's nothing bloodthirsty or evil about biology and nature - just a cold striving and genetic competition devoid of higher thought. I do think it's a bit naive to think that we could overcome our hormone driven instincts easily.

If a terrorist held a gun to my daughter and also a Nobel Laureate working on a cure for cancer- and told me to pick who dies - you and I both know who my choice would be.

>> ^Crake:

^well the crakers' success comes at a price, as you well know. But if you're ready to pay it, I have a funny little browser game about extinct animals you might enjoy
- but in all seriousness, I have a hard time believing in that argument about mankind being hardwired for depravity. There are plenty of examples of depravity, sure, but does it necessarily follow that it was caused by a hardwired blood thirst? In my opinion most of the depraved stuff (like genocide) is caused by tension, ignorance and unfortunate feedback mechanisms between cultures/tribes/individuals.
I don't really believe "evil" exists in real life.
Weakness, shortsightedness, fear and ignorance, sure, but not a priori malice.
inb4 "you ignorant, naive little child, tsk tsk tsk"

^And choosing to let your daughter live makes you feel like a primitive, hormone-driven animal?

I absolve you of your guilt, my child

I think power is a relevant factor in how shortsighted you can allow yourself to be. if you're king of the world, you'd better think carefully about your decisions, because they will have a huge impact. If you're a regular middle class guy in the western world, none of what you do is probably going to have a very huge (think Augustus Caesar) impact, so you're allowed to just follow the regular old Categorical Imperative and indulge in selfish, instinctual behaivor, ne?

>> ^SDGundamX:
His answer is that you have to think about the majority and not an individual case. But isn't that a moral judgment right there? Once you take that step you're no longer relying on science but on an arbitrary proposition that what is good for the majority must be good for everyone.



I don't think it's about majority vs. minority happiness the way you make it sound. It's not 51% vs. 49%. If you accept his argument at the end regarding the father killing his gay child out of "love", then you must accept that there exists a type of love/empathy that is healthy for a vast majority of a population.

For example, in Turkish, there are two words for love. One is the type of love one feels for their parents, siblings, close friends/community. The other is more like passion/infatuation and would never be used for family/friends. We lack this basic word-based distinction in English, so the idea of love often gets strangely twisted between the multiple types and sometimes requires convoluted explanations of one's feelings. This distinction is important because I believe the former type requires empathy to feel, and the latter type is more instinctual and does not require empathy.

Therefore, if you can argue that empathy is a good survival trait because it creates a stronger nation/culture/etc, then there must be scientific evidence for empathy in the brain and evidence that certain individuals lack empathetic brains for whatever reason.

I don't think he's arguing that "good for the majority = good for everyone" is something that works 100% of the time. Clearly, personal freedom is important, but when personal freedom/morality encroaches on the freedoms of others (such as his argument that culture forces "voluntary" body covering, or the aforementioned father-killing-gay-son argument) it is no longer a good thing for anyone involved.

I get what you're saying, but I still think what he's proposing necessarily forces people to make value judgments that are beyond science. While science can find evidence of empathy in the brain it can't tell us whether such empathy is necessarily good or bad. Say there is a society that is more "empathetic" than another society and that first society is more materially well off. You can't jump to the conclusion that empathy is good for survival, because there are hundreds of variables that affect the wealth of a nation and furthermore correlation does not necessarily mean causation. It could very well be the case that being materially well off creates a more empathetic society (or creates the conditions that allow such a society to arise). Or it could just be a total fluke.

That's what I found unclear in his speech--how exactly is science making value judgments? Science is providing facts about the world, but it still requires human consciousness to interpret those facts in a meaningful way. And people will interpret the facts differently and this will lead to conflict (global warming, the various string theories, etc.). How that conflict is resolved (whether with words or guns, for instance) will depend on a lot of things--including the values of those participating in the conflict. So it seems like a Catch-22 to me. You're using science to try to come up with value judgments about things, but in order to do that you have to make value judgments about the data you've collected. You're right back where you started.

Changing topics a bit here, I find his argument about the Muslim dress code frivolous. He is specifically cherry-picking by using Taliban-style extremely fundamentalist Islam as representative of all Islamic beliefs. It is true that certain Islamic governments have created laws to enforce a power divide between men and women but it is equally true that not all Muslims share this view and that Islamic countries vary widely in what is considered appropriate dress. The Koran itself admonishes both men and women to be modest in their dress and actions. Obviously certain Islamic scholars have ignored the "men" part and focused on the women in order to pursue their own agendas and strengthen their own power. Sam Harris blames religion for this but I blame human nature. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about religion, a political ideology, law, or any other organized system--there will be humans in the world who will attempt to twist and exploit it to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of those they don't care about. The crusade against religion that people like Dawkins and Harris are waging is, in my opinion, a waste of time. If you really want to change the world, find a way to change fundamental human nature.

Ironically, I believe this is the true purpose of religion--to encourage us to change our base desires or harness them for use towards a greater good. For me, whether a God or gods actually exist is irrelevant. If religion can help people to overcome their own innate self-destructive or selfish tendencies and work together for the good of humankind, then it is a useful tool. But all tools can equally be used as weapons. That doesn't mean you get rid of the tool, though. The problems of religion that both Harris and Dawkins talk about aren't problems with religion per se but with how certain people have interpreted religion in ways that are self-serving. I don't think religion needs to be destroyed. But I do agree with Sam Harris that we need to be vigilant against those who would use religion--or any other organized system for that matter--in order to pursue their own ends, and we need to be willing to call a spade a spade and not keep silent for fear of being considered ethnocentric. That's why I have no problem criticizing the Taliban's interpretation of the Koran and Islamic law. It seems to me to be a thinly veiled grab for power and dominance that uses religion as its cover. I could say the same thing about the drive to ban gay marriages in the U.S. or a host of other issues. My point is that these things are not representative of religions as a whole but instead are examples of discrete individuals (mis-)using religions to further their own agendas.

Sorry for writing so much. Took me a while to sort out all my thoughts on the matter. If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

>> ^mgittle:


I don't think it's about majority vs. minority happiness the way you make it sound. It's not 51% vs. 49%. If you accept his argument at the end regarding the father killing his gay child out of "love", then you must accept that there exists a type of love/empathy that is healthy for a vast majority of a population.
For example, in Turkish, there are two words for love. One is the type of love one feels for their parents, siblings, close friends/community. The other is more like passion/infatuation and would never be used for family/friends. We lack this basic word-based distinction in English, so the idea of love often gets strangely twisted between the multiple types and sometimes requires convoluted explanations of one's feelings. This distinction is important because I believe the former type requires empathy to feel, and the latter type is more instinctual and does not require empathy.
Therefore, if you can argue that empathy is a good survival trait because it creates a stronger nation/culture/etc, then there must be scientific evidence for empathy in the brain and evidence that certain individuals lack empathetic brains for whatever reason.
I don't think he's arguing that "good for the majority = good for everyone" is something that works 100% of the time. Clearly, personal freedom is important, but when personal freedom/morality encroaches on the freedoms of others (such as his argument that culture forces "voluntary" body covering, or the aforementioned father-killing-gay-son argument) it is no longer a good thing for anyone involved.

@SDGundamX

I definitely see your point, and yes, I did read your entire post

I'd like to reply in more detail, but I'd rather reply than forget about it completely.

So, look at it this way. If religion has a "true purpose" as you say, then that means you are agreeing that there are fundamental moral truths that exist outside of human nature. You are making the argument that it's better for everyone when humans are a little less human. Mr. Harris is taking that a step further and saying that it's a lot better if we use science as a guide because science can be found to be wrong based on evidence whereas religion, by nature, is very rigid.

IMO he's advocating the same type of rules-based society, but advocating a more flexible evidence-based version, which would (in a situation where good information is as ubiquitous as possible) be more resistant to the types of psychopathic people who tend to take advantage of these systems as you pointed out (taliban, religious right, etc). I agree with you in general that some of these newer atheist advocates like Dawkins and Harris are a little whacky because they seem to be just as ideological as the religious people they want to displace. But, I think Harris is on to something here, regardless of other things he's talked about before.

This you tube channel usually has Sam Harris clips.

http://www.youtube.com/user/FFreeThinker

One of the first channels I subscribed to.

I don't agree at all. The chess example perfectly shows why. Just as he assumes everyone plays chess to win at it, he assumes you can define an objective "right" and "wrong". Most people do play to reach the same goal - to win - but that's not the only way to play. He picks a goal and demonstrates in principle that science can help reach that goal. He does nothing to show that science can tell you what goals are better than others. With science, the question is not "is A better than B", it is "Will A let us do X better than B".

Edit: The more I listen to this guy, the more repulsed I am. It's ideas like this that start genocides.

@rebuilder

I'm not trying to defend everything the guy says, but I think you're simplifying the nuance of his argument a little. He used the simplified example of chess to illustrate a point and then expanded it to another subject, female bodies, which he discussed in much greater detail. In real life, the example of chess would be expanded to include the option of not playing, or something like playing in a way that tries to prove a point to your opponent rather than just to win.

When he presents the argument about the Dalai Llama and Ted Bundy, I don't see how that could make you repulsed. How is it exactly that saying it's possible to be right or wrong about a moral choice naturally leads to genocide in your mind?

Moral decisions don't happen in a vacuum. They happen in a continuum of human existence. They happen in a factual situation. So, imagine your community is starving and you or a friend of yours makes the decision that to kill your/their child to serve the greater good by reducing the number of mouths to feed...or imagine someone who chooses cannibalism like in the movie "Alive". That might normally be considered morally wrong, but in a specific situation it could be considered understandable. Well, we all live in specific situations, and as a global community, that continuum of situations is constantly changing. The only way we can make proper moral judgments is to continually examine our situation and evolve our morals along with the course of human events. Even religions can change when presented with new information (Galileo, evolution), so doesn't that mean that information is affecting our morals? So, why not embrace and study that information which affects us so?

This may be a bit of semantics, but actually I believe it would be better if everyone were a bit more human. I tend to view our selfish and self-destructive tendencies as inhumane, particularly in the results they produce in the world around us, despite the fact that they are a part of our nature. Our humanity--what ultimately separates us from animals--is, I believe, our compassion, our love, our ability to voluntarily sacrifice our own desires or impulses for the good of those around us. So, I don't think I'm really advocating fundamental truths outside of human nature. Rather I am advocating fundamental truths that stem from human nature. I think religion is just one way of trying access or explain those truths. Of course, I believe religion often gets co-opted by people in order to pursue other goals, but I'll stand by my statement above that the same is true of any organized system--including science. I think the current debate raging about global warming is a perfect example of how science can be just as easily co-opted to support alternative agendas. Politicians, corporations, and even entire nations are twisting the facts that science produces to further their own ambitions. Please note, I'm not making an argument here for or against global warming. I'm merely making the observation that science can be co-opted just as easily as religion. This, to me, undercuts Harris's argument that science can somehow come to any sort of moral conclusion or that it is somehow superior to religion in discovering moral truths.

@SDGundamX

I've seen stuff recently on one of those BBC documentaries about the planet regarding compassion in animals. I don't have a specific example or reference, but I remember being surprised at seeing examples like these:

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70self_sacrifice_sci14.php

Sure, you can argue that because of our bigger brains, humans have more complex morals, but many of them stem from the same things other animals already do. We just happen to have the capacity to think about them objectively if we're in a reflective mood.

I agree that what you've pointed out is the weakness in Harris's argument during this talk. However, I think if you gave him more time or presented what you've just said to him, he would have plenty to say. I don't think science is quite as easily co-opted. Religion, in my experience, continues to fragment. New denominations continuously pop up, and people constantly re-define what their religion means to them, which is very natural to do. But, it's kind of wonky because establishing a belief system that ignores this very human trait (constant redefinition based on new information) is fairly naive. On the other hand, I see science as having converging properties since it is based on fact and by its very nature admits it is never 100% certain of anything.

People VERY MUCH enjoy certainty. They follow leaders and invest in companies who say they have "vision" and who claim to know what to do and how to plan for the future. The problem is, nobody knows what will happen in the future, and as our world gets more and more interconnected and complex, our ability to predict gets even worse than impossible...and the more certain we are about how things will play out, the more devastated we will be when we're inevitably wrong. The problem with science is that it has the courage to say "I don't know", whereas most people automatically follow leaders (both religious and political) who give them confidence and have all the answers. Then, people are always surprised and disillusioned when the predictions are wrong.

I'm not surprised.

Dawkins on Sam Harris' website: “I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. To my surprise, The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me.”

Does Richard Dawkins now believe there is objective moral truth?

Does he now believe in a ‘real’ good?

Maryann Spikes
San Francisco Apologetics Examiner

I don't think there is objective moral truth, only when we take in a specific viewpoint there can be an objective answer, for instance "What is best for man kind?" that may very well clash with other view points. To find a real objective moral truth "what is best" is impossible. In my opinion, anyway.

We can go beyond what a person wants, and figure out what he needs and in certain issues we can make a nice bell curve of opinions and choose the most accepted one as a viewpoint and objectively work from there, but that is not the "best, objective, moral way", it's a "I want X", "I want Z", "let's compromise and get Y" and no one is happy.

@gwiz665 Did you even watch the video? Doesn't seem like it, since the picture he repeatedly showed of the "moral landscape" clearly illustrated (and he explained) that it's not about one single answer above all others. You've vastly oversimplified the idea. You're saying X vs. Z, but it's more like saying W X Y and Z are all valid options whereas A B C and D exist but are inferior and to be avoided.

I don't think anyone suggested anything like making bell curves of anything. Bell curves are an abomination when you try to apply them to anything like real life. They make people certain of things it's impossible to be certain about. They're only good for predicting things within the models that produce them. Worst statistical tool ever.

@mgittle: My argument was intentionally simplified, because it was, well, easier to explain. But yeah, a bell curve was probably the wrong example to use.

An objective truth suggests that there is one optimal answer that is true for everyone. The moral landscape suggest that there are many, subjective answers, which can be measured and compared against each other, objectively, and that we that way can find an optimal answer. Finding more than one optimal answer is quite rare indeed, when we're talking about issues as complex as morality. Morality is always about weighing things against each other and as long as people's values are different, different outcomes will come.

Harris suggests that science can map out objective values, I'm not certain that it can. It can certainly map out values, but they're always from a point of view. Sure, it will inherently be a reasonable point of view, but that doesn't make it objective or, for lack of a better word, gospel truth.

Now, I'm not saying science can say nothing about morality, because I think it can and should, I'm just saying that I'm not sure science, or anything else, can find an objective truth about morality, because I don't think there is one. It can only find a very reasonable morality tempered by our societal norms. (god, I sound like a liberal hippie..)

Another question, if we assume that science can map out a moral landscape in this way, are we certain that it's something we actually want? What if the "real" morality was vastly different from our own? That would suck.

Gwiz using bad examples to illustrate his point? Never!

@blankfist Not my fault people can't keep up.

@mgittle:
Not to get into semantics too much, but the word "moral" comes from the latin "mores", meaning the generally accepted customs of a society. Morality is what people fall back on when reasonable argument fails. Reasonable people do disagree on a lot of issues, sometimes quite radically. I believe killing is usually immoral, yet it is quite possible to imagine a person truly believing it is OK to kill others, in a wider variety of circumstances than I might find acceptable. I can, of course, provide any number of rational arguments for my point of view, but so can the other person, and in some cases the conflict is simply irresolvable. Our moral views differ. In some cases, no amount of reason can change that, it is the essence of morals - they are the customs you grow up with, the societal norms you accept from outside, usually coming from some kind of higher authority, whether it is a deity, a strong leader or simply the society itself as a conglomerate.

What makes genocide possible is our ability to dehumanize others. I feel having a strong sense of morality makes this easier, not harder, because morality in general has a strong component of groupthink to it, which combined with the kinds of us-versus-them situations genocides usually rise from can be quite dangerous. If you believe you are right, not just in some rational sense, but also in a moral sense, then is it not your duty to do everything you can to eradicate opposition to your views?

That extreme consequence of the logic of morality is what makes my hair stand on end whenever I hear people proposing some kind of system for determining right or wrong. Mr. Harris, I'm sure, has the very best of intentions, but people en masse tend to latch on to certainties a bit too much. I admit I may be getting caught up too much on semantics here - if we were talking about ethics, a more personal kind of judgment, I would probably largely agree with what is being said. Trying to apply reason to find out for oneself what the best way to live one's life would be is a wonderful idea. Trying to use reason to figure out the best way for others to live theirs, less so. Not because reason is bad, but because you end up telling others what to do, and that is damn hairy business. So I guess I'm arguing for less morals, more ethics.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who found this more than a little unsettling.

Maybe in the fully drawn out theory in the book it sounds a little less scary, but I got the distinct impression that this was yet another person traipsing down the path toward saying "I'm the one who understands morality, so do what I say".

I would agree with the basic premise that there do seem to be right and wrong answers to moral questions, but that's because we've got existing moral viewpoints, and none of us truly feel that our morals are subjective.

I think the worst suffering in the world has happened when a group of people got it into their head that they knew with absolute certainty what's right and what's wrong.

He really, really sounded like what he wanted to do was say to people "we're right, Islam is wrong, so let's go liberate these people from their wrongheaded beliefs!"

I think for the word "science" to really come into play there has to be some level at which you can make observations, develop hypotheses, and then test them. He didn't really give us a hint as to how you would actually work on developing scientific mores, he mostly just gave us a litany of examples where A is something we agree is good, and B is something we agree is bad, and then said that therefore there are absolute right and wrong answers to moral questions because we all instinctively agreed on which was good and which was bad.

"We" of course meaning the kind of people who watch TED talks...

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.