I don't think we disagree on anything significant here; it's just that I (and perhaps we) disagree with Harris. :)
"Well-being" is a reasonably well-defined word; whether it "exists" isn't imho a very interesting question. Harris tries to sneak in the assumption that everyone is really a utilitarian, by using words like that, but it's cheating.
Does "well-being" have an objective referent that science can tell us about? Probably not; if you and I disagree about whether some particular objectively-described state constitutes well-being, science isn't going to tell us which of us is right.
On the other hand if we agree that a particular objectively-described state constitutes well-being (or misery), but we disagree on how likely a given action is to lead to that state, science can in many cases help us figure out who is more likely to be right.
Scientific knowledge can help us make choices toward particular objectively-described states. It cannot tell us which states correspond to "well-being".
Which is I think what both of us are saying :) but the language can be ambiguous.
I admit I haven't found Wilber's framings all that useful, but then I'm more a synthesizer in style than a categorizer. :) "The It frame is the science frame. But doesn't exist apart from the I and We.": I mean, sure, in a way? But that doesn't really tell me anything. I should probably read him again; it's been literally decades.
