Sam Harris WTF?

[linwood]

I just started read The End of Faith and it`s always exciting and empowering when you read a book that espouses a viewpoint that you yourself have slowly and painfully formed .
It`s even better when the author is able to put thoughts feelings and worldviews in black & white in a manner far more coherently than you yourself have ever been able to analyse them.

Then I came to page 40....


A variety of techniques, ranging from the practice of meditation to the use of psychedelic drugs, attest to the scope and plasticity of human experience.....

Ok, I can buy this...barely.
He continues


For millennia, contemplatives have known that ordinary people can divest themselves of the feeling that they call "I" and thereby relinquish the sense that they are seperate from the rest of the universe.

Ok, I can`t relate as I can never recall feeling that I was seperate from the universe but religiousity shows me that many people do so maybe this is just something I personally have no experience of..
He continues.


This phenomenon, which has been reported by practitioners in many spiritual traditions, is supported by a wealth of evidence-neuroscientific, philisophical,and introspective.Such experiences are "spiritual" or "mystical" for want of better words....

I have a better word, "neurological", but I digress...


in that they are relatively rare(unnecessarily so),significant (in that they uncover genuine facts about the world), and are personally transformative.

Personally transformative?
I have no doubt.
Uncovering "genuine facts"?
No fucking way.
Thats where he lost me..what facts does meditation or the use of psychedelic drugs uncover about the reality of the world?
It would seem to me any "facts" discovered in this manner would be highly subjective if not non-existent...yes, yes, all facts are subjective but these even moreso considering the state of mind when they are "discovered".


They also reveal a far deeper connection between ourselves and the rest of the universe than is suggested by the ordinary confines of our subjectivity.


I`m totally lost now.
It seems to me I might as well be reading Benny Hinn.
WTF is he talking about?

He goes on on page 41 about there being ...


.."a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science

What body of data?
WTF is he talking about?
He references this "data"..


D.Radin, "The Conscious Universe:Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena"
R.Sheldrake, "The Sense of Being Stared At: And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind"
R.S. Bobrow,"Paranormal Phenomenoa in the Medical Literature Sufficient Smoke To warrant a Search for Fire."


Then the kicker is this...

There may even be some credible evidence for reincarnation. See I.Stevenson, Twenty Cases Suggestive of reincarnation....

..."Where reincarnation and Biology Intersect"

Has anyone read any of these references?
Reincarnation?!!
What is he talking about?

Very odd behaviour for a man who is lauded as one of the foremost skeptics today.

Any mistakes in spelling, punctuation, or typos are mine not the books as I typed it myself.

[Breath]

Ok, I can buy this...barely.

From which point of view are you casting doubt on the assertion? Is it becasue you have tried but failed to achieve anything extraordinary, or you have not tried but are just skeptical of the claims?


Ok, I can`t relate as I can never recall feeling that I was seperate from the universe but religiousity shows me that many people do so maybe this is just something I personally have no experience of..

Sanity, like self-consciousness is a learnt behaviour. And consequertly can be unlearned, to a degree. In the absence of knowing how hard folks are working at maintaining a "common sense" view of the world, it might be worth trying Insanity 101 before commenting too much.


Personally transformative?
I have no doubt.
Uncovering "genuine facts"?
No fucking way.
Thats where he lost me..what facts does meditation or the use of psychedelic drugs uncover about the reality of the world?
It would seem to me any "facts" discovered in this manner would be highly subjective if not non-existent...yes, yes, all facts are subjective but these even moreso considering the state of mind when they are "discovered".

You seem to be arguing from an assumed default position on what mind is. Or more likely what it should be. That you lock yourself into a 3' enclosed cube and call it the knowable universe is entirely up to you. But that you do so does not limit what is possible beyond those confines.

[linwood]

From which point of view are you casting doubt on the assertion? Is it becasue you have tried but failed to achieve anything extraordinary, or you have not tried but are just skeptical of the claims?


From the point of view of one who has tried and succeeded but realises that any "plasticity" of the human experience is nothing more than the workings of my brain.


You seem to be arguing from an assumed default position on what mind is. Or more likely what it should be. That you lock yourself into a 3' enclosed cube and call it the knowable universe is entirely up to you. But that you do so does not limit what is possible beyond those confines.

My confines are a bit larger than a 3' cube.

I confine myself within the knowable universe itself and whatever knowable space may be outside of it.

Anything else is pure speculation and fantasy.

There is nothing beyond my confines other than make-believe.

[Breath]

From the point of view of one who has tried and succeeded but realises that any "plasticity" of the human experience is nothing more than the workings of my brain.

Sure. But that does not contradict the specific extract you were quoting.

[linwood]

Sure. But that does not contradict the specific extract you were quoting.

It`s not supposed to.

I stated "I can buy this..but barely" about that particular snippet.

My agreement with the statement at that point relied upon his justification for the statement.

If he had attempted to justify the statement using a rational foundation in some manner perhaps I could have seen his point of view.

However as the rest of the content I posted shows he justifies it with "evidence" of mysticism.
Which has no rational foundation in evidence.

As a whole I cannot see his belief as rational as it is based in the unevidenced irrationality of nothing more than faith regardless of how he has twisted it.

To be fair, he cites "evidence" in the form of a number of books I have not read but it`s my experience that the foundation of mysticism is nothing more than the result of the inner workings of ones mind.
Some see it as an exterior force that allows a deeper understanding of the universe.
This is irrational.

I just think it odd even hypocritical that a person who based his entire book on the irrationality of religion clings to the irrationalty of mysticism.

He is condemning the religious for the exact same "sin" he himself is guilty of.

[nancynancy]

Linwood, I completely agree with you. Sam Harris should have deleted all references to drugs and mysticism from his book.

[Breath]

It`s not supposed to.

I stated "I can buy this..but barely" about that particular snippet.

My agreement with the statement at that point relied upon his justification for the statement.

If he had attempted to justify the statement using a rational foundation in some manner perhaps I could have seen his point of view.

OK. Let's take this a little further. You would have accepted whatever was said if it had a caveat with it that all human experience is caused by the brain. But I presume that you meant more than this ie that this brain is in the context of a functioning body, presumably in the context of a world that allows that body to function etc etc etc.

So, in effect, you are saying that human experience is nothing more than the sum total effect of everything that has ever happened, of which this brain is just a drop in the ocean. But it is A sine qua non for human experience nonetheless. Like everything else that is. And yes, I agree.

:D

[FloatingEgg]

Yeah, I must admit that I'm guilty of excusing some of Sam Harris's beliefs because I find value in the rest of what he says. I got into an argument on another skeptic/atheist forum with someone that has some woo-woo beliefs about UFOs and crop circles. It is a bit dissapointing, but maybe our expectations are too high?

[comiezapr]

Im not sure if i like Sam Harris or not. He is not an astute thinker but more of a propagandist and im not sure if i like the propaganda or not; im still thinking on that one.

About the refrances, D. Radin's book is totally bologna. I read the book passivly and found it philosophically (and midly mathematically) unsound. There is a review of this book here ...

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radinbook.htm

Its worth the read since its mildly hillarious. If the other books are as retarded as this one, i would suggest burning them (or at least ignoring them). I suspect that they are ready for the fire!

Why cant organized religion be replaced with, and juxtaposed to, something that isnt mystical and egocentrical? Its like people are to lazy to actually learn science, math and philosophical analysis so they make crazy claims about obscure vague phenomena with words they dont understand! Sorry for the sidebar, i hate mysticism.

[RexT]

I just think it odd even hypocritical that a person who based his entire book on the irrationality of religion clings to the irrationalty of mysticism.

He is condemning the religious for the exact same "sin" he himself is guilty of.
The irony never ends. Harris condemns religion because he perceives it as irrational and you condemn mysticism because you perceive it as irrational. Yet, you have already proclaimed your lack of knowledge on the subject, making statements as, “I`m totally lost now”. I would imagine it is also irrational to condemn something that you know little about. Finally, it gets down to what a person believes. You believe...whatever, I have no idea, but clearly, it is not religion or mysticism. Whatever happened to reserving judgment until the trial was over? From my viewpoint, which is admittedly skewed by my own beliefs, you have committed the same sin as Harris.

If scientists, though few they be, are willing to research mysticism in an objective way, and you are willing to condemn it since it seems contrary to your beliefs, then which is irrational? What I condemn is condemnation. What I respect is curiosity, wonder, imagination, and humility. It is these that lead to a greater depth of understanding, for here is truth; we know nothing with absolute certainty, yet until we do, it behooves us to keep the doors of knowledge open for all to enter. If one does not understand the power and utility of mysticism, of its ability to open pathways into the mind that before were not known even to exist, then allow the possibility of such discovery, and reserve condemnation for condemnation itself.

Rex

[trendkill]

If scientists, though few they be, are willing to research mysticism in an objective way, and you are willing to condemn it since it seems contrary to your beliefs, then which is irrational? What if he'd already read about the science that says mystical perceptions of oneness with the universe or such are caused by suppression of the part of the brain responsible for creating our sense of ourselves in three-dimensional space, and has never seen anyone put forth a plausible explanation that suggests that such "perceptions" convey real information about the universe outside one's head? Then would you still insist he be anti-condemnation? Or is the trial not over until everyone reaches your preferred verdict?

. If one does not understand the power and utility of mysticism, of its ability to open pathways into the mind that before were not known even to exist
Just because an experience feels good doesn't mean it can rationally be taken at face value.

[linwood]

The irony [COLOR=black]never ends. Harris condemns religion because he perceives it as irrational and you condemn mysticism because you perceive it as irrational. Yet, you have already proclaimed your lack of knowledge on the subject, making statements as, “I`m totally lost now”.



You misunderstand my position, I`ll clarify it.

I don`t consider mysticism irrational.
I consider the belief that mysticism offers scientifically evidenced insight into the physical world irrational.

"I`m lost" not because I lack knowledge of mysticism but because of the warm reception Harris has gotten among what I consider rational thinkers.

When I discovered Harris was so irrational as to believe that there is some scientifically evidenced physical cosmic knowledge to be found through the use of psychedelic drugs and/or meditation I immediately began wondering how people who base their beliefs upon rational thought could laud the man.

My first thought was that perhaps there was something to these references he cited.(Granted it was a fleeting thought)

While it`s true my actual personal knowledge of mysticism, reincarnation and paranormal events is limited to study and analysis of the experiences put forth by others I can assure you my knowledge of the effects of psychedelic drugs is first hand.
I can say with some authority, it`s all in your mind.


I would imagine it is also irrational to condemn something that you know little about. Finally, it gets down to what a person believes. You believe...whatever, I have no idea, ...


Obviously.
It seems you also have no idea of what I`ve actually stated.



..but clearly, it is not religion or mysticism.

I don`t recall saying I don`t believe in mysticism.

What I said was I don`t believe the neurological affects of meditation and mysticism hold any realistic physical truth in this universe or any other.
I believe this is a rational position considering the lack of consistent evidence.


If one does not understand the power and utility of mysticism, of its ability to open pathways into the mind that before were not known even to exist, then allow the possibility of such discovery, and reserve condemnation for condemnation itself.

You are arguing against a position I never took.
I have never stated anything negating mysticisms effects on the human mind.
In fact I said I had "no doubt" about the affects of mysticism on the human mind.
My problem is Harris`s assertion that meditation and or the effects of psychedelic drugs is a scientifically evidenced path to the understanding of aspects of our physical world is..horsepucky.

If you don`t see it that way then we must agree to disagree or you could supply some evidence for Harris`s position and I will gladly concede the point and go out and buy three or four sheets of windowpane and bone up on the Tao.

My overall point is that while I agree with Harris`s assessment of religion in general I don`t see him as a beneficial spokesman for skepticism as many atheists have seemed to embrace him for this role.
The man is anything but a skeptic

[RexT]

What if he'd already read about the science that says mystical perceptions of oneness with the universe or such are caused by suppression of the part of the brain responsible for creating our sense of ourselves in three-dimensional space, and has never seen anyone put forth a plausible explanation that suggests that such "perceptions" convey real information about the universe outside one's head? Then would you still insist he be anti-condemnation? Or is the trial not over until everyone reaches your preferred verdict?
What is my preferred verdict? I merely suggested that it is more rational to keep an open mind until we know something to be true or false. Is science of the mind/brain a completed mission? Hardly, but if you have already formed a solid belief on this, then it is yours to live with.

Just because an experience feels good doesn't mean it can rationally be taken at face value.
You mean if something feels good, it can nor be taken as feeling good, for that would be its face value. Actually, it has been my experience that ventures into the mind is usually anything but pleasant, although it is true that when a new pathway is found, it might be compared to an explorer's thrill of finding a new trade route; it can be pretty exciting.

Rex

[linwood]

So, in effect, you are saying that human experience is nothing more than the sum total effect of everything that has ever happened, of which this brain is just a drop in the ocean. But it is A sine qua non for human experience nonetheless. Like everything else that is. And yes, I agree.

:D

Yes thats about it, stated far more concisely than I`m apparently capable of.
:)


Yeah, I must admit that I'm guilty of excusing some of Sam Harris's beliefs because I find value in the rest of what he says. I got into an argument on another skeptic/atheist forum with someone that has some woo-woo beliefs about UFOs and crop circles. It is a bit dissapointing, but maybe our expectations are too high?

In all fairness I`m not very far into the book so perhaps I should have reserved any statement on it.
I was just a bit taken aback by page 40.
I was reading right along thinking yeah..YEAH...You go man!!
Then all of a sudden it was.." WTF is this?"
I read pages 40-41 4 or 5 times until I realised he really wrote it.
It just threw me for a minute.

By the way I have an atheist co-worker (My only support for sanity at times) who is certain we were put here by aliens.
:huh:



About the refrances, D. Radin's book is totally bologna. I read the book passivly and found it philosophically (and midly mathematically) unsound. There is a review of this book here ...

Thank you for the opinion and the link.
Thats a very in depth review and about what I thought I`d see.

[RexT]

In fact I said I had "no doubt" about the affects of mysticism on the human mind.
My problem is Harris`s assertion that meditation and or the effects of psychedelic drugs is a scientifically evidenced path to the understanding of aspects of our physical world is..horsepucky.
I know exactly your position and what you infer. I have highlited the tone of your final analysis above. I had no difficulty recognizing it without you finally stating it explicitly.

Hey, you have a right and good reason to believe what you do, and without the experiences I have been fortunate to acquire I would have believed the same.

Ok, so you do not reject the "affect" mysticism has on the mind, but do you know what the mind is? That was meant as a rhetorical question, no one knows what the mind is. If it turned out that the mind was merely what the brain does, which is what you seem to believe, then you are justified in your belief, but if it turns out that the mind is more than any one brain, then you have merely been a judgemental and closed-minded person, and you will do your time here never knowing where your mind could have taken you if you had kept it open.

As I recall, Einstein found the theory of relativity lurking in his mind, not by empirical observation or doing science, but by being spiritual, which is to say, having a completely open-minded attitude. It was pure inspiration driven by intuition. What Einstein found was a pathway into the mind. I would call that, as you say, "evidenced insight into the physical world". Yet, his theory was flatly condemned at first as some kind of new age mysticism or possible insanity.

Oh well, the innovators are always accused of such until their insights are finally confirmed, and I suppose that is how it should be. But is does not have to be this way, the attitude of the world could change, but I would not expect that to happen too soon. Many of the worlds great inventions came about from this approach, through dreams, visions, mystical experiences and I would imagine through LSD. Yet, it would only have to happen once to validate the method.

Rex

[linwood]

As I recall, Einstein found the theory of relativity lurking in his mind, not by empirical observation or doing science, but by being spiritual, which is to say, having a completely open-minded attitude. It was pure inspiration driven by intuition. What Einstein found was a pathway into the mind. I would call that, as you say, "evidenced insight into the physical world". Yet, his theory was flatly condemned at first as some kind of new age mysticism or possible insanity.

Rex

It was my understanding tha Einstien came to the theory for GR by studying the work of those physicists and mathematicians that went before him.
Not to mention his own observations of the world around him.

It seems to me Einstein had some emprical evidence to work with other than that which came from his mind.

Einstein said..
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality

Think about it.

[mirage]

I agree, he appears to be digressing into a bollock-strewn landscape there (I haven't read the book).

Reincarnation is a bit of a red flag. I'm surprised that crops up in an atheist sceptic book in a positive way.

(And what Rex said about relativity is bollocks too, you're right.)

[breezanne]

Sam is just less dogmatic than some of you. That's not a bad thing.

[mirage]

Sam is just less dogmatic than some of you. That's not a bad thing.

Wrong. At no point have I ruled out reincarnation. I have just said that all arguments for it (that I have seen, which is a lot) are bollocks. That's not dogmatic, it's an assessment of the evidence.

[ashe]

Sam Harris is a demagogue given a free pass just because he is photogenic. IMO, he will make a big mess if he is allowed to become the de facto spokesperson for atheism.

ashe

[breezanne]

Speak for yourselves. Sam does.

[wordy]

Linwood, had I known about your thread I hadn't started my own in other part of IIDB.

Ashe and others say it much better than me.

To let Sam Harris speak for all of us atheists would be very confusing. He belongs to a subgroup that claims to be open but to recommend us to read Radin and Sheldrake belongs to New Age. that is not to be open. That is to be in delusion.

[RexT]

<edit>

[RexT]

(And what Rex said about relativity is bollocks too, you're right.)
I think what people usually mean by saying bollocks is that something is provably wrong, but in your case it just means something that disagrees with your personal beliefs. How about a tiny bit of argument to support your beliefs instead of merely blurting out your opinion.

Rex

[RexT]

It was my understanding tha Einstien came to the theory for GR by studying the work of those physicists and mathematicians that went before him.
Not to mention his own observations of the world around him.

It seems to me Einstein had some emprical evidence to work with other than that which came from his mind.
I see, so Einstein was the first person to have studied the empirical works that came before him since anyone that sutdied what Einstein did would have discovered relativity too. Well, that seems improbable, do you have some other explanation for why Einstein, who clearly had not studied anything that all other physicists had also studied, yet only he arrived at relativity. Surely, you will not say that he was just smarter, for his genius was not that of a god but of ordinary human genius, of which plenty others were around in his time.
Einstein said..
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality

Think about it.
Yeah, I know this already, what has it to do with pathways into the mind and the means to find them? If this is supposed to suggest that relativity does not describe the actual world, I would agree that it is uncertain.

Rex

[Reanimator]

Sam Harris is a demagogue given a free pass just because he is photogenic.

Give any other reason, ANY, except saying that he is photogenic. The man looks like Ben Stiller, who I am still convinced is the missing link between humans and apes. He has some good ideas which need as broad of an audience as his book received. I think the freethought community is much better off with him than without.

[linwood]

I see, so Einstein was the first person to have studied the empirical works that came before him since anyone that sutdied what Einstein did would have discovered relativity too. Well, that seems improbable, do you have some other explanation for why Einstein, who clearly had not studied anything that all other physicists had also studied, yet only he arrived at relativity.

Rex,
You seem to be constantly denying that I see and understand the power of the mind.
This is a strawman as I`ve not once in this thread or any other even implied such a thing.In fact I was the first in this thread to agree with the concept.
My entire belief system is based upon what the mind can and cannot comprehend of the physical world.

Einstein was the first because he did think differently than his contemporaries.
Because his mind did seem to take a different path towards solving a problem.
H e did not however arrive at relativity with no other cognitive input than the workings of his mind and his alone in the manner you`ve plainly stated.

You keep building strawmen and I keep knocking them down.
If you`d retreat from your defensiveness perhaps we`d find that our positions aren`t that far apart.


Yeah, I know this already, what has it to do with pathways into the mind and the means to find them? If this is supposed to suggest that relativity does not describe the actual world, I would agree that it is uncertain.

Rex

Then we agree on at least that point.
:)

[Autochthon]

This conversation strikes me as odd. I came away from Harris's book with the understanding that he believes that the human mind can produce "spirtual" mental states and that this aspect of our minds should be open to scientific examination and not left the exclusive domain of religion. This doesn't seem particularly outrageous to me.

[RexT]

Rex,
You seem to be constantly denying that I see and understand the power of the mind.
This is a strawman as I`ve not once in this thread or any other even implied such a thing.In fact I was the first in this thread to agree with the concept.
My entire belief system is based upon what the mind can and cannot comprehend of the physical world.
Allow me to quote you again,
My problem is Harris`s assertion that meditation and or the effects of psychedelic drugs is a scientifically evidenced path to the understanding of aspects of our physical world is..horsepucky.
Since you claim to have experienced psychedelics, as I have, then you should have realized that it raises your ability to comprehend your surroundings at least. Colors are more vibrant and the details of consciousness are far more lucid. It may be that not everyone has the same experience, everyone is different after all, but you seem to not even allowed the possibility that Einsteinian like discoveries could occur in such a way. Most eastern philosophy comes from meditation, as does much of western philosophy, although meditation of a different sort.

Now, you may say that philosophy reveals nothing of the world, and that might be true in some sense, but it reveals much about the mind, and since it is the mind that perceives the world, surely it would benefit us to understand more about the thing that is providing us a view of the world.

I mean, if we had to see the world through a pair of dark glasses, it could serve our understanding to know that the world did not actually look like what we were seeing, and that the reason it is skewed is because of our glasses. We would still see what we see, but our understanding would then include a concept of the glasses, which would alter our understanding for the better, or so it would seem.

As it happens, our brain is such a pair of glasses, though far more complex, itself does not comprehend, but rather, it acts as a filter that skews the world somewhat and prevents our mind form having access to the complete picture. I frankly must say that any investigation into the nature of the world is going to be skewed until we finally, if ever we do, realize what the mind is and why it is limited by the brain.


You keep building strawmen and I keep knocking them down.
If you`d retreat from your defensiveness perhaps we`d find that our positions aren`t that far apart.

The strawman, as you call it, is the concept of mind and our ability to expand its scope. You have not knocked it down, for you nor I have yet defined what mind is. I simply began by saying that until we do know, we should not condemn the attempts of others to investigate, even if their methods seem unorthodox. It is through unorthodox personal experience, such as meditation and psychedelics that I have gained knowledge of the mind, and thereby understand the world better than before. That does not mean that I have all the answers or that my knowledge can be used to cure cancer, but I am not a scientist either. There are scientists and researchers though that as far as I can tell, are moving in the right direction, and we should support their efforts not condemn them.

As far as our positions being closer than first thought, maybe, but it is too early to tell.

Rex