A Conversation with Sam Harris

This post has been removed from the Brain channel by channel owner jonny. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

jonny

says...

wow - I don't think I've ever heard someone so superficially right and yet so fundamentally wrong. Harris doesn't understand the first thing about brains, mind, spirituality, or any other human experience except on the most superficial level.

Beyond his equating of faith and religion (which are as different as ethics and law), he says things like doctors are more likely to be religious because they have to "play this language game" with people facing their own imminent mortality. Language game? The ultimate human experience - and he equates it with Scrabble.

I wonder if he really believes that the 9/11 attack was religiously motivated (as he claims here). Has he forfeited all of his mighty powers of cognition at the outset and drunk the NeoCon koolaid? It was never about religion - it's about money. As all wars have been. Religion is a lever that those in power often use to motivate others into doing their bidding. Is he really naïve enough to think that skillful leaders would not find other levers to sway willing followers in the absence of religion? It demonstrates a complete lack of human understanding.

There are more poorly conceived notions in this interview than siftbot will even give me space to mention in one comment. But I'll be happy to enumerate them over many comments if anyone is taken in by this snake-oil salesman. If you want some good insight into human behavior, go listen to this guy, or this one, or maybe best this one.

(and btw - regardless of anyone's belief system, I don't see anything here that gives the viewer any insight into how minds or brains work - thus removed from brain channel.)

8727 says...

>> .

Jonny,
*the 9/11 attack was religiously motivated
*leaders could probably not find groups of people motivated to fly planes into buildings without religion
*he does understand the first thing about brains and mind - as he actually studies them
*he isn't fundamentally wrong on these subjects or superficially right (whatever that's supposed to mean) -
you sound so peeved with him it's obvious it's because you have vested interests in your own illogical beliefs.

bluecliff

says...

*1 you don't know that for a fact

*2 are you sure?

*3 thats not really an argument

your own illogical beliefs - thats really like calling someone a vegetarian because you saw him eat a vegetarian pizza

8727 says...

*1 the people that committed the act were part of an extremist muslim group, basically a cult. they would not have done this act if they weren't in this group and reasoned in that way. thus being motivated by it, yes.

*2 yes, "he is currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience at UCLA, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research"

*3 an illogical belief like believing something supernatural which any intelligent person would easily see why such a thing should be dismissed (such as fairies at the end of my garden). nothing like eating a vegetarian pizza, i could just tell someone was peeved at a reasonable person because i suspect they have vested interests in the beliefs being dismissed.

check out this short talk by sam harris, the best thing by him i think :
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-lectures-on-the-dangers-of-both-religious-fundamentalism-and-religious-moderation

also, i'd add that john searle and alan watts are bad recommendations for views on such subjects. john searle is like a small child in comparison to derek parfit's knowledge of the brain and self. also i'd recommend susan greenfield instead of alan watts (he just talks half truths loosely based on buddhism).