Waking Up by Sam Harris

roosh

It just popped up on my newsfeed and I was just wondering if anyone has read it, and if so what are your thoughts on it.

MagicMarker

It's not released until September.

roosh

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's not released until September.

Aaah. Just saw a post on his FB page and presumed it was already out.

roosh

Anyone read "the moral landscape"?

Sounded quit ambitious.

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

Anyone read "the moral landscape"?

Sounded quit ambitious.

Yeah I read it and its pretty good. Most of it comes across on the 1 hour you tube talks that he makes on the subject. So if you have watched a couple of those, especially the ones with the Q+A sessions, you have pretty much got the whole gist of it.

What has amused me ever since is the people arguing against the book as a whole. Random estimate for me would be that for every 100 rebuttals I have read against the book, only 1 of them actually argue against the actual premise and idea of the book. The other 99 seem to argue against what they THINK the premise must be from the blurb they have read on the back.... or from misrepresentations they have read of it on blogs.

What the 99 out of 100 people seem to think it is about is that science can decide what is moral and immoral. What the book is actually about is how science can provide a useful medium (the landscape) against which moral discussions can be had.... and that contrary to the archaic belief that science has nothing to say on the subject of morality..... is actually has a lot to bring to the table and can inform the moral discourse heavily.

Alicano

Hoping to go and see him present 'Waking Up' this September in San Francisco. Cocktail reception too!! I'll wear a Boards.ie singlet have no fear!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

<...>What the 99 out of 100 people seem to think it is about is that science can decide what is moral and immoral. What the book is actually about is how science can provide a useful medium (the landscape) against which moral discussions can be had.... and that contrary to the archaic belief that science has nothing to say on the subject of morality..... is actually has a lot to bring to the table and can inform the moral discourse heavily.

In fairness, I think an amount of people understand that to be the contention. They just doubt that any of the really troublesome moral questions hinge on science. Additionally, the social sciences are typically mostly likely to be of relevance to moral questions, and the social sciences are quite inexact.

That said, he is an engaging writer. His "End of Faith" was certainly worth a read.

nozzferrahhtoo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, I think an amount of people understand that to be the contention.

Is that not what I just said? I agree there is an amount. I just think that this amount of annoyingly smaller than it really should be.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

They just doubt that any of the really troublesome moral questions hinge on science.

I think that was also the point I was making. The book is not actually claiming that these questions hinge on science. But the vast majority of reviews and rebuttals of the book act like this IS what the book is claiming. It is not.

All he is claiming is that science has a worthy voice to bring to the table on the subject. Nothing more. Not that anything hinges on science at all.

roosh

Just read the first chapter of Waking Up and so far so very good. I've lost my iPad tho, so not sure when I'll get to continue reading it

keane2097

First chapter is available on his website:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one

endacl

roosh wrote: »

I've lost my iPad

A prayer to St Anthony will sort that out!

:pac:

swampgas

keane2097 wrote: »

First chapter is available on his website:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one

Thanks for the link. Have read half way through that first chapter, and already know what I'll be reading by the stove over the Christmas break ...

Zillah

endacl wrote: »

A prayer to St Anthony will sort that out!

:pac:

This definitely works. Once, I prayed to St. Anthony and then I found the thing. I can't remember if I ever prayed to St. Anthony and then did not find the thing but that doesn't sound relevant anyway.

endacl

Zillah wrote: »

This definitely works. Once, I prayed to St. Anthony and then I found the thing. I can't remember if I ever prayed to St. Anthony and then did not find the thing but that doesn't sound relevant anyway.

This one time, I accidentally prayed to Lord Anthony by mistake, and the next day I got a really horrible reversible jacket from Penney's.

#eightiesschoolkidclothes

Playboy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All he is claiming is that science has a worthy voice to bring to the table on the subject. Nothing more. Not that anything hinges on science at all.

Seems like a pretty tedious read if that's all he is claiming? I'm not sure how 'science' has a voice. Generally if discussing moral issues a good place to start is with the facts and work from there. If people are disregarding science as a body of knowledge when trying to understand and resolve complex moral issues then to be frank they are idiots. It seems like the premise of his book is basically common sense. I guess its quite sad if someone needs to write a book to state the obvious.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Playboy wrote: »

If people are disregarding science as a body of knowledge when trying to understand and resolve complex moral issues then to be frank they are idiots.

It's not so much "disregard", and more "doubt the relevance of". The important bit of moral debate is about whether we should act, and what we should be aiming to achieve. The "how" part of it is relatively minor. And when the subject is social, "science" can do next to damn all to help sort between alternatives. Try using science to figure out how to increase the availability of jobs in Portarlington, and less us know how you get on.

rccaulfield

Yea great read, alot of it is about the question is there a diamond in the rough of religion. He argues there is, specifically in eastern meditation and the illusion of the self behind your eyes although without the mumbo jumbo associated.
Goes off on alot of interesting tangents but I was left needing more info/proof.

nozzferrahhtoo

Playboy wrote: »

Seems like a pretty tedious read if that's all he is claiming? I'm not sure how 'science' has a voice. Generally if discussing moral issues a good place to start is with the facts and work from there.

And science is a useful methodology of collating, interpreting and testing facts.

Playboy wrote: »

It seems like the premise of his book is basically common sense. I guess its quite sad if someone needs to write a book to state the obvious.

Alas that does appear to be the kind of world we live in. A cursory look around the world leaves me often with a feeling that "the obvious" has been missed by a lot of people, a lot of the time.

One need only wander into a thread on homeopathy, to name one of 100s of examples, to see this is so.

roosh

rccaulfield wrote: »

Yea great read, alot of it is about the question is there a diamond in the rough of religion. He argues there is, specifically in eastern meditation and the illusion of the self behind your eyes although without the mumbo jumbo associated.
Goes off on alot of interesting tangents but I was left needing more info/proof.

I've still only read the first chapter, so apologies if you're referring to something else, but based on what he says in that, I think the whole thing about needing more info/proof is that it's up to each individual to verify the claims he makes, or those made by "meditators".

He essentially says that the claims made by meditators are empirically testable* - that is, claims pertaining to conscious experience; the practice of meditation is the way of testing those claims.

rccaulfield

roosh wrote: »

I've still only read the first chapter, so apologies if you're referring to something else, but based on what he says in that, I think the whole thing about needing more info/proof is that it's up to each individual to verify the claims he makes, or those made by "meditators".

He essentially says that the claims made by meditators are empirically testable* - that is, claims pertaining to conscious experience; the practice of meditation is the way of testing those claims.

I know but im just too strict on that type of evidence. He goes on to talk about people who thought they had become enlightened because they hadn't had a thought in weeks but when questioned by a proper buddist who's been decades at this they had major chatter going on in they're head? Too subjective for me but I will eh keep the faith! Honestly I hope in a few years to write something different on here. Sam Harris is a great writer I loved the book but left me asking alot of questions compared to his others. Have the moral landscape at home have to get to that next!

rccaulfield

roosh wrote: »

I've still only read the first chapter, so apologies if you're referring to something else, but based on what he says in that, I think the whole thing about needing more info/proof is that it's up to each individual to verify the claims he makes, or those made by "meditators".

He essentially says that the claims made by meditators are empirically testable* - that is, claims pertaining to conscious experience; the practice of meditation is the way of testing those claims.

I know but im just too strict on that type of evidence. He goes on to talk about people who thought they had become enlightened because they hadn't had a thought in weeks but when questioned by a proper buddist who's been decades at this they had major chatter going on in they're head? Too subjective for me but I will eh keep the faith! Honestly I hope in a few years to write something different on here. Sam Harris is a great writer I loved the book but left me asking alot of questions compared to his others. Have the moral landscape at home have to get to that next!

rccaulfield

roosh wrote: »

I've still only read the first chapter, so apologies if you're referring to something else, but based on what he says in that, I think the whole thing about needing more info/proof is that it's up to each individual to verify the claims he makes, or those made by "meditators".

He essentially says that the claims made by meditators are empirically testable* - that is, claims pertaining to conscious experience; the practice of meditation is the way of testing those claims.

I know but im just too strict on that type of evidence. He goes on to talk about people who thought they had become enlightened because they hadn't had a thought in weeks but when questioned by a proper buddist who's been decades at this they had major chatter going on in they're head? Too subjective for me but I will eh keep the faith! Honestly I hope in a few years to write something different on here. Sam Harris is a great writer I loved the book but left me asking alot of questions compared to his others. Have the moral landscape at home have to get to that next!

roosh

rccaulfield wrote: »

I know but im just too strict on that type of evidence. He goes on to talk about people who thought they had become enlightened because they hadn't had a thought in weeks but when questioned by a proper buddist who's been decades at this they had major chatter going on in they're head? Too subjective for me but I will eh keep the faith! Honestly I hope in a few years to write something different on here. Sam Harris is a great writer I loved the book but left me asking alot of questions compared to his others. Have the moral landscape at home have to get to that next!

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "too strict on that type of evidence"?

If you mean "the whole meditation/spirituality thing" is too subjective, I would say that what is being dealt with is entirely subjective, namely the ones conscious experience of their own mind.


The thing is, the spiritual literature (or literature about meditation) describes what can happen in meditation and the lasting results that can occur. Individuals can test these hypotheses by practicing meditation. Things like fMRI can add some credence to the claims, but ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Things like people believing they have become enlightened is a very common experience and one of the reasons why having some connection to an experienced practitioner can be very beneficial.

Peregrinus

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's not so much "disregard", and more "doubt the relevance of". The important bit of moral debate is about whether we should act, and what we should be aiming to achieve. The "how" part of it is relatively minor.

This.

For example, consider a moral issue like capital punishment. Science may well play a useful role if I want to develop a more humane and less painful method of capital punishment, but it's much less use to me in confronting what I regard as the bigger moral question, whether we should be executing people at all.

Even if we broaden the concept of "science" to include the social sciences and we have research that casts light on whether, e.g. the death penalty is an effective deterrent, that still doesn't help at all when considering the underlying question of whether the fact that it might be an effective deterrent is a sufficient justification for executing people.

You could make similar poinst about other issues of public and private morality - abortion, our obligations to asylum seekers, the banking crisis, taxation. They all come down to the same end. Science can inform our thinking on moral questions in various useulf ways but, ultimately, taking moral decisions involves answering questions which are fundamentally unscientific, but nevertheless very important. And when you get down to those questions science is, basically, useless.

keane2097

Peregrinus wrote: »

This.

For example, consider a moral issue like capital punishment. Science may well play a useful role if I want to develop a more humane and less painful method of capital punishment, but it's much less use to me in confronting what I regard as the bigger moral question, whether we should be executing people at all.

Even if we broaden the concept of "science" to include the social sciences and we have research that casts light on whether, e.g. the death penalty is an effective deterrent, that still doesn't help at all when considering the underlying question of whether the fact that it might be an effective deterrent is a sufficient justification for executing people.

You could make similar poinst about other issues of public and private morality - abortion, our obligations to asylum seekers, the banking crisis, taxation. They all come down to the same end. Science can inform our thinking on moral questions in various useulf ways but, ultimately, taking moral decisions involves answering questions which are fundamentally unscientific, but nevertheless very important. And when you get down to those questions science is, basically, useless.

The topic of capital punishment is actually a fairly interesting one in this context.

Half way through reading your post I was thinking "but we can use science to show whether punitive justice is effective in deterring others, preventing re-offending etc.", but then you moved onto whether punishment is a moral thing itself or not regardless of those, which I hadn't considered.

The answer to that would probably be that we can study how the punishment of a criminal effects those who want him punished, and I suppose everyone else as well. If science can say that capital punishment only makes everyone more upset then where does that leave the argument?

Peregrinus

When you ask "if science can say that capital punishment only makes everyone more upset . . .", to frame the question in those terms means that you are assuming that reducing upset is the pre-eminent moral good, at least in this context - i.e. that reducing upset would justify capital punishment, and increasing upset would deprive it of justification. And that assumption is itself a moral judgment which is not based on scientific reasoning.

The bottom line is that "good" is not a scientific concept, and there can never be a scientific case for saying that X is good or bad. There may well be a scientific case for saying that X will produce Y outcome, but none for saying that Y outcome is good or bad that doesn't involve an assumption that something else is good or bad.

keane2097

Peregrinus wrote: »

When you ask "if science can say that capital punishment only makes everyone more upset . . .", to frame the question in those terms means that you are assuming that reducing upset is the pre-eminent moral good, at least in this context - i.e. that reducing upset would justify capital punishment, and increasing upset would deprive it of justification. And that assumption is itself a moral judgment which is not based on scientific reasoning.

The bottom line is that "good" is not a scientific concept, and there can never be a scientific case for saying that X is good or bad. There may well be a scientific case for saying that X will produce Y outcome, but none for saying that Y outcome is good or bad that doesn't involve an assumption that something else is good or bad.

Is that not just a bit of a word game though? In what sense are the ideas of "good" and "bad" any more use than science if we refuse to define them in a meaningful way?

In the real world, we would have to start with a first principle of what good means from which I think it can be argued that science would have a big part in determining our actions.

I can see that that still leads to a philosophical disconnect ultimately to the "ought" question of course, but it also leads to the fact that nothing at all is useful in deciding on what is moral behaviour in the end.

Peregrinus

keane2097 wrote: »

Is that not just a bit of a word game though? In what sense are the ideas of "good" and "bad" any more use than science if we refuse to define them in a meaningful way?

I'm not saying that we refuse to define them in a meaningful way; just that our definitions do not depend on science for their validity. That only means they are not defined meaningfully if you assume that only scientifically-validated definitions can have meaning. And we have no reason to make that assumption.

keane2097 wrote: »

In the real world, we would have to start with a first principle of what good means . . .

Yes

keane2097 wrote: »

. . . from which I think it can be argued that science would have a big part in determining our actions.

No. Or, at least, I'm not seeing the argument.

keane2097 wrote: »

I can see that that still leads to a philosophical disconnect ultimately to the "ought" question of course, but it also leads to the fact that nothing at all is useful in deciding on what is moral behaviour in the end.

No. "Science is not useful for X" =/= "nothing is useful for X". The fact that we don't have scientific reasons for the values we adopt doesn't mean that we have no reasons for the values we adopt, or that our reasons are inadequate. Our reasons are, by definition, adequate at least to us.

keane2097

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not saying that we refuse to define them in a meaningful way; just that our definitions do not depend on science for their validity. That only means they are not defined meaningfully if you assume that only scientifically-validated definitions can have meaning. And we have no reason to make that assumption.

I'm stuck on how we decide that anything is made valid in the first place, you see. I agree that from a philosophical POV if you go back far enough science is no good at the job ok.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Or, at least, I'm not seeing the argument.

To clarify, I meant "once we have a concrete idea of right/wrong" science can be a great tool to achieve the things we decide we want.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. "Science is not useful for X" =/= "nothing is useful for X". The fact that we don't have scientific reasons for the values we adopt doesn't mean that we have no reasons for the values we adopt, or that our reasons are inadequate. Our reasons are, by definition, adequate at least to us.

Can you expand on what the reasons that are good enough are?

Peregrinus

keane2097 wrote: »

I'm stuck on how we decide that anything is made valid in the first place, you see. I agree that from a philosophical POV if you go back far enough science is no good at the job ok.

And yet we do adopt ethical values. Everyone does.

keane2097 wrote: »

To clarify, I meant "once we have a concrete idea of right/wrong" science can be a great tool to achieve the things we decide we want.

Oh, I'm with you there, completely. I'd just note that this is true independently of the fundamental values that we have adopted, or of their intrinsic merit. If we decide that it would be good to eliminate the Jews of Europe or destroy the entire population of a mid-sized Japanese city, science can assist wonderfully in the fulfilment of our objectives.

keane2097 wrote: »

Can you expand on what the reasons that are good enough are?

No. Or, at least, I'm no better positioned to do that than you are. Consider your own fundamental values - why do you hold them? You can ask that question the sense of how you acquired them (your parents and wider society will play a role in answering that) or in the sense of why you retain them, given that "Mummy told me to" is probably not something you would accept as a sufficient reason at this point.

We choose our values. Not initially, of course - they are inculcated in us in the rearing and socialisation process. But part of growing up and establishing ourselves as adults is scrutinising what has been handed on in this way, discarding some of it and affirming the rest. And I'm not sure any of us are wholly conscious of what goes on in this process, but it's fair to say that, e.g., one thing that would affect our willingness to endorse a particular value would be the degree to which it is coherent/congruent with other values that appeal to us. Another is the degree to which it appeals to instincts like empathy and compassion.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

If we decide that it would be good to eliminate the Jews of Europe or destroy the entire population of a mid-sized Japanese city, science can assist wonderfully in the fulfilment of our objectives...
Another is the degree to which it appeals to instincts like empathy and compassion.

Science can still help to explain the background to this; the selfish gene theory might say that we extend disproportionately more empathy and compassion to those in our own family, and our own tribe, compared to outsiders who are less likely to share genes. Which is perhaps the kind of point being made by Harris and Dawkins.
That does not address the moral question, but it helps to shed light on it.