Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/5/2014 7:19 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Jason, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Would it be too much of a problem to indicate what it is you're responding to? Thanks. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/5/2014 8:40 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Jason, I'm sorry you feel like a piglet. But I was obviously not trying to draw you into an argument but rather suggesting you butt out. What side of the bed to you get up on? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/5/2014 8:18 AM, jedi_sp...@yahoo.com wrote: Jason, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Listen Grandma, I always felt all these years, that Barry is the only person who is rude, cantankerous, to pull people into argument loops. You seem to be guilty of the same. Everytime I try to reach out to you and connect, you make me feel like a piglet. As Xeno pointed out, your style of arguing is a bit polemical and sophistic. All that I did is differentiate the position of classial theism from the position of semitic religions. Well, I guess that settles it then - The Corrector told you to butt out, Jason. You're not welcome on this forum, The Judge has spoken. Now get the hell out of here and don't butt in anymore. This is a discussion for Curtis about Sam Harris, it's not about you or your opinions. It's all about Curtis and Judy and Barry. So, just butt out! Where is Masked Zebra when we need him? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Click Show message history, dumbass. That's what it's for. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/5/2014 7:19 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Jason, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Would it be too much of a problem to indicate what it is you're responding to? Thanks. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/5/2014 8:18 AM, jedi_spock@... mailto:jedi_spock@... wrote: Jason, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Listen Grandma, I always felt all these years, that Barry is the only person who is rude, cantankerous, to pull people into argument loops. You seem to be guilty of the same. Everytime I try to reach out to you and connect, you make me feel like a piglet. As Xeno pointed out, your style of arguing is a bit polemical and sophistic. All that I did is differentiate the position of classial theism from the position of semitic religions. Well, I guess that settles it then - The Corrector told you to butt out, Jason. You're not welcome on this forum, The Judge has spoken. Now get the hell out of here and don't butt in anymore. This is a discussion for Curtis about Sam Harris, it's not about you or your opinions. It's all about Curtis and Judy and Barry. So, just butt out! Where is Masked Zebra when we need him? I guess he doesn't realize we need him. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/5/2014 9:40 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Click Show message history, dumbass. That's what it's for. Look, you troll, MJ and I are reading these messages in email because /*Yahoo Groups Neo sucks*/. What is the problem that you can't seem to format anymore - you used to be a professional. What happened? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/5/2014 7:19 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Jason, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Would it be too much of a problem to indicate what it is you're responding to? Thanks. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
From: awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : Where is Masked Zebra when we need him? I guess he doesn't realize we need him. Speak for yourself. For me, never having to endure his psychoses again is possibly too soon. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/5/2014 10:07 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Where is Masked Zebra when we need him? I guess he doesn't realize we need him. You mean, he's not reading this forum? Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/5/2014 10:12 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: Where is Masked Zebra when we need him? I guess he doesn't realize we need him. Speak for yourself. For me, never having to endure his psychoses again is possibly too soon. :-) Where is Dr. Pete when we need him? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/5/2014 10:07 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: Where is Masked Zebra when we need him? I guess he doesn't realize we need him. You mean, he's not reading this forum? Go figure. I guess he has a life. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I still think you're painting with too broad a brush when you use the term society. Some elements of society take the position you describe, but others do not. C: Seems like a reasonable objection. J: And the negative reaction to criticism from atheists has a great deal to do with its hostility quotient. Simple disagreement doesn't tend to provoke the same response as And you're stupid to believe this. C: Since Madalyn O'hair for whom this was true, I haven't seen this argument from any of the modern atheists. Which books have you read from them? I have seen them say that certain ideas like a 5,000 year old earth are stupid, but that is only because it really is. Given the barrage of death threats and ad hominem attacks that vocal atheist face, I think you might be holding them to a higher standard than you are the religious side. Check out some of the debates with religious people with Sam Harris. You will see much of his time spent deflecting personal attacks during a supposed discussion of ideas. I think you are putting the blame for this on the atheist as if they somehow deserve this abuse. I have seen numerous debates where this is not the case that the atheist started the personal attacks. I have even experienced it here on FFL in discussions. Who fires the first shot is perhaps a debatable point but in any case being stupid is not an atheist talking point about a god belief. It is that it is an idea with poor reasons supporting it. Personally I don't believe people who believe in some god are stupid since I have met people I consider smarter than I am who do. But whenever I have had a discussion with them about it I have found their acknowledgement that they have chosen to take a leap of faith and acknowledge that this choice is beyond reason. I respect that. I do not respect people who deny evolutionary science or try to get theological perspectives on creation into science curriculums in schools. J:Plus which, some of the most vocal atheists these days are also often quite ignorant about what religious belief entails. Not making the effort to acquaint oneself with what one is criticizing is perceived to be a function of intolerance, and rightly so, IMHO. Rather than facilitating full open discussion, it tends to slam the door on it. Those who most prominently speak for atheism need to get their act together, as far as I'm concerned (and speaking as a nonreligionist). C: One of the problems I learned from our Feser discussions is that atheists don't care about obscure ontological arguments about a god since it is the epistemological jumps that cause all the problems. As I pointed out, it is rare to find someone who does not include Aquinas in their classical version of god and this brings in the aspect of agency and interaction of god with the world and particularity with specific communications with mankind through certain books. That is the issue that concerns atheists. And once that jump has been made, the epistemological difference between an abstract spirit god who can still guide the hand of the writers (and translators) of the Bible and a fully decked out white bearded dude are insignificant. I know religious people make a big fuss about these distinctions and it rankles them to see what they think of as a more sophisticated version lumped in with versions they feel above intellectually. But once communication with a being with a personal agenda and ability to communicate that agenda to mankind specifically is claimed, these cherished distinctions are all a moot point. The bone of contention for atheists revolves around how we could be confident that this human claim is true or not. What is the claim based on. Not the imagined details of the being itself or himself or herself. The burden of proof is all on the man making the claim. Those other detail are all distractions to the epistemological issues. None of them improve or even hurt those knowledge issues. They are simply irrelevant to the real problem. No atheist I have read would have a problem with the kind of god that has zero interaction with humanity. That is just a speculation with zero consequences to the issues that concern atheists about the influence of the different god beliefs in societies around the world. Curtis, you way overstate the case. In this country, at least, there's oodles of criticism of biblical ideas, including ideas at the heart of Christian belief. Ever heard of the Jesus Seminar? And a currently popular book, How Jesus Became God, maintains that the idea of Jesus as God developed very much after the fact, that it was never anything Jesus said about himself. Those are just two examples of many. And I doubt you're going to find a whole lot of people who advocate slavery because the Bible does. Sure, there's always pushback, but to suggest
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2014 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris C: One of the problems I learned from our Feser discussions is that atheists don't care about obscure ontological arguments about a god since it is the epistemological jumps that cause all the problems. As I pointed out, it is rare to find someone who does not include Aquinas in their classical version of god and this brings in the aspect of agency and interaction of god with the world and particularity with specific communications with mankind through certain books. That is the issue that concerns atheists. And once that jump has been made, the epistemological difference between an abstract spirit god who can still guide the hand of the writers (and translators) of the Bible and a fully decked out white bearded dude are insignificant. I know religious people make a big fuss about these distinctions and it rankles them to see what they think of as a more sophisticated version lumped in with versions they feel above intellectually. But once communication with a being with a personal agenda and ability to communicate that agenda to mankind specifically is claimed, these cherished distinctions are all a moot point. The bone of contention for atheists revolves around how we could be confident that this human claim is true or not. What is the claim based on. Not the imagined details of the being itself or himself or herself. The burden of proof is all on the man making the claim. Those other detail are all distractions to the epistemological issues. None of them improve or even hurt those knowledge issues. They are simply irrelevant to the real problem. Bingo. One of the things that I don't think a number of theists or quasi-theists or theists-in-denial-that-they're-theists don't get on this forum is that what they call atheists barging into an otherwise pleasant conversation about God is that this barging in often comes after a few rounds of them hurling the word atheist around as if they were saying Nigger! or Spawn of Satan or rakshasa. They actually don't *get* that they look down on atheists as much as they do, and that this fact pervades their speech/writing. IMO, giving them a little taste of their own medicine at that point is well-deserved. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Comments below... Bingo. One of the things that I don't think a number of theists or quasi-theists or theists-in-denial-that-they're-theists Oh, you forgot to list the nontheists, like moi. don't get on this forum is that what they call atheists barging into an otherwise pleasant conversation about God is that this barging in often comes after a few rounds of them hurling the word atheist around as if they were saying Nigger! or Spawn of Satan or rakshasa. Sometimes, certainly not always. And in any case, much if not all of the theists' annoyance is a function of the BEHAVIOR of the atheists, not the fact that they're atheists. They actually don't *get* that they look down on atheists as much as they do, and that this fact pervades their speech/writing. Not me. Atheists are A-OK with me as long as they're relatively respectful of and courteous toward theists, and take the trouble to understand the theists' positions. IMO, giving them a little taste of their own medicine at that point is well-deserved. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Just a friendly comment from the peanut gallery. You may think you don't have a hair trigger in this regard, but you might be mistaken. You also might want to examine which issues push your buttons and see if your reactions to the posting about such issues are in proportion to what is actually being discussed. Goose and gander type thing. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Bingo. One of the things that I don't think a number of theists or quasi-theists or theists-in-denial-that-they're-theists don't get on this forum is that what they call atheists barging into an otherwise pleasant conversation about God is that this barging in often comes after a few rounds of them hurling the word atheist around as if they were saying Nigger! or Spawn of Satan or rakshasa. They actually don't *get* that they look down on atheists as much as they do, and that this fact pervades their speech/writing. IMO, giving them a little taste of their own medicine at that point is well-deserved. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/4/2014 10:25 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: They actually don't *get* that they look down on atheists as much as they do, and that this fact pervades their speech/writing. According to what I've read, Sam Harris is opposed to the use of the word atheist, because it is not very defined. The word actually means someone who does not believe that deities exist. Which makes Barry seem confused, because he seems very interested in spiritual paths. Apparently Barry believes in a spirit or soul that at death, reincarnates in another human body. Which might lead one to ask: where exactly is the spirit located that reincarnates? Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I still think you're painting with too broad a brush when you use the term society. Some elements of society take the position you describe, but others do not. C: Seems like a reasonable objection. J: And the negative reaction to criticism from atheists has a great deal to do with its hostility quotient. Simple disagreement doesn't tend to provoke the same response as And you're stupid to believe this. C: Since Madalyn O'hair for whom this was true, I haven't seen this argument from any of the modern atheists. Which books have you read from them? I have seen them say that certain ideas like a 5,000 year old earth are stupid, but that is only because it really is. Indeed. But what does that make the person who believes it? Given the barrage of death threats and ad hominem attacks that vocal atheist face, I think you might be holding them to a higher standard than you are the religious side. Check out some of the debates with religious people with Sam Harris. You will see much of his time spent deflecting personal attacks during a supposed discussion of ideas. I think you are putting the blame for this on the atheist as if they somehow deserve this abuse. I have seen numerous debates where this is not the case that the atheist started the personal attacks. I have even experienced it here on FFL in discussions. Who fires the first shot is perhaps a debatable point but in any case being stupid is not an atheist talking point about a god belief. It is that it is an idea with poor reasons supporting it. Personally I don't believe people who believe in some god are stupid since I have met people I consider smarter than I am who do. But whenever I have had a discussion with them about it I have found their acknowledgement that they have chosen to take a leap of faith and acknowledge that this choice is beyond reason. I respect that. But many if not most atheists don't--they think it's stupid to make a choice beyond reason. I do not respect people who deny evolutionary science or try to get theological perspectives on creation into science curriculums in schools. J:Plus which, some of the most vocal atheists these days are also often quite ignorant about what religious belief entails. Not making the effort to acquaint oneself with what one is criticizing is perceived to be a function of intolerance, and rightly so, IMHO. Rather than facilitating full open discussion, it tends to slam the door on it. Those who most prominently speak for atheism need to get their act together, as far as I'm concerned (and speaking as a nonreligionist). C: One of the problems I learned from our Feser discussions is that atheists don't care about obscure ontological arguments about a god since it is the epistemological jumps that cause all the problems. The question is whether the atheists understand the ontological arguments well enough to dismiss their significance. The arguments are philosophical, of course, not empirical, which changes the role of epistemology in evaluating their validity. And Feser repeatedly makes the point that some of the most important terms and concepts of the Thomist arguments have been misunderstood by modern theologians and philosophers (e.g., the distinction between act and potency). As I pointed out, it is rare to find someone who does not include Aquinas in their classical version of god and this brings in the aspect of agency and interaction of god with the world and particularity with specific communications with mankind through certain books. That is the issue that concerns atheists. A lot of this and the paragraph that follows depends on what you mean by interaction, communications, personal agenda, etc.--specifically, the degree of anthropomorphism involved. The God of classical theism is the ultimate abstraction. According to Aquinas, describing God in human terms, like those I just quoted, can never be anything more than analogical. The distinction between God as a being and God as Beingness Itself is crucial. It absolutely rules out the white bearded dude (as well as the one God less attempt at rebuttal). And as I noted, it changes the role of epistemology. And once that jump has been made, the epistemological difference between an abstract spirit god who can still guide the hand of the writers (and translators) of the Bible and a fully decked out white bearded dude are insignificant. I know religious people make a big fuss about these distinctions and it rankles them to see what they think of as a more sophisticated version lumped in with versions they feel above intellectually. But once communication with a being with a personal agenda and ability to communicate that agenda to mankind specifically is claimed, these cherished distinctions are all a moot point. The
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
The fact that Harris says this —but it may be the only course of action
available to us, given what Islamists believe is more revealing than his
assertion that he is against it.
His assertion that some Islamists are extremists is true, but that obviously
does not cover all Muslims. The religion of Islam has been hijacked by a
minority of very violent and more importantly greedy power hungry people.
Harris's belief that all the Islamic violence is based on religion is naive. I
assure you the mullahs and imams who exhort the young people to become
terrorists and suicide bombers do so in the main because it furthers their
agenda to gain or maintain wealth and power.
On Sat, 5/3/14, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, May 3, 2014, 2:22 AM
--In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote
:
Harris advocates a
first strike against Iran?
That's not controversialy,
that's insane.
When you interview him, be sure to
change the name of batgap forum for that
episode.
C: Your
very funny comment on changing the name of Batgap, I am
assuming to batshit aside...
this is a slanderous misread of Harris'
position by journalists which he clarifies here:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2
The basic upshot is that he
was painting a hypothetical combination of a society that
glorifies suicidal actions against infidels combined with
long range nuclear capability and the fact that we do have
nuclear weapons that we would use if we believed we were in
imminent danger.
Needless
to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would
kill tens of
millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may
be the only
course of action available to us, given what Islamists
believe. HarrisWhat
will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at
the mere
mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear
weaponry? If
history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the
offending
warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we
will be
unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy
them. In
such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our
survival may be a
nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would
be an
unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of
innocent
civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of
action
available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would
such an
unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest
of the
Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion
of a
genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing
could make it
so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot
war with
any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear
threat of its
own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just
described a
plausible scenario in which much of the world’s
population could be
annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the
same shelf
with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That
it would be a
horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of
myth does
not mean, however, that it could not happen. - See more at:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf
He is not for it,
he is against it. He believes the beliefs in Islam might
cause it so he is against those beliefs.
---In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote
:
On
5/2/2014 10:02 AM, Rick Archer
wrote:
Last
night I read the first chapter of the End of Faith and LOVED
it.
Didn’t disagree with anything I’ve read so far. I’m
taking notes
and will post them for discussion later
on.
You may find the idea of a nuclear first-strike against Iran
to be
not quite to your liking, but I tend to agree with Harris on
this -
avoid the danger that lies ahead.
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613 --
#yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp #yiv7538538613hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp #yiv7538538613ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp .yiv7538538613ad {
padding:0 0;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp .yiv7538538613ad p {
margin:0;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp .yiv7538538613ad
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Krauss - the Four Horsemen of the Materialist
Apocalypse!
On Sat, 5/3/14, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com
curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, May 3, 2014, 2:22 AM
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@...
wrote
:
Harris advocates a
first strike against Iran?
That's not controversialy,
that's insane.
When you interview him, be sure to
change the name of batgap forum for that
episode.
C: Your
very funny comment on changing the name of Batgap, I am
assuming to batshit aside...
this is a slanderous misread of Harris'
position by journalists which he clarifies here:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2
The basic upshot is that he
was painting a hypothetical combination of a society
that
glorifies suicidal actions against infidels combined
with
long range nuclear capability and the fact that we do
have
nuclear weapons that we would use if we believed we were
in
imminent danger.
Needless
to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it
would
kill tens of
millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it
may
be the only
course of action available to us, given what Islamists
believe. HarrisWhat
will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed
at
the mere
mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear
weaponry? If
history is any guide, we will not be sure about where
the
offending
warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so
we
will be
unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to
destroy
them. In
such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our
survival may be a
nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this
would
be an
unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of
innocent
civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course
of
action
available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would
such an
unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the
rest
of the
Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first
incursion
of a
genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that
seeing
could make it
so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of
hot
war with
any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear
threat of its
own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have
just
described a
plausible scenario in which much of the world’s
population could be
annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on
the
same shelf
with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns.
That
it would be a
horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake
of
myth does
not mean, however, that it could not happen. - See more
at:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf
He is not for it,
he is against it. He believes the beliefs in Islam might
cause it so he is against those beliefs.
---In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@...
wrote
:
On
5/2/2014 10:02 AM, Rick Archer
wrote:
Last
night I read the first chapter of the End of Faith and
LOVED
it.
Didn’t disagree with anything I’ve read so far.
I’m
taking notes
and will post them for discussion later
on.
You may find the idea of a nuclear first-strike against
Iran
to be
not quite to your liking, but I tend to agree with Harris
on
this -
avoid the danger that lies ahead.
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
Antivirus protection
is active.
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613 --
#yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp #yiv7538538613hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp #yiv7538538613ads
{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp .yiv7538538613ad {
padding:0 0;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp .yiv7538538613ad p
{
margin:0;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-mkp .yiv7538538613ad a
{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv7538538613 #yiv7538538613ygrp-sponsor
#yiv7538538613ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : Hast thou never heard of Daisy Cutters and other super-conventional weapons? There's no need to advocate our going nuclear against any small country, ever. C: So substitute daisy cutters for nuclear bombs and his actual point remains the same. He wrote this after 9-11 when he saw the US start two wars and there was talk of bombing Iran in the White House already. His book was a cautionary tale about what factor religious beliefs added to the problem. It was not advocating war, it was trying to prevent one. There may be all sorts of legitimate reasons to disagree with Harris, but at least get his argument right before you start the name calling routine. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/2/2014 9:22 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Harris advocates a first strike against Iran? A first nuclear strike against Iran may be the only option considering the goal of Sunni Islam is the annihilation of the Western world. The enemy is the closed society that preaches violence and death against everyone that does not believe in Allah. Harris pulls no punches - he is a pragmatist. That's not controversialy, that's insane. So, in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - vast human atrocities - maybe we should consider the nuclear option. According to Harris, this may be the only option available to us, given what Islamists believe in the event of an Islamist regime such as Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Work cited: 'The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason' by Sam Harris W. W. Norton, 2004 p. 129 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Unless Harris has started to refer to himself in the 3rd person (he has not) this is a misleading attribution. Nothing here is from his book, you are quoting people who are misrepresenting his ideas. You are the reference guy Richard, come on man keep it tight. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/2/2014 9:22 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Harris advocates a first strike against Iran? A first nuclear strike against Iran may be the only option considering the goal of Sunni Islam is the annihilation of the Western world. The enemy is the closed society that preaches violence and death against everyone that does not believe in Allah. Harris pulls no punches - he is a pragmatist. That's not controversialy, that's insane. So, in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - vast human atrocities - maybe we should consider the nuclear option. According to Harris, this may be the only option available to us, given what Islamists believe in the event of an Islamist regime such as Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Work cited: 'The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason' by Sam Harris W. W. Norton, 2004 p. 129 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : The fact that Harris says this —but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe is more revealing than his assertion that he is against it. His assertion that some Islamists are extremists is true, but that obviously does not cover all Muslims. The religion of Islam has been hijacked by a minority of very violent and more importantly greedy power hungry people. Harris's belief that all the Islamic violence is based on religion is naive. I assure you the mullahs and imams who exhort the young people to become terrorists and suicide bombers do so in the main because it furthers their agenda to gain or maintain wealth and power. C: I can't remember if he addresses your point about the religious sincerity of the Mullahs. You may be right about that. But it is tangential to his point about the issues with religious beliefs. All countries act in their own self interest but the ideology of Islam was a game changer at that time. Their confidence in what happens after death was instrumental in allowing the guys who flew the planes into the twin towers to act that way. So although their ultimate motivation at the leadership level may be just as you say, the followers are being guided by an ideology that allows for women to hide bombs under burkas at military checkpoints and blow themselves up along with our solders at that time.It is s direct result of religious ideas about how life works including a reward system in the afterlife for such behavior. The other thing religion adds to the human tendency to power grab is to deflect criticism about the ideas they are spreading because it is shielded by the don't criticize religious ideas directly ban. Harris agrees with your analysis of the extremists but he places the blame on the moderates for shielding them behind the odd way we treat religious ideas. If they came out and said that this part of the Koran is wrong, or if Christians did this with the Bible we could have a discussion of ideas like we do with everything else in human knowledge. But both of these books are shielded from direct criticism by the idea that they are different from all other human produced literature containing ideas. There are scripture and God's hand was in their production. And the weird thing is that each religion only accepts their own god book as authoritative, not the other guy's. But they still protect the other guy's divine right of non criticism so that people wont challenge the absurd claim they are making about their own god book. Harris is against this collusion of ignorance. If you take out a section of the Bible that advocates slavery and say, this is stupid and wrong you will be accused of being religiously intolerant rather than just pointing out a stupid and wrong idea some man wrote. This is the battle Harris is picking, not the ultimate cynicism about the leader's motivations. On Sat, 5/3/14, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, May 3, 2014, 2:22 AM --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : Harris advocates a first strike against Iran? That's not controversialy, that's insane. When you interview him, be sure to change the name of batgap forum for that episode. C: Your very funny comment on changing the name of Batgap, I am assuming to batshit aside... this is a slanderous misread of Harris' position by journalists which he clarifies here: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2 http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2 The basic upshot is that he was painting a hypothetical combination of a society that glorifies suicidal actions against infidels combined with long range nuclear capability and the fact that we do have nuclear weapons that we would use if we believed we were in imminent danger. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. HarrisWhat will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Curtis, you way overstate the case. In this country, at least, there's oodles of criticism of biblical ideas, including ideas at the heart of Christian belief. Ever heard of the Jesus Seminar? And a currently popular book, How Jesus Became God, maintains that the idea of Jesus as God developed very much after the fact, that it was never anything Jesus said about himself. Those are just two examples of many. And I doubt you're going to find a whole lot of people who advocate slavery because the Bible does. Sure, there's always pushback, but to suggest that it's enough to suppress all criticism and challenge is just not supported by the facts. The other thing religion adds to the human tendency to power grab is to deflect criticism about the ideas they are spreading because it is shielded by the don't criticize religious ideas directly ban. Harris agrees with your analysis of the extremists but he places the blame on the moderates for shielding them behind the odd way we treat religious ideas. If they came out and said that this part of the Koran is wrong, or if Christians did this with the Bible we could have a discussion of ideas like we do with everything else in human knowledge. But both of these books are shielded from direct criticism by the idea that they are different from all other human produced literature containing ideas. There are scripture and God's hand was in their production. And the weird thing is that each religion only accepts their own god book as authoritative, not the other guy's. But they still protect the other guy's divine right of non criticism so that people wont challenge the absurd claim they are making about their own god book. Harris is against this collusion of ignorance. If you take out a section of the Bible that advocates slavery and say, this is stupid and wrong you will be accused of being religiously intolerant rather than just pointing out a stupid and wrong idea some man wrote. This is the battle Harris is picking, not the ultimate cynicism about the leader's motivations.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Curtis, you way overstate the case. In this country, at least, there's oodles of criticism of biblical ideas, including ideas at the heart of Christian belief. Ever heard of the Jesus Seminar? And a currently popular book, How Jesus Became God, maintains that the idea of Jesus as God developed very much after the fact, that it was never anything Jesus said about himself. Those are just two examples of many. And I doubt you're going to find a whole lot of people who advocate slavery because the Bible does. Sure, there's always pushback, but to suggest that it's enough to suppress all criticism and challenge is just not supported by the facts. C: Your POV seems just as valid. It also marks out the difference in a society between our liberal democracy with the dominant religion being a more modern reformed one compared to Islamic dominant societies. So point taken. There is plenty of direct criticism about things in the Bible in our country. But this is not the point of critique Harris is launching. Religious ideas and scripture are still held as a special class of human knowledge no matter where you fall on the spectrum between your point and mine. In no other area is the idea of a hands off criticizing the ideas directly tied to a concept of religious tolerance. Lets take racism directly. If you say anything racist , even if you tie it to the Bible you get condemned by the majority of society. But if you attack the Bible as being a man made piece of literature full of outdated nonsense the same society will attack you for being intolerant of religion and a bigot. Watching how society has reacted to atheists through time illustrates my point. So these ideas are still held in a protected class of ideas where full open discussion is not only discouraged, it is shamed as being similar to racism. (It happens to atheists all the time.) Now we may not find a lot of people who advocate slavery because the Bible does but how many people want to deny gay rights because of the Bible? So I am not disagreeing with your objection as wrong, It is just not how I am seeing it as we both value the propositions of truth as we see it in each others statements. The other thing religion adds to the human tendency to power grab is to deflect criticism about the ideas they are spreading because it is shielded by the don't criticize religious ideas directly ban. Harris agrees with your analysis of the extremists but he places the blame on the moderates for shielding them behind the odd way we treat religious ideas. If they came out and said that this part of the Koran is wrong, or if Christians did this with the Bible we could have a discussion of ideas like we do with everything else in human knowledge. But both of these books are shielded from direct criticism by the idea that they are different from all other human produced literature containing ideas. There are scripture and God's hand was in their production. And the weird thing is that each religion only accepts their own god book as authoritative, not the other guy's. But they still protect the other guy's divine right of non criticism so that people wont challenge the absurd claim they are making about their own god book. Harris is against this collusion of ignorance. If you take out a section of the Bible that advocates slavery and say, this is stupid and wrong you will be accused of being religiously intolerant rather than just pointing out a stupid and wrong idea some man wrote. This is the battle Harris is picking, not the ultimate cynicism about the leader's motivations.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/3/2014 12:18 AM, lengli...@cox.net wrote: There's no need to advocate our going nuclear against any small country, ever. Even if they had nuclear weapons and their religion specified they use them to destroy Western civilization? How is that smart diplomacy working out? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
I still think you're painting with too broad a brush when you use the term society. Some elements of society take the position you describe, but others do not. And the negative reaction to criticism from atheists has a great deal to do with its hostility quotient. Simple disagreement doesn't tend to provoke the same response as And you're stupid to believe this. Plus which, some of the most vocal atheists these days are also often quite ignorant about what religious belief entails. Not making the effort to acquaint oneself with what one is criticizing is perceived to be a function of intolerance, and rightly so, IMHO. Rather than facilitating full open discussion, it tends to slam the door on it. Those who most prominently speak for atheism need to get their act together, as far as I'm concerned (and speaking as a nonreligionist). Curtis, you way overstate the case. In this country, at least, there's oodles of criticism of biblical ideas, including ideas at the heart of Christian belief. Ever heard of the Jesus Seminar? And a currently popular book, How Jesus Became God, maintains that the idea of Jesus as God developed very much after the fact, that it was never anything Jesus said about himself. Those are just two examples of many. And I doubt you're going to find a whole lot of people who advocate slavery because the Bible does. Sure, there's always pushback, but to suggest that it's enough to suppress all criticism and challenge is just not supported by the facts. C: Your POV seems just as valid. It also marks out the difference in a society between our liberal democracy with the dominant religion being a more modern reformed one compared to Islamic dominant societies. So point taken. There is plenty of direct criticism about things in the Bible in our country. But this is not the point of critique Harris is launching. Religious ideas and scripture are still held as a special class of human knowledge no matter where you fall on the spectrum between your point and mine. In no other area is the idea of a hands off criticizing the ideas directly tied to a concept of religious tolerance. Lets take racism directly. If you say anything racist , even if you tie it to the Bible you get condemned by the majority of society. But if you attack the Bible as being a man made piece of literature full of outdated nonsense the same society will attack you for being intolerant of religion and a bigot. Watching how society has reacted to atheists through time illustrates my point. So these ideas are still held in a protected class of ideas where full open discussion is not only discouraged, it is shamed as being similar to racism. (It happens to atheists all the time.) Now we may not find a lot of people who advocate slavery because the Bible does but how many people want to deny gay rights because of the Bible? So I am not disagreeing with your objection as wrong, It is just not how I am seeing it as we both value the propositions of truth as we see it in each others statements. The other thing religion adds to the human tendency to power grab is to deflect criticism about the ideas they are spreading because it is shielded by the don't criticize religious ideas directly ban. Harris agrees with your analysis of the extremists but he places the blame on the moderates for shielding them behind the odd way we treat religious ideas. If they came out and said that this part of the Koran is wrong, or if Christians did this with the Bible we could have a discussion of ideas like we do with everything else in human knowledge. But both of these books are shielded from direct criticism by the idea that they are different from all other human produced literature containing ideas. There are scripture and God's hand was in their production. And the weird thing is that each religion only accepts their own god book as authoritative, not the other guy's. But they still protect the other guy's divine right of non criticism so that people wont challenge the absurd claim they are making about their own god book. Harris is against this collusion of ignorance. If you take out a section of the Bible that advocates slavery and say, this is stupid and wrong you will be accused of being religiously intolerant rather than just pointing out a stupid and wrong idea some man wrote. This is the battle Harris is picking, not the ultimate cynicism about the leader's motivations.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/3/2014 5:20 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: His assertion that some Islamists are extremists is true, but that obviously does not cover all Muslims. The religion of Islam has been hijacked by a minority of very violent and more importantly greedy power hungry people. Harris's belief that all the Islamic violence is based on religion is naive. I assure you the mullahs and imams who exhort the young people to become terrorists and suicide bombers do so in the main because it furthers their agenda to gain or maintain wealth and power. Apparently the vast majority of Muslims do not believe in democracy or an open society. According to Harris, Islam is the only religion that makes innocent civilians specific targets for mass killing. It's not about money or power, it's all about faith in the Islamic scriptures and Allah. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/3/2014 8:32 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: Unless Harris has started to refer to himself in the 3rd person (he has not) this is a misleading attribution. Nothing here is from his book, you are quoting people who are misrepresenting his ideas. You are the reference guy Richard, come on man keep it tight. Early in the book, Hedges quotes a statement from Harris's The End of Faith advocating a nuclear first strike as arguably the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe in the event of an Islamist regime such as Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. 65 Hedges, Chris (2008). When Atheism Becomes Religion, Free Press, p. 36 66 Harris, Sam (2004). The End of Faith, p. 129 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Nobody ever disputed this point with Barry, including those who believe in determinism. He could never quite understand how someone could believe in determinism and yet continue to act as if they had free will without serious cognitive dissonance. He was unable to grasp that believers in determinism fully accepted that they had no other choice and did not perceive this to be in conflict with that belief. (Basically, Barry didn't, and likely still doesn't, comprehend what the belief entails.) I suspect it is the pragmatic POV that most appeals to Barry on this topic but I could be wrong. In either case we all must act as if we have free will, we have no other choice!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 10:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris I think it would be a fantastic discussion and I would love to help you prep for an interview. He is an especially good choice because he is an experienced Buddhist meditator and is interested in connecting his own field, neuro science with the experiences we have in meditation. But in a more philosophical than TM brain studies way. Harris is definitely the only one of the outspoken public atheists I can stand to read. The rest tend to strike me as being pretty much as strident as their fundamentalist opposites. The only reason I can find to like them is that they're not afraid to stand up to a society in which the word atheist is treated as a synonym for ignorant spawn of Satan and spoken (or written) in a tone of voice (or writing) similar to how Southern folks say the word Nigger! He is coming out with a course this Fall to coincide with his new book about an alternative perspective to subjective experiences from traditional spirituality. That sounds interesting. One of my problems with most forms of traditional spirituality, at least of the kinds that value meditation, is that they *overvalue* subjective experience, as if it does or even could trump other forms of thinking and perceiving the world. I don't buy that. And I've had me some Jim-Dandy subjective experiences along the way, more than some here. To quote Blade Runner, I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. But NONE of them in my honest opinion were any higher than any other, better than any other, or (especially) more valid than any other. They were what they were -- subjective experiences. NONE of them IMO mean anything in particular -- about the nature of the experience, about the nature of the universe, or about one's place in that universe -- and they will never constitute proof of anything. I look forward to what he has to say about walking that razor's edge between having had cool subjective experiences and overvaluing them, placing them on a pedestal of specialness. My pedestal would be flat, with no experience elevated over another. He thinks both materialist scientists and spiritual people are jumping to conclusions. He might be especially interested in this dialogue with you at this time because of this direction he is taking. It is a direction he is taking some shit from hard core atheists for which makes him all the better as a bridge for a rich discussion with you. So although he probably does believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain functions, he is more open to discussing the philosophical implications of our sense of self from meditation experience. He is more aware of things we don't know about human consciousness than most people, atheist or not, and would not be afraid wherever the discussion leads. I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Excellent idea Rick. If anyone can bridge these disparate perspective in a non judgmental way so the discussion can really breath, it is YOU! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : I have this idea kicking around in my head to try to interview Sam Harris, or someone like him. An intelligent atheist, as I understand him. I’d want to read all his books first, and then hash out the likely points of discussion with you beforehand. We could do it on FFL. My perspective is very SCI-like – that intelligence is omnipresent, all-pervading, and obvious if one looks closely enough. I’m interviewing a guy named Bernardo Kastrup in a couple of months who has written a book called “Why Materialism is Baloney”, but it would be fun to interview an intelligent materialist, if that’s what Harris is, and see if we could find any common ground. What do you think?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/1/2014 3:02 PM, curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Someone needs to tell Barry that Harris says the idea of free will is incoherent. Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the concept that they might be. Go figure. C: I believe that Barry and Sam would agree on the reality of our felt sense of free will. The question has to do with whether or not the data of all of our unconscious process support that POV as a realistic possibility. And it doesn't matter if the unconscious influences are karma from past lives or just unconscious neural process that can be measured before we are consciously aware of them, they still undermine our felt sense upon reflection. That's sorta what I was trying to say about my tendency to prefer pragmatism these days. IT DOESN'T MATTER whether free will exists or not; to be sane in this insane world, you've pretty much gotta act as if it does. Every time you make a decision you're pretending free will exists, even if you claim to believe that it doesn't. Harris' book has some other POVs that he does not ascribe to where the person expands their sense of what we are to include those unconscious influences so that they can all go under the umbrella of me making a decision. I am not sure where I fall yet, I may have to read some others to see if their POV appeals to me more than Harris'. I suspect it is the pragmatic POV that most appeals to Barry on this topic but I could be wrong. In either case we all must act as if we have free will, we have no other choice! Exactly. That is what makes discussions or arguments about *whether* we have free will or not so BORING to me. They're completely unproductive -- a point that can never be proven one way or another. It's as silly as trying to debate the existence of God. Total waste of time. This may not sit well with you, Curtis, given that your degree was in philosophy, but one of the things I've never quite understood is the way that societies tend to place philosophers on pedestals, as if what they do makes them more worthy of being on one. Most of them IMO spend their time thinking and arguing about points like this that can never be resolved. So Im supposed to look up to someone who spends their time in such futile pursuits? :-) :-) :-) Yeah, I know...I'm overstating things for emphasis. I *get* that thinking about the theoretical is some people's idea of FUN, and that arguing one's beliefs about these theoreticals is also some people's idea of FUN. And if it is, cool. Me, I'm just not drawn that way any more.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Last night I read the first chapter of the End of Faith and LOVED it. Didn’t disagree with anything I’ve read so far. I’m taking notes and will post them for discussion later on. From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 3:03 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris I think it would be a fantastic discussion and I would love to help you prep for an interview. He is an especially good choice because he is an experienced Buddhist meditator and is interested in connecting his own field, neuro science with the experiences we have in meditation. But in a more philosophical than TM brain studies way. He is coming out with a course this Fall to coincide with his new book about an alternative perspective to subjective experiences from traditional spirituality. He thinks both materialist scientists and spiritual people are jumping to conclusions. He might be especially interested in this dialogue with you at this time because of this direction he is taking. It is a direction he is taking some shit from hard core atheists for which makes him all the better as a bridge for a rich discussion with you. So although he probably does believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain functions, he is more open to discussing the philosophical implications of our sense of self from meditation experience. He is more aware of things we don't know about human consciousness than most people, atheist or not, and would not be afraid wherever the discussion leads. I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Excellent idea Rick. If anyone can bridge these disparate perspective in a non judgmental way so the discussion can really breath, it is YOU! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote : I have this idea kicking around in my head to try to interview Sam Harris, or someone like him. An intelligent atheist, as I understand him. I’d want to read all his books first, and then hash out the likely points of discussion with you beforehand. We could do it on FFL. My perspective is very SCI-like – that intelligence is omnipresent, all-pervading, and obvious if one looks closely enough. I’m interviewing a guy named Bernardo Kastrup in a couple of months who has written a book called “Why Materialism is Baloney”, but it would be fun to interview an intelligent materialist, if that’s what Harris is, and see if we could find any common ground. What do you think?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Talk of Sam Harris brings me out of the FFL shadows. Harris is, in my view, one of the clearest and boldest thinkers in the world today. One may disagree with any number of his positions (that radical Islam presents a dire threat to the world, that free will is an illusion, that science can guide our moral decisions) but the intelligence and power with which he expresses himself is stunning. The surprising twist that this committed atheist and materialist is fascinated by the value that meditation can provide makes him all the more interesting. Go for it, Rick!
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : Last night I read the first chapter of the End of Faith and LOVED it. Didn’t disagree with anything I’ve read so far. I’m taking notes and will post them for discussion later on. C: I believe you guys are closer in your conclusions than would seem likely at first. You seem to have found an open intellectual space concerning topics like the assumptions in spirituality while still maintaining your own subjective experience as a center. (That may be too convoluted but it is my first attempt at articulating this.) You and Sam have found yourselves on different sides of certain lines I suspect, but with a similarity of honest approach that shares a humble process IMO.I think Sam will really learn some interesting things from you as well as vice versa, so I hope this interview happens. In the meantime hearing your perspective of his writing will be a real pleasure. It doesn't surprise me that you would share many of his perspectives on religion. What will be of most interest to me is how you relate to where he draws his lines on subjective experiences. Sam has done the equivalent in Buddhism of rounding and he seems to regard his experiences as having value. But where you guys differ and agree on exactly what that value means, and what conclusions we can draw from it, will be fascinating for me. This is highly relevant to my own personal journey in understanding my life today. Here he describes his book coming out this Fall with the lecture he will be giving on it. https://www.samharris.org/store/event_series/waking-up-with-sam-harris https://www.samharris.org/store/event_series/waking-up-with-sam-harris I will be fascinated to hear the distinctions you will uniquely be able to make between his POV and other people who discuss similar topics from a different perspective. As I said from the beginning of your Batgap project, your insight in letting the people speak for themselves and gathering them together is really profound from any POV on these experiences. And seeing your site today is kind of mindblowing on how much data you have collected. Big high five for being so dedicated to this project. I think Sam will be fascinated as well, this is a huge resource that he should know about. I am hoping that Sam will come off as less Guru-y and more of a co-student in this endeavor. Although I respect his thinking process, I don't view him on a life expert. I will be curious to see if he maintains that modest role or not.This is a big jump for him and he is taking a rash of shit from atheists that are getting the woo woo vibe. I am not getting that yet but I believe that it is because of my own positive experiences with mediation outside a belief system framework, like practicing TM 18 years after I left, or my current experiment with mindfulness. From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues@... Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 3:03 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris I think it would be a fantastic discussion and I would love to help you prep for an interview. He is an especially good choice because he is an experienced Buddhist meditator and is interested in connecting his own field, neuro science with the experiences we have in meditation. But in a more philosophical than TM brain studies way. He is coming out with a course this Fall to coincide with his new book about an alternative perspective to subjective experiences from traditional spirituality. He thinks both materialist scientists and spiritual people are jumping to conclusions. He might be especially interested in this dialogue with you at this time because of this direction he is taking. It is a direction he is taking some shit from hard core atheists for which makes him all the better as a bridge for a rich discussion with you. So although he probably does believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain functions, he is more open to discussing the philosophical implications of our sense of self from meditation experience. He is more aware of things we don't know about human consciousness than most people, atheist or not, and would not be afraid wherever the discussion leads. I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Excellent idea Rick. If anyone can bridge these disparate perspective in a non judgmental way so the discussion can really breath, it is YOU! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote : I have this idea kicking around in my head to try to interview Sam Harris, or someone like him. An intelligent atheist, as I understand him. I’d want to read all his books first, and then hash out the likely points of discussion with you beforehand. We could do it on FFL. My
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/2/2014 8:17 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Nobody ever disputed this point with Barry, including those who believe in determinism. He could never quite understand how someone could believe in determinism and yet continue to act as if they had free will without serious cognitive dissonance. He was unable to grasp that believers in determinism fully accepted that they had no other choice and did not perceive this to be in conflict with that belief. (Basically, Barry didn't, and likely still doesn't, comprehend what the belief entails.) We have to assume that there is a reason Barry believes in free will. I think it's because Barry believes Rama really levitated by the sheer force of his own will-power and that was all the proof Barry needed in order to become a follower. But, those of us in the real world know that the law of karma dictates that everything that goes up must come down - not float up to the top of a mountainside. That's not at all being pragmatic - that's the sign of a True Believer trying to put one over on everyone. I suspect it is the pragmatic POV that most appeals to Barry on this topic but I could be wrong. In either case we all must act as if we have free will, we have no other choice! --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Snip Exactly. That is what makes discussions or arguments about *whether* we have free will or not so BORING to me. They're completely unproductive -- a point that can never be proven one way or another. It's as silly as trying to debate the existence of God. Total waste of time. C: I don't doubt that it isn't interesting to you, so it would be a waste of your time. But in a broader sense the inquiry into where our free will starts and ends is highly useful in neuroscience. To measure brain activity that precedes our subjective experience of choice tells us a lot about how our brain communicates with itself. From a sociological POV this question has vast implications, and always has, in how we approach society's sense of justice in our legal system. It wasn't long ago that we hanged an elephant for killing a man. Today we have people on death row who were not mentally able to make a choice, so this topic is very up as we learn more about the brain and how it creates sociopaths. I believe that this information may lead to a more just humane society where we don't sentence people with a wink wink to getting raped in prison for their choice to commit a crime. From a personal POV I find the question insightful as I attempt to approach making personal changes in my life. In my experience, self improvement of any kind is like herding cats. Understanding more about how we end up influencing our own decisions may well lead to the answer to the question why do I have dark chocolate Klondike bars in my freezer if I SAY I want to lose weight? It turns out, to my chagrin, that the guy who wants to lose weight is NOT in charge of the whole herd of cats! B: This may not sit well with you, Curtis, given that your degree was in philosophy, but one of the things I've never quite understood is the way that societies tend to place philosophers on pedestals, as if what they do makes them more worthy of being on one. Most of them IMO spend their time thinking and arguing about points like this that can never be resolved. So Im supposed to look up to someone who spends their time in such futile pursuits? :-) :-) :-) C: I think philosophers lost that position after ancient Greece and have sunk to being the butt of late night jokes in the present society. But thinking about thinking, how we might bullshit ourselves less seems like a worthy subject. And like most of my personal obsessions, it isn't for everyone. I do think that assuming that any subject can never be resolved is premature. We have resolved all sorts of things throughout history, but it took us some time.My pet peeve is when we do figure something out that was debated for centuries like Slavery is wrong and then end up with more human slaves by the numbers today than any time in history! WTF. I am glad we hashed it out and came out pretty unanimously against it in the end but it isn't doing as much as I hoped. I'm blaming the herd of cats for this one too! From: curtisdeltablues@... curtisdeltablues@... --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/1/2014 3:02 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Someone needs to tell Barry that Harris says the idea of free will is incoherent. Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the concept that they might be. Go figure. C: I believe that Barry and Sam would agree on the reality of our felt sense of free will. The question has to do with whether or not the data of all of our unconscious process support that POV as a realistic possibility. And it doesn't matter if the unconscious influences are karma from past lives or just unconscious neural process that can be measured before we are consciously aware of them, they still undermine our felt sense upon reflection. That's sorta what I was trying to say about my tendency to prefer pragmatism these days. IT DOESN'T MATTER whether free will exists or not; to be sane in this insane world, you've pretty much gotta act as if it does. Every time you make a decision you're pretending free will exists, even if you claim to believe that it doesn't. Harris' book has some other POVs that he does not ascribe to where the person expands their sense of what we are to include those unconscious influences so that they can all go under the umbrella of me making a decision. I am not sure where I fall yet, I may have to read some others to see if their POV appeals to me more than Harris'. I suspect it is the pragmatic POV that most appeals to Barry on this topic but I could be wrong. In either case we all must act as if we have free will, we have no other choice! Exactly. That is what makes discussions or arguments about *whether* we have free will or not so BORING to me. They're completely unproductive -- a point that can
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
I fully agree, Curtis. I admit to having lost much of my interest in Batgap because much of it seemed to me to have devolved into the ostensibly selfless talking endlessly about themselves. But it's a noble effort, and a wonderful collection of data for future social scientists. And this interview I would both watch, and probably re-watch. Sam's lecture series and online course sound really interesting. I may subscribe to the online version myself. From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 5:37 PM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : Last night I read the first chapter of the End of Faith and LOVED it. Didn’t disagree with anything I’ve read so far. I’m taking notes and will post them for discussion later on. C: I believe you guys are closer in your conclusions than would seem likely at first. You seem to have found an open intellectual space concerning topics like the assumptions in spirituality while still maintaining your own subjective experience as a center. (That may be too convoluted but it is my first attempt at articulating this.) You and Sam have found yourselves on different sides of certain lines I suspect, but with a similarity of honest approach that shares a humble process IMO.I think Sam will really learn some interesting things from you as well as vice versa, so I hope this interview happens. In the meantime hearing your perspective of his writing will be a real pleasure. It doesn't surprise me that you would share many of his perspectives on religion. What will be of most interest to me is how you relate to where he draws his lines on subjective experiences. Sam has done the equivalent in Buddhism of rounding and he seems to regard his experiences as having value. But where you guys differ and agree on exactly what that value means, and what conclusions we can draw from it, will be fascinating for me. This is highly relevant to my own personal journey in understanding my life today. Here he describes his book coming out this Fall with the lecture he will be giving on it. https://www.samharris.org/store/event_series/waking-up-with-sam-harris I will be fascinated to hear the distinctions you will uniquely be able to make between his POV and other people who discuss similar topics from a different perspective. As I said from the beginning of your Batgap project, your insight in letting the people speak for themselves and gathering them together is really profound from any POV on these experiences. And seeing your site today is kind of mindblowing on how much data you have collected. Big high five for being so dedicated to this project. I think Sam will be fascinated as well, this is a huge resource that he should know about. I am hoping that Sam will come off as less Guru-y and more of a co-student in this endeavor. Although I respect his thinking process, I don't view him on a life expert. I will be curious to see if he maintains that modest role or not.This is a big jump for him and he is taking a rash of shit from atheists that are getting the woo woo vibe. I am not getting that yet but I believe that it is because of my own positive experiences with mediation outside a belief system framework, like practicing TM 18 years after I left, or my current experiment with mindfulness.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Exactly. That is what makes discussions or arguments about *whether* we have free will or not so BORING to me. They're completely unproductive -- a point that can never be proven one way or another. It's as silly as trying to debate the existence of God. Total waste of time. C: I don't doubt that it isn't interesting to you, so it would be a waste of your time. But in a broader sense the inquiry into where our free will starts and ends is highly useful in neuroscience. To measure brain activity that precedes our subjective experience of choice tells us a lot about how our brain communicates with itself. Not seeking to argue but just to understand, what would be the conceivable *value* of learning that you had no fuckin' free will? I'll wait. :-) :-) :-) From a sociological POV this question has vast implications, and always has, in how we approach society's sense of justice in our legal system. It wasn't long ago that we hanged an elephant for killing a man. Today we have people on death row who were not mentally able to make a choice, so this topic is very up as we learn more about the brain and how it creates sociopaths. I believe that this information may lead to a more just humane society where we don't sentence people with a wink wink to getting raped in prison for their choice to commit a crime. I guess I'm not that idealistic. I think there are people out there in the world who read the news reports about Oklahoma's recent botched execution and felt GOOD that the prisoner suffered. I don't see them altering these views in any way as a result of some kind of science trying to convince them that there is no free will. From a personal POV I find the question insightful as I attempt to approach making personal changes in my life. In my experience, self improvement of any kind is like herding cats. I certainly can't disagree with that. One of the things about FFL that amuses me the most is the proliferation of people who claim to believe that God does everything and that there is no free will, but somehow *them* having decided to learn TM and continue doing it makes them special. :-) Understanding more about how we end up influencing our own decisions may well lead to the answer to the question why do I have dark chocolate Klondike bars in my freezer if I SAY I want to lose weight? It turns out, to my chagrin, that the guy who wants to lose weight is NOT in charge of the whole herd of cats! Again, not seeking to argue, but I have zero cartons of dark chocolate Klondike bars in my freezer, even though I could benefit from dropping about five pounds of weight. The fact that such bars are not sold in the Netherlands should not be a factor here. I wouldn't have them in my freezer if they were. They'd take up room needed for the frozen berries I put on my cereal in the morning. :-) B: This may not sit well with you, Curtis, given that your degree was in philosophy, but one of the things I've never quite understood is the way that societies tend to place philosophers on pedestals, as if what they do makes them more worthy of being on one. Most of them IMO spend their time thinking and arguing about points like this that can never be resolved. So Im supposed to look up to someone who spends their time in such futile pursuits? :-) :-) :-) C: I think philosophers lost that position after ancient Greece and have sunk to being the butt of late night jokes in the present society. But thinking about thinking, how we might bullshit ourselves less seems like a worthy subject. And like most of my personal obsessions, it isn't for everyone. I do think that assuming that any subject can never be resolved is premature. We have resolved all sorts of things throughout history, but it took us some time.My pet peeve is when we do figure something out that was debated for centuries like Slavery is wrong and then end up with more human slaves by the numbers today than any time in history! WTF. I am glad we hashed it out and came out pretty unanimously against it in the end but it isn't doing as much as I hoped. I'm blaming the herd of cats for this one too! From: curtisdeltablues@... curtisdeltablues@... --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/1/2014 3:02 PM, curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Someone needs to tell Barry that Harris says the idea of free will is incoherent. Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the concept that they might be. Go figure. C: I believe that Barry and Sam would agree on the reality of our felt sense of free will. The question has to do with whether or not the data of all of our unconscious process support that POV as a realistic possibility. And it doesn't matter if the
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
having only read some things about Harris, I am nonetheless really looking
forward to hearing a BATGAP interview with him - I do hope you do it Rick.
On Fri, 5/2/14, kry...@natel.net kry...@natel.net wrote:
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 2, 2014, 3:34 PM
Talk of Sam Harris brings me out of the FFL
shadows.
Harris is, in
my view, one of the clearest and boldest thinkers in the
world today. One may disagree with any number of his
positions (that radical Islam presents a dire threat to the
world, that free will is an illusion, that science can guide
our moral decisions) but the intelligence and power with
which he expresses himself is stunning. The surprising
twist that this committed atheist and materialist is
fascinated by the value that meditation can provide makes
him all the more interesting. Go for it,
Rick!
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504 --
#yiv0727044504ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504ygrp-mkp #yiv0727044504hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504ygrp-mkp #yiv0727044504ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504ygrp-mkp .yiv0727044504ad {
padding:0 0;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504ygrp-mkp .yiv0727044504ad p {
margin:0;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504ygrp-mkp .yiv0727044504ad a {
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504ygrp-sponsor
#yiv0727044504ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504ygrp-sponsor
#yiv0727044504ygrp-lc #yiv0727044504hd {
margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504ygrp-sponsor
#yiv0727044504ygrp-lc .yiv0727044504ad {
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504actions {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504activity {
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504activity span {
font-weight:700;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504activity span:first-child {
text-transform:uppercase;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504activity span a {
color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504activity span span {
color:#ff7900;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504activity span
.yiv0727044504underline {
text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv0727044504 .yiv0727044504attach {
clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}
#yiv0727044504 .yiv0727044504attach div a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv0727044504 .yiv0727044504attach img {
border:none;padding-right:5px;}
#yiv0727044504 .yiv0727044504attach label {
display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}
#yiv0727044504 .yiv0727044504attach label a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv0727044504 blockquote {
margin:0 0 0 4px;}
#yiv0727044504 .yiv0727044504bold {
font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}
#yiv0727044504 .yiv0727044504bold a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv0727044504 dd.yiv0727044504last p a {
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
#yiv0727044504 dd.yiv0727044504last p span {
margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
#yiv0727044504 dd.yiv0727044504last p
span.yiv0727044504yshortcuts {
margin-right:0;}
#yiv0727044504 div.yiv0727044504attach-table div div a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv0727044504 div.yiv0727044504attach-table {
width:400px;}
#yiv0727044504 div.yiv0727044504file-title a, #yiv0727044504
div.yiv0727044504file-title a:active, #yiv0727044504
div.yiv0727044504file-title a:hover, #yiv0727044504
div.yiv0727044504file-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv0727044504 div.yiv0727044504photo-title a,
#yiv0727044504 div.yiv0727044504photo-title a:active,
#yiv0727044504 div.yiv0727044504photo-title a:hover,
#yiv0727044504 div.yiv0727044504photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv0727044504 div#yiv0727044504ygrp-mlmsg
#yiv0727044504ygrp-msg p a span.yiv0727044504yshortcuts {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}
#yiv0727044504 .yiv0727044504green {
color:#628c2a;}
#yiv0727044504 .yiv0727044504MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#yiv0727044504 o {
font-size:0;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504photos div {
float:left;width:72px;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504photos div div {
border:1px solid
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504photos div label {
color:#66;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}
#yiv0727044504 #yiv0727044504reco-category {
font-size
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Comments below... From a sociological POV this question has vast implications, and always has, in how we approach society's sense of justice in our legal system. It wasn't long ago that we hanged an elephant for killing a man. Today we have people on death row who were not mentally able to make a choice, so this topic is very up as we learn more about the brain and how it creates sociopaths. I believe that this information may lead to a more just humane society where we don't sentence people with a wink wink to getting raped in prison for their choice to commit a crime. I guess I'm not that idealistic. I think there are people out there in the world who read the news reports about Oklahoma's recent botched execution and felt GOOD that the prisoner suffered. I don't see them altering these views in any way as a result of some kind of science trying to convince them that there is no free will. Probably not, but on the other hand such people are most likely a small minority, not nearly enough for their view to determine how society treats criminals. The outrage over that execution was worldwide. From a personal POV I find the question insightful as I attempt to approach making personal changes in my life. In my experience, self improvement of any kind is like herding cats. I certainly can't disagree with that. One of the things about FFL that amuses me the most is the proliferation of people who claim to believe that God does everything and that there is no free will, but somehow *them* having decided to learn TM and continue doing it makes them special. :-) Aside from the fact that a proliferation of people is Barry's fantasy, many of us just feel exceedingly lucky to have stumbled across TM and taken a flyer on it. The feeling special part, in the sense of taking credit for oneself, is also Barry's fantasy. But in any case, those who believe God does everything might well feel special--i.e., blessed--because God led them to TM.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/2/2014 10:02 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Last night I read the first chapter of the End of Faith and LOVED it. Didn’t disagree with anything I’ve read so far. I’m taking notes and will post them for discussion later on. You may find the idea of a nuclear first-strike against Iran to be not quite to your liking, but I tend to agree with Harris on this - avoid the danger that lies ahead. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com Lately I am thinking of myself differently, as sort of a conglomerate of past experiences and tendencies that expresses themselves in my present choices. I am not sure there is anybody at the wheel other than the ghost who I imagine as my personal identity. What I hold so dear, my personal self my just be a phantom, an artifact of a brain that evolved through fits and starts through history and whose projection of personal identity may all be nothing more than the sum of things I do and think about in my life. A bee hive of activity around a phantom nest. Can't argue with that. Probably wouldn't if I could. :-) I am a long way off from being coherent on this topic but am enjoying the ride so against your usual preference, thanks for philosophizing with me a bit, it has provoked my thought and that is a gift. Indeed. Thanks for the drive-by. It's been a complete pleasure, and if it fits in with your schedule and your lifestyle, I hope there are many more. Such a change from the last few months of FFL without you present.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Radical anything (including TM) is a dire threat to the world, depending on what you mean by radical. and certainly, depending on one's definintion, it is trivially obvious that free will is an illusion. and I agree that [at least in many cases], science CAN guide our moral reasoning -again this is trivial, depending on definitions. What little I have seen and read of Sam Harris doesn't stun me, however. And he fails to make any real distinction between TM and mindfulness and focused attention practices: Lame-o. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, krysto@... wrote : Talk of Sam Harris brings me out of the FFL shadows. Harris is, in my view, one of the clearest and boldest thinkers in the world today. One may disagree with any number of his positions (that radical Islam presents a dire threat to the world, that free will is an illusion, that science can guide our moral decisions) but the intelligence and power with which he expresses himself is stunning. The surprising twist that this committed atheist and materialist is fascinated by the value that meditation can provide makes him all the more interesting. Go for it, Rick!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/2/2014 1:28 PM, TurquoiseBee wrote: IT DOESN'T MATTER whether free will exists or not; You are either free or you are bound. If free, there would be no need to practice yoga. If bound, by what means could we free ourselves? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Comments below as well: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Comments below... From a sociological POV this question has vast implications, and always has, in how we approach society's sense of justice in our legal system. It wasn't long ago that we hanged an elephant for killing a man. Today we have people on death row who were not mentally able to make a choice, so this topic is very up as we learn more about the brain and how it creates sociopaths. I believe that this information may lead to a more just humane society where we don't sentence people with a wink wink to getting raped in prison for their choice to commit a crime. I guess I'm not that idealistic. I think there are people out there in the world who read the news reports about Oklahoma's recent botched execution and felt GOOD that the prisoner suffered. I don't see them altering these views in any way as a result of some kind of science trying to convince them that there is no free will. Probably not, but on the other hand such people are most likely a small minority, not nearly enough for their view to determine how society treats criminals. The outrage over that execution was worldwide. The online forums are full of people who are expressing outrage over the outrage and I'd say the outraged outrage approaches 50% of the posts, even in the liberal forums. I've yet to see a formal poll taken on the topic.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Harris advocates a first strike against Iran? That's not controversialy, that's insane. When you interview him, be sure to change the name of batgap forum for that episode. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/2/2014 10:02 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Last night I read the first chapter of the End of Faith and LOVED it. Didn’t disagree with anything I’ve read so far. I’m taking notes and will post them for discussion later on. You may find the idea of a nuclear first-strike against Iran to be not quite to your liking, but I tend to agree with Harris on this - avoid the danger that lies ahead. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/2/2014 2:01 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: I am a long way off from being coherent on this topic but am enjoying the ride so against your usual preference, thanks for philosophizing with me a bit, it has provoked my thought and that is a gift. Free will would imply a between one course or another, which would imply that we have some control over our conscious decisions. But we know that there is causality and science tells us that things happen for a reason in the physical world where everything that happens is preceded by a cause and followed by an effect. Free will implies the ability to cause change at will on the physical level but we know that thoughts cannot cause physical change at will. According to Sam Harris, the concept of free will is incoherent. Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the idea that we might be. Go figure. Or, are you supposing that consciousness itself is the determining factor in change? Or, that mind and consciousness are separate from the physical world? Or, that the physical world is the result of consciousness? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : Harris advocates a first strike against Iran? That's not controversialy, that's insane. When you interview him, be sure to change the name of batgap forum for that episode. C: Your very funny comment on changing the name of Batgap, I am assuming to batshit aside... this is a slanderous misread of Harris' position by journalists which he clarifies here: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2 http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2 The basic upshot is that he was painting a hypothetical combination of a society that glorifies suicidal actions against infidels combined with long range nuclear capability and the fact that we do have nuclear weapons that we would use if we believed we were in imminent danger. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. Harris http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf He is not for it, he is against it. He believes the beliefs in Islam might cause it so he is against those beliefs. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/2/2014 10:02 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Last night I read the first chapter of the End of Faith and LOVED it. Didn’t disagree with anything I’ve read so far. I’m taking notes and will post them for discussion later on. You may find the idea of a nuclear first-strike against Iran to be not quite to your liking, but I tend to agree with Harris on this - avoid the danger that lies ahead. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/2/2014 2:13 PM, TurquoiseBee wrote: Such a change from the last few months of FFL without you present. Oh, stop it! I've been talking about this on FFL and AMT since 1999, but you had your head stuck up your ass with a bias and ego bigger than the state of Texas. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/2/2014 9:22 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: Harris advocates a first strike against Iran? A first nuclear strike against Iran may be the only option considering the goal of Sunni Islam is the annihilation of the Western world. The enemy is the closed society that preaches violence and death against everyone that does not believe in Allah. Harris pulls no punches - he is a pragmatist. That's not controversialy, that's insane. So, in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - vast human atrocities - maybe we should consider the nuclear option. According to Harris, this may be the only option available to us, given what Islamists believe in the event of an Islamist regime such as Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Work cited: 'The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason' by Sam Harris W. W. Norton, 2004 p. 129 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: curtisdeltablues@... curtisdeltablues@... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Exactly. That is what makes discussions or arguments about *whether* we have free will or not so BORING to me. They're completely unproductive -- a point that can never be proven one way or another. It's as silly as trying to debate the existence of God. Total waste of time. C: I don't doubt that it isn't interesting to you, so it would be a waste of your time. But in a broader sense the inquiry into where our free will starts and ends is highly useful in neuroscience. To measure brain activity that precedes our subjective experience of choice tells us a lot about how our brain communicates with itself. Not seeking to argue but just to understand, what would be the conceivable *value* of learning that you had no fuckin' free will? I'll wait. :-) :-) :-) C: It changes a lot of things in how we understand what it means to be human. We think of ourselves as such volitional beings, but it my be that this is an illusion created by lagtime in our brains. The obvious next step, since in my life volitional choice would be of immense value, would be to ask how this mechanism works and how can we hack it to make personal changes we want. Our species is famous for acting against our own best self interest and understanding what we can control and what we can't could help us both explain and modify this human delemma. My approach to how I make changes in my own life has already been altered by even a cursory understanding of how my self perception is at variance to the measurable reality. I am a bit more understanding with myself and approach change as a rally rather than a command. It also breeds compassion about other people's failings. I'm not sure even you could convince Bawee of this but I enjoyed reading this. It's not that I necessarily agree but I love the spirit of you actually having disagreed with him. One's own two feet are good for standing on.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Comments below... From a sociological POV this question has vast implications, and always has, in how we approach society's sense of justice in our legal system. It wasn't long ago that we hanged an elephant for killing a man. Today we have people on death row who were not mentally able to make a choice, so this topic is very up as we learn more about the brain and how it creates sociopaths. I believe that this information may lead to a more just humane society where we don't sentence people with a wink wink to getting raped in prison for their choice to commit a crime. I guess I'm not that idealistic. I think there are people out there in the world who read the news reports about Oklahoma's recent botched execution and felt GOOD that the prisoner suffered. I don't see them altering these views in any way as a result of some kind of science trying to convince them that there is no free will. Probably not, but on the other hand such people are most likely a small minority, not nearly enough for their view to determine how society treats criminals. The outrage over that execution was worldwide. From a personal POV I find the question insightful as I attempt to approach making personal changes in my life. In my experience, self improvement of any kind is like herding cats. I certainly can't disagree with that. One of the things about FFL that amuses me the most is the proliferation of people who claim to believe that God does everything and that there is no free will, but somehow *them* having decided to learn TM and continue doing it makes them special. :-) Aside from the fact that a proliferation of people is Barry's fantasy, many of us just feel exceedingly lucky to have stumbled across TM and taken a flyer on it. The feeling special part, in the sense of taking credit for oneself, is also Barry's fantasy. But in any case, those who believe God does everything might well feel special--i.e., blessed--because God led them to TM. First of all there are no proliferation of even posters at FFL. The cocktail party here consists of about 10 people. Of those 10 people about half of them still practice TM, an indeterminate amount of them believe in God and as far as I can tell no one feels particularly special. Maybe Bawee has his forums mixed up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I guess I'm not that idealistic. I think there are people out there in the world who read the news reports about Oklahoma's recent botched execution and felt GOOD that the prisoner suffered. I'll cop to this. It bothers me, not a drop, that this guy suffered the way he did. In fact, in my cosmology, I think it probably helped mitigate some of what he has in store for himself. I assume you've read the chronology of the execution, and also are familiar with the details of the homicide he committed. The only problem I have with capital punishment, is the fact that some of the people are innocent. Otherwise, I support it. I don't see them altering these views in any way as a result of some kind of science trying to convince them that there is no free will.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Daisy Cutter bombs and similar conventional ordinance can strike just as hard as tactical nukes without worrying about fallout, physical or political or moral or whatever. He's either an ignorant ass, or trying to make controversial statements to sell his book (see the ass in first part of sentence). L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : Harris advocates a first strike against Iran? That's not controversialy, that's insane. When you interview him, be sure to change the name of batgap forum for that episode. C: Your very funny comment on changing the name of Batgap, I am assuming to batshit aside... this is a slanderous misread of Harris' position by journalists which he clarifies here: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2 http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2 The basic upshot is that he was painting a hypothetical combination of a society that glorifies suicidal actions against infidels combined with long range nuclear capability and the fact that we do have nuclear weapons that we would use if we believed we were in imminent danger. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. Harris http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#sthash.G6o2BhSt.dpuf He is not for it, he is against it. He believes the beliefs in Islam might cause it so he is against those beliefs. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/2/2014 10:02 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Last night I read the first chapter of the End of Faith and LOVED it. Didn’t disagree with anything I’ve read so far. I’m taking notes and will post them for discussion later on. You may find the idea of a nuclear first-strike against Iran to be not quite to your liking, but I tend to agree with Harris on this - avoid the danger that lies ahead. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Hast thou never heard of Daisy Cutters and other super-conventional weapons? There's no need to advocate our going nuclear against any small country, ever. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/2/2014 9:22 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Harris advocates a first strike against Iran? A first nuclear strike against Iran may be the only option considering the goal of Sunni Islam is the annihilation of the Western world. The enemy is the closed society that preaches violence and death against everyone that does not believe in Allah. Harris pulls no punches - he is a pragmatist. That's not controversialy, that's insane. So, in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - vast human atrocities - maybe we should consider the nuclear option. According to Harris, this may be the only option available to us, given what Islamists believe in the event of an Islamist regime such as Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Work cited: 'The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason' by Sam Harris W. W. Norton, 2004 p. 129 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 3:03 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris I think it would be a fantastic discussion and I would love to help you prep for an interview. He is an especially good choice because he is an experienced Buddhist meditator and is interested in connecting his own field, neuro science with the experiences we have in meditation. But in a more philosophical than TM brain studies way. He is coming out with a course this Fall to coincide with his new book about an alternative perspective to subjective experiences from traditional spirituality. He thinks both materialist scientists and spiritual people are jumping to conclusions. He might be especially interested in this dialogue with you at this time because of this direction he is taking. It is a direction he is taking some shit from hard core atheists for which makes him all the better as a bridge for a rich discussion with you. So although he probably does believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain functions, he is more open to discussing the philosophical implications of our sense of self from meditation experience. He is more aware of things we don't know about human consciousness than most people, atheist or not, and would not be afraid wherever the discussion leads. I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Excellent idea Rick. If anyone can bridge these disparate perspective in a non judgmental way so the discussion can really breath, it is YOU! And if anyone can help me prep for it, it is YOU! Which of his books would you suggest I read first? I think the local library has several. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote : I have this idea kicking around in my head to try to interview Sam Harris, or someone like him. An intelligent atheist, as I understand him. I’d want to read all his books first, and then hash out the likely points of discussion with you beforehand. We could do it on FFL. My perspective is very SCI-like – that intelligence is omnipresent, all-pervading, and obvious if one looks closely enough. I’m interviewing a guy named Bernardo Kastrup in a couple of months who has written a book called “Why Materialism is Baloney”, but it would be fun to interview an intelligent materialist, if that’s what Harris is, and see if we could find any common ground. What do you think?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
I think you have to start with his first, The End of Faith. There are also some great debates with him on Youtube that will help you orient to his approach. He has had so many contentions discussions that you will be a breath of fresh air for him, able to disagree without being disagreeable. One great quality about Sam is that he is not afraid to piss off atheists with his POV. He is a sincere thinker and goes where he feels he is being the most reasonable. His philosophy training allows him to actually consider POVs that would disrupt his current perspective. Obviously from his long Buddhist retreats he seeks out other perspectives. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues@... Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 3:03 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris I think it would be a fantastic discussion and I would love to help you prep for an interview. He is an especially good choice because he is an experienced Buddhist meditator and is interested in connecting his own field, neuro science with the experiences we have in meditation. But in a more philosophical than TM brain studies way. He is coming out with a course this Fall to coincide with his new book about an alternative perspective to subjective experiences from traditional spirituality. He thinks both materialist scientists and spiritual people are jumping to conclusions. He might be especially interested in this dialogue with you at this time because of this direction he is taking. It is a direction he is taking some shit from hard core atheists for which makes him all the better as a bridge for a rich discussion with you. So although he probably does believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain functions, he is more open to discussing the philosophical implications of our sense of self from meditation experience. He is more aware of things we don't know about human consciousness than most people, atheist or not, and would not be afraid wherever the discussion leads. I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Excellent idea Rick. If anyone can bridge these disparate perspective in a non judgmental way so the discussion can really breath, it is YOU! And if anyone can help me prep for it, it is YOU! Which of his books would you suggest I read first? I think the local library has several. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote : I have this idea kicking around in my head to try to interview Sam Harris, or someone like him. An intelligent atheist, as I understand him. I’d want to read all his books first, and then hash out the likely points of discussion with you beforehand. We could do it on FFL. My perspective is very SCI-like – that intelligence is omnipresent, all-pervading, and obvious if one looks closely enough. I’m interviewing a guy named Bernardo Kastrup in a couple of months who has written a book called “Why Materialism is Baloney”, but it would be fun to interview an intelligent materialist, if that’s what Harris is, and see if we could find any common ground. What do you think?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
Great. I hardly knew anything about him, but I had this feeling I should try to interview him. You’re confirming it. From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 3:32 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris I think you have to start with his first, The End of Faith. There are also some great debates with him on Youtube that will help you orient to his approach. He has had so many contentions discussions that you will be a breath of fresh air for him, able to disagree without being disagreeable. One great quality about Sam is that he is not afraid to piss off atheists with his POV. He is a sincere thinker and goes where he feels he is being the most reasonable. His philosophy training allows him to actually consider POVs that would disrupt his current perspective. Obviously from his long Buddhist retreats he seeks out other perspectives. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote : From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues@... Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 3:03 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris I think it would be a fantastic discussion and I would love to help you prep for an interview. He is an especially good choice because he is an experienced Buddhist meditator and is interested in connecting his own field, neuro science with the experiences we have in meditation. But in a more philosophical than TM brain studies way. He is coming out with a course this Fall to coincide with his new book about an alternative perspective to subjective experiences from traditional spirituality. He thinks both materialist scientists and spiritual people are jumping to conclusions. He might be especially interested in this dialogue with you at this time because of this direction he is taking. It is a direction he is taking some shit from hard core atheists for which makes him all the better as a bridge for a rich discussion with you. So although he probably does believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain functions, he is more open to discussing the philosophical implications of our sense of self from meditation experience. He is more aware of things we don't know about human consciousness than most people, atheist or not, and would not be afraid wherever the discussion leads. I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Excellent idea Rick. If anyone can bridge these disparate perspective in a non judgmental way so the discussion can really breath, it is YOU! And if anyone can help me prep for it, it is YOU! Which of his books would you suggest I read first? I think the local library has several. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote : I have this idea kicking around in my head to try to interview Sam Harris, or someone like him. An intelligent atheist, as I understand him. I’d want to read all his books first, and then hash out the likely points of discussion with you beforehand. We could do it on FFL. My perspective is very SCI-like – that intelligence is omnipresent, all-pervading, and obvious if one looks closely enough. I’m interviewing a guy named Bernardo Kastrup in a couple of months who has written a book called “Why Materialism is Baloney”, but it would be fun to interview an intelligent materialist, if that’s what Harris is, and see if we could find any common ground. What do you think?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
On 5/1/2014 3:02 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Someone needs to tell Barry that Harris says the idea of free will is incoherent. Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the concept that they might be. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - Sam Harris
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/1/2014 3:02 PM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I am reading his book on free will right now. Very thought provoking. Someone needs to tell Barry that Harris says the idea of free will is incoherent. Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the concept that they might be. Go figure. C: I believe that Barry and Sam would agree on the reality of our felt sense of free will. The question has to do with whether or not the data of all of our unconscious process support that POV as a realistic possibility. And it doesn't matter if the unconscious influences are karma from past lives or just unconscious neural process that can be measured before we are consciously aware of them, they still undermine our felt sense upon reflection. Harris' book has some other POVs that he does not ascribe to where the person expands their sense of what we are to include those unconscious influences so that they can all go under the umbrella of me making a decision. I am not sure where I fall yet, I may have to read some others to see if their POV appeals to me more than Harris'. I suspect it is the pragmatic POV that most appeals to Barry on this topic but I could be wrong. In either case we all must act as if we have free will, we have no other choice! --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com
