Sam Harris

Sander and Bruce,

You are very naughty boys! But OK, the joke’s on me. 

keith - 26 July 2008 09:40 PM

Sander and Bruce,

You are very naughty boys! But OK, the joke’s on me. 

Rule Number 1 - NEVER take anything Sander posts seriously, no matter how realistic, erudite or intelligent it sounds.

Rule Number 2 - ALWAYS refer back to Rule Number 1.

Bruce Burleson - 26 July 2008 09:54 PM

Rule Number 1 - NEVER take anything Sander posts seriously, no matter how realistic, erudite or intelligent it sounds.

Rule Number 2 - ALWAYS refer back to Rule Number 1.

Very true, except when the subject matter is salubrious floozies.

keith - 25 July 2008 10:03 PM

John,

If I unfairly maligned you here - and I may have - then I apologize. But it seems to me that I have assured you many times in the course of our debate (and recently and explicitly in this thread’s Post 27) that I have no problem with the bulk of your historical and mythological scholarship. Indeed, I respect it. My problem remains only with your acceptance of a particular myth as reality. You seem to be accusing me of something far more general, and more prosaic, than this.

Best regards,

Keith

There is no need to apologize but I do appreciate the clarification.  Yes, you have underlined the value of myth ala Joseph Campbell, for example.  I have tried to emphasize my opinion that acceptance of the Christ-myth as reality does not diminish my ability to operate with reason.  Within Luke’s universe the miraculous is a common place and this his how he reports his experience of the Christ.  I choose to believe his account and have worked through the various contradictions, etc..  I have received the impression that you are not interested in working these through. Rather, you are trying to show me that ‘x cannot observably be the case’ which is what I am calling scientistic.  One can still appreciate the teaching of a myth even if one does not accept it as reality.  And, similarly, one’s believe in a myth does not eject one from the rational.

Hope this helps clarify some of the misconceptions,

John

John, just getting to some of the many questions that you had posed earlier.  On the notion of scientific research into the cognitive conditions that allow us to become language users and the thought that there is such a particular “cognitive blueprint” that is a necessary condition leading to both our linguistic capacity and our moral awareness (conscience)- let me concede that these are my own ideas on this subject. People like Marc Hauser (author of “Moral Minds”) and V.S. Ramachandran (neuroscientist at UCLA) are doing interesting field studies that indicate there is a strong and direct connection between our linguistic ability and our moral understanding.  Hauser is looking at animal behaviour and how certain cognitive accomplishments appear to indicate the foundations of moral reasoning in their behaviour. Ramachandran is doing research into unique (pathological)human cognitive capacities that produce/induce religious or delusional experiences in their sufferers. This research can be widened to examine normal human behaviour as well by discovering the cognitive prerequisites that relate directly to our moral awareness.

The point I want to stress is that there are scientific researchers who are discovering neuro-biological explanations for human perceptions and behaviours that were thought to have mysterious or otherwise inexplicable origins.

I will have to agree with Salt Creek in his aversion to psychology, and contend that scientists like Wilson and Dawkins (with backgrounds in genetics and evolution theory, and an interest in animal/human behaviour) are the sorts of researchers who will get us to the answers we seek. The work of Hauser, Ramachandran, and many others seek evolutionary explanations for our behaviour, and in that sense their work will produce a better picture of the scale and the scope of our cognitive history and a greater understanding of what our future “thinking” might be like.

What i find intriguing about the evolutionary approach to human congition is how it essentially brings us back down to earth by tracing our complex cognitive processes to its roots in other animal species. One interesting discovery recently is that of “mirror neurons” in dogs, apes, and humans. The actions of these cognitive triggers may have explanitory scope for behaviours that no amount of “pure psychology” could ever hope to uncover.

I’ll try to respond to some other of your questions later.

Bob

CanZen - 29 July 2008 06:36 AM

John, just getting to some of the many questions that you had posed earlier.  On the notion of scientific research into the cognitive conditions that allow us to become language users and the thought that there is such a particular “cognitive blueprint” that is a necessary condition leading to both our linguistic capacity and our moral awareness (conscience)- let me concede that these are my own ideas on this subject. People like Marc Hauser (author of “Moral Minds”) and V.S. Ramachandran (neuroscientist at UCLA) are doing interesting field studies that indicate there is a strong and direct connection between our linguistic ability and our moral understanding.  Hauser is looking at animal behaviour and how certain cognitive accomplishments appear to indicate the foundations of moral reasoning in their behaviour. Ramachandran is doing research into unique (pathological)human cognitive capacities that produce/induce religious or delusional experiences in their sufferers. This research can be widened to examine normal human behaviour as well by discovering the cognitive prerequisites that relate directly to our moral awareness.

The point I want to stress is that there are scientific researchers who are discovering neuro-biological explanations for human perceptions and behaviours that were thought to have mysterious or otherwise inexplicable origins.

I will have to agree with Salt Creek in his aversion to psychology, and contend that scientists like Wilson and Dawkins (with backgrounds in genetics and evolution theory, and an interest in animal/human behaviour) are the sorts of researchers who will get us to the answers we seek. The work of Hauser, Ramachandran, and many others seek evolutionary explanations for our behaviour, and in that sense their work will produce a better picture of the scale and the scope of our cognitive history and a greater understanding of what our future “thinking” might be like.

What i find intriguing about the evolutionary approach to human congition is how it essentially brings us back down to earth by tracing our complex cognitive processes to its roots in other animal species. One interesting discovery recently is that of “mirror neurons” in dogs, apes, and humans. The actions of these cognitive triggers may have explanitory scope for behaviours that no amount of “pure psychology” could ever hope to uncover.

I’ll try to respond to some other of your questions later.

Bob

Good to hear that you are still interested in discussing these matters ... I’ll take some time to work through what you have been thinking about as I am able.

John

CanZen - 29 July 2008 06:36 AM

I will have to agree with Salt Creek in his aversion to psychology, and contend that scientists like Wilson and Dawkins (with backgrounds in genetics and evolution theory, and an interest in animal/human behaviour) are the sorts of researchers who will get us to the answers we seek.

Thanks, Bob, for your summary of the work of scientist in whom you have good reason to place confidence.  As for Salt Creek, I am not convinced that he has been able to extricate himself enough from his own scientistic solipsism in order to adequately make any kind of assertion as to whether psychology should be averted or not.  By his own admission, “What I do know about is science”.

However, I do want to respect your epistemic structure and encourage you to look beyond it (as well) by considering the criticism and update of Martin Seligman, past President (1998) of the American Psychological Association (APA).  The video discusses the state of the union in Psychology and makes the point that it is,

(1) Good
(2) Not Good, and
(3) Not Good Enough

From Freud through to the recent past Psychology worked from a disease vantage point and with psychological pathologies.  The work of Positive Psychology builds on the past accomplishments of the more negative model to make psychological science better.  There is, also, a text article available of Seligman’s comments/criticisms.  He develops ideas of the happy life which appeared first in the writings of Aristotle and later became incorporated into the work of present day psychology via the contribution of Franz Brentano.  On Brentano’s contribution see Daniel Dennett’s article on Intentionality in the The Oxford Companion to the Mind (Oxford University Press, 1987).

I hope you will be able to take the time to consider what Dr. Seligman has to say so that we can incorporate some of the research done within this epistemic structure to enhance the structure you are using.

All the best,

John