Sam Harris.org Reader Forum

Harris’s claim that Science can Predict Choices before You’re Aware.

2013-04-07T07:38:45+00:00

I was recently showing a friend one of Sam’s clips on Youtube about Freewill, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRIcbsRXQ0o

Harris at around 4:00, that Scientist could have predicted which hand he would have chosen seconds before he was aware. My friend didn’t believe that, so we looked up data. This is what we found.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/06/30/science-brain-mind-reading-planning.html

According to this, it says there is a 55-65% accuracy. It seems to me that Harris exaggerated the significance of this test to help prove his point, which is a shame because the point is a very good one, one that doesn’t need skewed data to persuade the audience. It seems to take away from his credibility when he is willing to report data in this manner when it helps his argument.

Are we being too critical??

Standard measures in neuroscience

2013-01-27T16:23:36+00:00

When will we have a standard measure for happiness, orgasm, honesty, good intention, memory etc?

The geometry of conscious space

2013-01-27T16:19:29+00:00

Could conscious space be different from external space? Maybe it it a transformation like a map to a globe(hyperbolic space). Or it is of higher or lower dimension to the outside world, because the brain best calculates in that mode, like scientists iirc calculate in hexadecimal. I suppose that it could be, so long as the brain back translates when it comes to action.

Paranormal experience

2013-01-26T22:36:23+00:00

I found this odd, but one webpage claimed that some atheists believe in and experience paranormal events despite being atheists. Is there a necessary connection between believing in a god or gods and the paranormal? And yes, they experienced these things and remained atheist. Somethings like seeing frae folk, the dead, ufos, time travel etc…

My Reaction to Sam Harris review of Eben Alexander’s experience

2012-12-18T18:45:44+00:00

I was just really dissappointed with Sam Harris’ reasoning. I feel like sceptical thinkers should be strict adherents to good logic.

First and most importantly, he makes the argument that Eben Alexander’s neocortex could well have been working. This seems like the most important point of the entire debate. Did Eben Alexander have an experience with a “rich tapestry” while his neocortex was down? Eben Alexander offers some clinical evidence that he claims would indicate that his neocortex was not working. Sam Harris basically says that the evidence offered by Eben Alexander is not sufficient to prove it. He offers some explanation, but it is not enough.

Just as I am not willing to accept Eben Alexander’s word that his clinical signs prove a nonfunctioning neocortex during the time of his vision, I also will not accept Sam Harris’ word that the evidence is insufficient. I realize I am asking Sam Harris to put in a lot more work, with a lot more scientific detail, but it is necessary for him to fully make his point. I won’t succumb to the authority fallacy from either side.

My other big criticism is Sam Harris’ argument against the idea that the brain is a reducing valve for consciousness. He tries to explain that if this were true, then damaging the brain would mean less reduction, and thus greater consciousness. This is not a fair claim to make. We are only talking about a metaphor here. How you choose to interpret the metaphor is entirely subjective. One could just as easily explain that by damaging the brain you are closing the reducing valve tighter, and thus reducing consciousness. Generalizing from a metaphor is a terrible idea.

I also felt like Sam Harris’ tone was condescending. Personally, I feel like that reduces his credibility. Perhaps he was justifiably angy at Dr. Alexander - I don’t know. I just think it helps pundits be taken more seriously if they firmly maintain a professional demeanor. Penny Sartori, an NDE researcher from the other side of this debate coin, sets an excellent example for this.

Am I asking too much? Did I just evoke a mass response where everyone will accuse me of being a total idiot? I hope not.

Peace,

Behavioural Psychology- Science Or Quackery

2012-12-04T19:52:04+00:00

When I took psychology electives in college back in the mid-1970’s, the experience left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. The textbook used in Canada at the time was Psychology Today, and it was chock-full of pseudoscientific b.s. that at the time was the established canon. Auras, ESP, Kirlian photography, parapsychology- get your hands on an edition of Psychology Today from, say, 1974. It’s all in there. In fact, at the time you could make a career of studying this pseudoscience.

Seeing the charlatans exposed, one after another, over the following decades, left an even worse taste in my mouth. I was often ridiculed and put down by my fellow students and our profs for not buying into what today is well-known to be pseudoscientific hokum.

But not all of this type of nonsense has gone away. We still have charlatans like behavioural psychologists.

Let me lead you through a scenario to illustrate my point:

Dr Phil, whom I love to hate, is a behavioural psychologist. Many people who appear on his programme are in fact mentally ill. The clunker is when he says to one of these people, “Let me try to provide some insight as to why you behave the way you do.” What follows is the usual hokum, going over the person’s background, getting the person to talk so that the charlatan can go on a fishing expedition for “clues” or “markers”, in pretty much the same manner a psychic does.

Enter brain science as opposed to pseudoscientific baloney. The person suffers from an inability either to produce or absorb serotonin- a physical problem. Depressed serotonin levels can cause a person to suffer from mood swings, to be irritable, often with control issues. One spectrum of sufferers are considered manic depressives.

What insight is such a person going to gain from the couch treatment? Many or most people think they’re gaining some insight into why they are the way they are, but in truth they’re not learning anything useful. Worse- they’re losing time on an idiotic fishing-expedition while their illness goes untreated.

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Put the patient on a medication to boost or stabilise or help metabolise or to replace serotonin levels and the “problem(s)” go away. Poof.

Many patients waste years, often decades and in many instances entire lifetimes being sucked in by behavioural psychologist’s pseudoscience.

But behavioural psychology does work, many experts will say. Well, in the same way that religious conversion works. Human beings are easily brainwashed. “Brainwash” is probably not the right term, but the process is pretty much identical. The underlying reality is that human beings can believe almost anything, and if the desire to believe is there, the belief tends to follow. Watch an old episode of The Amazing Randi (of debunker fame) and you’ll see this demonstrated time and time again. He’d have a charlatan on his show who’d do his thing, the audience would clap in amazement, Randi would demonstrate how the charlatan accomplishes his fakery, and the audience would clap again, switching from credulous amazement to credulous amazement. Technically, Randi could have faked his debunkery and the audience would have been none the wiser, which illustrates the plasticity of human belief and credulity.

It is built into us that when a belief settles in that it gains what might be termed “inertia”. Once established, beliefs become resistant to attack. This is how and why people are able to hold on to religious nuttery. To some extent the manner in which the brain works makes them resistant to the notion that the thing they believe is false. Many in the world of psychology will try to tell you that there is a process or pattern of thinking which leads to this condition, and a cursory search on the Interweeb will show this type of hokum in abundance. The fact of the matter is that people don’t need to think or rationalise themselves into anything, although through repetition they can achieve the same end. The human brain is built to assimilate beliefs and then hold to them because indoctrination is a large part of our social past. Further, indoctrination isn’t a thing people talk themselves into. It’s a social phenomenon we’re hard-wired to accommodate.

Your thoughts?

Is There Such A Thing As Free Will

2012-12-04T11:27:36+00:00

Is there such a thing as free will?

Of course! All will is free! What a dumb question! Where have you ever heard of someone actually paying for it?

The mind boggles, there is a thin patina of sweat in your crack, and levity reigns supreme.

Why do we believe what we believe? [link to philosophy thread]

2012-09-25T15:25:18+00:00

I’ve recently started a thread in the philosophy forum on the above question. However, as it’s also quite a psychological question, I’m posting here a link to the thread:

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/16978/

Consciousness as an specific organization of mater

2012-09-20T07:39:00+00:00

I’m just seeing a debate with Sam Harris and Chopra, and this idea came to mi mind, is not Consciousness as an specific organization of mater, coming from atoms to cells, to brain and to Consciousness as a mental process?

Atheist converting to Islam something to research with science.

2012-09-20T06:35:09+00:00

This is very very scaring, how to explain this with science, I believe they were fake atheist, but their brain is functioning in a religious way , there is something to research in the brain functioning and is must be related with evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IspK651RpY&feature=related this ,too, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5oh1F2UggY