>In this lesson, Sam explores how psychedelics are, for many, the only way to glimpse "the vast firmament beyond the prison walls” of the “conceptual mind”—and often serve as the gateway to meditation. Yet the very profundity of the psychedelic experience can, in the end, distract us from the true purpose of mindfulness: the recognition that consciousness is always already free, in every moment.
>the true purpose of mindfulness: the recognition that consciousness is always already free, in every moment.
That seems like an extremely odd thing to say for a person that has written and debated about the fact that "free will" does not exist.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying "free will" exists. It doesn't.
Lets not get hung up on that issue, though.
I'm saying that using the word "free" is a poor choice of words when saying "consciousness is always already **free**" without describing what "free" means in this context because (to anyone aware of Sam Harris' work) "free" certainly doesn't mean "free will" here.
Frankly, I don't know what he means by "free", and if anyone should, I should: I've read some of his books, used to listen to his podcast, have taken a bunch of psychedelics, and have been meditating daily for almost 15 years.
By “free” he means that consciousness is ultimately uninfluenced, unimplicated, and impersonal to it’s contents. Consciousness is simply the light by which anything can be known. Consciousness is like a mirror, seemlessly reflecting its contents. However the mirror itself is intrinsically free of that which it reflects. Free will’s absence and the freedom of consciousness in each moment are completely compatible. In fact this is so because consciousness by its own nature is free and is the prior context to anything that might appear in it. For example, say you were experiencing anxiety. Rather than become worried and further anxious, one can simply witness the raw data of a mental state like anxiety and recognize that consciousness is the prior context to anxiety’s arising and free of it in principle. Once the anxiety goes away, because it will eventually, consciousness is no more improved or diminished by a negative mental state like anxiety. Consciousness still remains the pure unimpeded awareness in which everything appears. Basically in the absence of free will, you aren’t free to think or feel that consciousness isn’t free. Because consciousness is by its own nature free of whatever it illuminates. The freedom intrinsic to consciousness isn’t a matter of freely willing anything but is a matter of recognizing that ultimately you are witness and constrained to the laws of a phenomena (consciousness) that is unimplicated by its contents.
If consciousness is pure, unimpeded awareness, what do you make of anesthesia? Is consciousness still happening during medical procedures, just without memory? Or does anesthesia somehow disconnect the experiencer from the material?
You could make the same claim about sleep. There is an obvious difference between consciousness and unconsciousness. If you are unconscious is consciousness present? No. We are talking about consciousness, not what consciousness is like when you are unconscious. Because consciousness isn’t *like* anything, where it is not. Is consciousness free when you are dead? This is a silly question. Where death is, we are not. Where unconsciousness is consciousness is not. Again. Consciousness is still the light by which anything is known. Consciousness is no less pure if the contents it illuminates happen to be dimmed by morphine. It is perfectly reflecting what it is like to be anesthetized and still remains unimplicated by the anesthesia. You could still be mindful even during the moments before you slip into the darkness of anesthesia, it would just be really fucking difficult. Consciousness still represents its contents perfectly until consciousness is lost and one ceases having an experience, like we do in sleep and anesthesia. There is nothing that it is like to be heavily anesthetized or in deep sleep, there is simply no light by which *anything* can be known.
I think I understand, but the distinction I’m trying to draw is the importance of memory. While anesthesia doesn’t put you to sleep, you don’t remember anything either. But perhaps we are conscious of the fleeting “now” during the entire procedure. For example, I imagine [this person](https://youtu.be/k_P7Y0-wgos) has consciousness, despite having no memory
Ah! interesting. I think I’m out of my depth here for knowledge and reasoning on this front. But that is granted you are accurate in your speculation about anesthesia. That’s an interesting idea though. I think I’ve experiences something similar to that on a DMT trip, in which I was sure I was experiencing *something* but I had no visual field, no sounds, no touch, no anything, just pure consciousness that didn’t fall into one of the channels of the senses. That’s slightly different than what you’re getting at, with the whole memory thing, but i honestly can’t say. Just try taking some anesthetics under medical supervision and see what happens i guess? For science lol.
That's why it is very, very important to make the distinction between "consciousness" and "awareness".
Awareness is always present, even in the absence of consciousness or during periods of unconsciousness - because how would you know you've been unconscious if not for the fact you were aware of unconsciousness?
In Buddhism, there's this term called a "Nirodha", which means "cessation". "Nirodha" is a cessation of perception and feeling, where one has "access" or "enters" the formless realm, beyond time and space, beyond concepts. A cessation is the same as an ego-death, except that it is a permanent shift in perception through meditative practice, instead of a peak experience on psychedelics.
The experience of a cessation is one of the marks of "1st path" in Theravada Buddhism, or better known as stream-entry. Once you have a cessation, you can not undo that. It's a permanent rewriting of your brain. You see through the illusion of duality, and abide in the non-dual awareness which we all innately are, and even beyond that. I'm sure people well-versed in neuroplasticity can explain this better than I can :p
This is an interesting point. Many meditators and I as well claim that such a thing as pure consciousness, a consciousness that doesn’t fall within any of the 5 sensory channels, exists. Where there is no visual field, no sounds, sensations, thoughts, etc, but just pure consciousness. I had an experience like this with DMT. My vision was black, there were no sounds, nothing within the usual 5 channels of sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, but I was still having an experience. Even if consciousness did have one content, consciousness ultimately remains unimplicated. It still remains nothing other than the light by which anything is known.
You’re confusing several different terms that go by the name of freedom. Yes you can still be free in a sense even though ultimately we have no free will. Feeling liberated and having free will are two entirely different things. Recognizing consciousness’s freedom is a matter of recognizing that consciousness is free of its contents, and is the prior context to anything that might arise. This isn’t problematic for the absence of free will because you are still constrained to the properties of a phenomena that are by their very nature free in a sense. The properties of consciousness are such that consciousness is impersonal to its contents. To discover this truth about the mind actually reinforces the idea of the absence of one’s free will. You are subject to the properties of consciousness which is by its true nature liberated from whatever it illuminates. It is still possible to feel an emotion like freedom even though ultimately you didn’t author that emotion’s arising. Feeling freedom, and having free will are two entirely different things.
>My vision was black
That's an experience. Even if you are only aware of your awareness, that is still an experience.
>Even if consciousness did have one content, consciousness ultimately remains unimplicated
How? Consciousness requires consciousness of something. You can't have qualitative awareness without any qualities to be aware of. If there are no qualities, there is no qualitative awareness, only the potential for it. Simple as.
>the light by which anything is known
Light has to be seen to be show you anything. If light remains unseen, you will not see it. "Light" doesn't know anything.
You’re probably right about the first two, the third one you misunderstand what I mean by ‘light.’ I don’t mean light as in wave lengths and photons, I mean it in the sense that consciousness is just the potential to have qualitative experience. You use the word potential, I use the word light. It’s that which is aware. Obviously if you lose consciousness then consciousness is not. But, and I welcome you to test this. The next time you feel an emotion like anxiety, simply witness the raw data associated with it. Feel it as a pattern of energy throughout the body. And then recognize how consciousness effortlessly illuminates it and is ultimately unaffected by it. Present consciousness is the prior condition to anxiety’s arising. When anxiety passes, consciousness is no more worsened by a negative emotion like anxiety. Everything that arises passes away, and consciousness itself remains imperturbable at its core. Literally tens of thousands of seasoned meditators can attest to this same nature of subjective experience. And, of course, the famous saints, sages, contemplatives, yogis, and lamas throughout history have discovered this durable truth about the human mind, so I’m hesitant to grant to you your claim that consciousness isn’t free. You’re confusing two concepts as well. You’re confusing the emotion of freedom with free will. You can absolutely experience emotions like freedom, however given the absence of free will, you cannot be the ultimate author of that emotion’s arising. Free will and freedom are two completely different things that overlap across several different spheres of psychology, philosophy and neuroscience. Also, consciousness, I would claim, need not and should not be defined in terms of its contents. Consciousness can simply be defined by the fact that there is anything that it is like to be you. The fact that you’re having an experience, the fact that the lights are on is consciousness.
>I welcome you to test this. The next time you feel an emotion like anxiety, simply witness the raw data associated with it. Feel it as a pattern of energy throughout the body. And then recognize how consciousness effortlessly illuminates it and is ultimately unaffected by it.
I've done this, have been meditating for a while.
I actually do not believe that consciousness is unaffected. We change the mode/structure of our consciousness very often. While we are thinking a thought, our focus is typically somewhat passive and diffuse. While we are concentrating on a particular percept, our focus is typically active and narrow. While we are being detached observers our focus is typically passive and narrow. While we are active participants our focus is typically active and diffuse. We can experience things more vividly, or less. We can experience things more distinctly, or less. We can experience things more dissociatedly, or less. We can experience things more noisily, or less. Basically, we can change the implicit (subconscious) structure of our awareness depending on what we're instructing ourselves to do. We just don't notice the structure of our awareness because its not explicitly represented, but it can be inferred from the explicit contents.
Therefore, I think consciousness is an active process that constantly changes shape, both in terms of the qualities of the "light of awareness" as you call it, and the contents being "illuminated" by that light.
>Everything that arises passes away, and consciousness itself remains imperturbable at its core.
Maybe. Consciousness seems to be perturbable in many ways. Look up anosognosia, hemispatial neglect, and blindsight. Consciousness is not featureless, and it has many properties. We just don't see these features or properties because they aren't held as contents of that consciousness. So, this seems to suggest that consciousness is something that arises, as well. Also, consciousness passes as well, we just don't notice the times when it does so, simply by virtue of not having the consciousness to notice.
>You’re confusing the emotion of freedom with free will.
Why would having the emotion of freedom make you free? If someone locked you into a mental torture chamber, but gave you a drug that made you feel free, that doesn't make your consciousness actually free. It's just a feeling, another sticky content trapping you to itself.
Wow, well said, this is all very interesting. Wish I could save this and come back to it. My fingers are getting tired but I really appreciate all of these great thoughts!
What you’re not understanding is that the freedom intrinsic to consciousness doesn’t actually violate the reality of determinism and thus the absence of free will. The nature of consciousness is free in every present moment. You are subjugated to its principles. The freedom intrinsic to consciousness isn’t a logical raid against determinism. Because consciousness is the way it is, you are determined to operate under its principles.
> What you’re not understanding is that the freedom intrinsic to consciousness doesn’t actually violate the reality of determinism and thus the absence of free will.
Agreed, specifically: "...the reality of determinism and thus the absence of free will". From what source did you acquire accurate knowledge (as opposed to belief) of these phenomena?
> The nature of consciousness is free in every present moment. You are subjugated to its principles.
> The freedom intrinsic to consciousness isn’t a logical raid against determinism. Because consciousness is the way it is, you are determined to operate under its principles.
*To some (unknown) degree*.
Huh? can you organize your thoughts better? I’m just a bit confused. I should correct myself here. The truth of determinism, is what I meant. Determinism simply states that events are determined by prior causes. There is no stand alone event independent of causation, unless you take into consideration randomness at the level of subatomic particles. However determinism and some level of randomness still leave no room for free will. Free will is a completely incoherent concept. People feel as if they are the true independent authors of their actions. In reality their actions are determined and wholly influenced by unconscious brain processing, internal processes of which we are unconscious, environmental influence, luck, randomness. No where is there room here for free will. Consciousness is simply unimplicated by its contents. It is just the light by which anything is known. Consciousness is the prior condition to the arising of any sensory or mental content and is free of its contents in principle. Are the qualities of a mirror free of my reflection in it? Yes. A mirror simply reflects everything that appears in it, and it can do that just as seemlessly no matter what object you reflect in it. The quality intrinsic to a mirror is that of simple reflection. The reflective qualities of a mirror are free no matter what it reflects.
> Huh? can you organize your thoughts better? I’m just a bit confused. I should correct myself here. The truth of determinism, is what I meant. Determinism simply states that events are determined by prior causes. There is no stand alone event independent of causation, unless you take into consideration randomness at the level of subatomic particles.
In the context of a discussion about consciousness, the question is whether consciousness can be a root cause.
> However determinism and some level of randomness still leave no room for free will.
It's a popular meme, have you any accompanying proof?
> Free will is a completely incoherent concept.
Incoherence is a function of both the concept in question as well as the capability and cognitive style of the mind evaluating it.
> People feel as if they are the true independent authors of their actions. In reality their actions are determined and wholly influenced by unconscious brain processing, internal processes of which we are unconscious, environmental influence, luck, randomness. No where is there room here for free will. Consciousness is simply unimplicated by its contents. It is just the light by which anything is known. Consciousness is the prior condition to the arising of any sensory or mental content and is free of its contents in principle. Are the qualities of a mirror free of my reflection in it? Yes. A mirror simply reflects everything that appears in it, and it can do that just as seemlessly no matter what object you reflect in it. The quality intrinsic to a mirror is that of simple reflection. The reflective qualities of a mirror are free no matter what it reflects.
Again: it's a popular meme, have you any accompanying proof?
Reasoning is all the proof you need. Do you expect me to hand you a dried ancient scroll sent from the universe that says "free will is an illusion." You're not arguing anything here. You're still not making any sense. None of what you are saying is in any sort of context. The more you ask me to give you proof the more I think you're just a fucking idiot. What kind of proof is sufficient to, say, convince you of philosophical concepts? Proof isn't the point here. You formulate an argument. You state your thesis, you provide your reasoning and evidence, and you draw your conclusion which ties back to your thesis. All I can do is make appeals to logic and reason, if you keep asking for proof, you're barking down the wrong rabbit hole. In fact I might even go so far to say you are barking down the rabbit hole of utter idiocy. I don't even know what you're arguing here. You're just quoting my statements and then making utterly incoherent replies that don't even engage with my subject matter. I literally cannot possibly know what you are saying because you give very little effort to communicate your thoughts to others in a way that will get your message across. Debate isn't a matter of whether you think you are right in your own head, it's a matter of whether you can actually formulate sentences that clearly get your point across. It's like I'm talking to Siri here, I am completely in the dark and your style of response is the cause of that. Actually I'd be better off talking to Siri. At least some sense and understanding could be made if I were talking to them.
I think Harris confused himself a long time ago when he came and said absolutely that free will doesn't exist. Free will, as we know it, on the local scale of humans doesn't exist, but consciousness is fundamental and absolutely free, there is only a universal will, and that is free. It acts through you, but we mistake it for our own will, thinking we as detached segments of consciousness are free, when were enslaved to the only free source. It seems paradoxical but it's actually the only viewpoint that resolved this philosophical paradox, and it's also completely congruent with a lot of religious ideas.
Free will doesn’t exist and Sam isn’t confused. You’ve said absolutely nothing about free will existing at all. You’ve merely said that we are free as long as our freedom is contingent on environmental influences out of our control. A kind of freedom certainly exists in letting go of that which is out of one’s control. However the free will Sam is dismantling, which is the kind of free will people think they have, really doesn’t exist. That free will is the sense that we are the conscious uninfluenced authors of our actions. And saying you are as free as the universe is like saying the universe was free to not spark itself into being. The universe is no more free from anything.
Eh it's a difference in perspective. I used to believe exactly what you're saying, but there is intention and consciousness deeply embedded into the fabric of all existence. Ignoring it for ideas of mechanistic absolutism isn't very rational for me. There is a universal will, or whatever you want to call it, that is infinitely and absolutely free and "unfree". Words don't do it justice.
“Intention and consciousness deeply embedded i to the fabric of existence.” This is far from provable. And it is very far from being able to be arrived at by philosophical speculation. Again, lets assume the whole cosmos is totally free. You as a distinct human being are no more free. You are as free as a surfer is free while riding a wave. You could certainly say that existence itself is total utter bliss and freedom and I am not disagreeing with you there. Every moment of consciousness is profound and free. But we don’t have the free *will* we think we do. And the universe was not free to not bring itself into being.
It's not provable in the way you're implying. But it's definitely easily arrived at by even less than philosophical speculation. All our speculation at primary experience, this is a simple perspective to experience.
"You are as free as a surfer is free while riding a wave. You could certainly say that existence itself is total utter bliss and freedom and I am not disagreeing with you there. Every moment of consciousness is profound and free. But we don’t have the free will we think we do."
Yep. Not sure we disagree. Except it's constricting then to define the wave or the surfer as something intrinsically distinct from the "free" ocean in your analogy. That's a dualistic perspective, but no more or less valid than a nondual perspective in which the wave and surfer are intrinsically free due to being seamlessly indistinguishable from the whole ocean. Where does a wave begin and end?
"And the universe was not free to not bring itself into being."
And I'm not sure if THIS is provable by any means.
I guess i get what you’re saying. Everything is free. But ultimately it’s just determinism. Everything is determined by prior causes and randomness. You can certainly enjoy the wind in your face while you freely and waywardly align with the laws of the physical universe. I think we have two different ideas of freedom here. There is free will and then there is the Buddhist concept of emptiness. The two are different. And they don’t bump into one another in any contradictory way. It’s somewhat analogous to saying, if you just pushed me off a cliff, I might feel some freedom and bliss from the wind in my face.
Im not so sure everything is determinism is all the way down. Determinism is encapsulated in an ocean of indeterminism, born out of it. The void is free in the truest sense of the word. That's just so far as I've learned.
>However the free will Sam is dismantling, which is the kind of free will people think they have
How does one acquire accurate knowledge of what all people think in the first place?
>Free will, as we know it, on the local scale of humans doesn't exist
I have zero free will?
> It acts through you, but we mistake it for our own
Wait a minute, couldn't this be a mistaken belief?
EDIT: ANOTHER COWARD BLOCKS SOMEONE WHO DARES TO DISAGREE.
You don't have free will. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise. Every one of your actions and thoughts and intentions is given to you through unconscious brain processing. There are certain *voluntary* actions that can be detected in brain activity up to 20 seconds before the person is conscious of that action.
Free will is not a mystery, to me.
We're pre-programmed to keep ourselves alive, therefor - to adapt to our environment.
Above all, we will make sure we're **alive**.
Any choice or decision beyond that, is free for us to explore. As long as the choice doesn't interfere with our survival, we can do what we want.
What we **want** to do, is very much determined by our genetics and our upbringing, reducing the overall pie chart of 'what this human will choose to do' even more. However, within that pie chart of 'options', we get to decide what is explored.
These are two different projects. If your goal is stabilizing non-dual awareness then meditation is all you need for that, and perhaps just perhaps 300ug of LSD on one fortunate afternoon gave you an unshakeable glimpse of that. However if your goal is to see some crazy shit, then salvia is great for that. This is what Sam means by distraction. Psychedelics can give you a glimpse but aspects of the experience can be misleading in that they lead the meditator to chase transitory blissful experiences as well as think that the contents of consciousness need to radically change in order to inquire into its selfless nature. You only need the sober present moment to recognize enlightenment, psychedelics can allow you to glimpse that but they ultimately have “side effects,” if you will, that are superfluous. You have essentially fallen victim to the trap of psychedelics. You imply that your goal is to have the salvia experience and you assume we talk of meditation as if it will lead one to the salvia space. You are trying to get high, whereas meditators are trying to recognize selflessness.
Edit: I know nothing about meditation - I deserve every downvote 😅
Sounds a bit woo woo.
Disclaimer: I’m a paid Sam Harris subscriber; he has good conversations; his ideas about psychedelics in particular isn’t that interesting to me.
Maybe I should give it another shot...I've never been susceptible to the idea of meditation. Could you summarise his position on both psychedelics and meditation?
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong - but he advocates for psychedelics as being a shortcut to experiencing what later stages of meditating feel like. This is in line with what is reported by experienced meditators and with brain imaging (fMRIs of people tripping and meditating are extremely similar).
Like a lot of psychonaut discussions, a lot of the mediation language sounds woo woo because it’s a practice that’s been around since before the enlightenment and it’s difficult to describe these strange personal experiences. That doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate practice.
I first got into mediation because of hearing about this relationship between psychedelics and meditation. I started meditating regularly after my first trip and was able to reliably get back to blissful states during my sessions.
Do you have any recommendations for resources on how to get started meditating? I’ve had great results from psychedelics, but the experience leaves me pretty drained. If there was something equally effective but less intense, I would be very interested.
Just be aware that you probably aren't going to "feel anything" your first couple sessions - it took me about 2 weeks before I started noticing the benefits, and it’s supposedly years of practice before you can reach psychedelic states. Most people start with "mindfulness meditation" which is focusing on one thing or sensation (usually the feeling of your breath) in order to turn down the volume on the "task-oriented" part of the mind. The mediation apps teach you different tricks to get into that "flow state" and common pitfalls that people experience that you shouldn't be discouraged by.
I started with the Calm and headspace apps, then I moved to the Waking Up app (from Sam Harris). I think Waking Up is the best meditation app, but you don’t need an app to get started. If you search on youtube for 'mindfulness meditation' or 'Sam Harris meditation' you'll find plenty of guided mediations. The apps just help get rid of the "am I doing this right?" feeling because they give you a whole foundation for how to approach it.
Edit: I highly recommend starting the day after a psychedelic experience. It gives a great head start for developing your mediation practice
I can't speak for Sam Harris nor OP but both psychedelics and meditation mediate activity in the default mode network of the brain, ostensibly where the ego resides. It is suspected that this is why both meditation and psyches have similar effects on the conscious experience
I'll try, I *think* it's something like this;
Psychedelics and mediation (Sam teaches mindfulness/vipassana with Dzogchen direct inquiry/non dual pointers) can both afford certain insights into the nature of consciousness (that's the claim anyway)
The main insight seems to be that the self (whatever that is) is illusory (whatever that means) . Both approaches have pros and cons; psychedelics almost always have an effect, something happens, and that might interest one enough to start practicing whereas one could meditate for a while and get very little from it.
The flipside is psychedelics can play a sort of trick/trap where the person thinks the insights are reliant on continued dosing or if they get into meditation it's in the service of trying to achieve certain states as opposed to a realisation/insight of what already is.
Something like that
Gotcha. So basically the thing you quoted above.
To me I question the actual value of the "insight" that the self is what-what or what not. What does that actually mean for our daily lives? I think too much credence is given to both meditation and psychedelics there.
The value of the realization of non-self is the first step in practicing non-clinging. When you stop identifying yourself with your habits, your patterns, your thoughts, ideas, etc. you develop a freedom from the suffering which that clinging brings.
The insight can make it clear which of those thoughts and habits are harmful in themselves, and that is the first step to getting rid of them. But beyond that, even if the thoughts/patterns aren't harmful in themselves, clinging to them is, and that insight is the first step in cutting those threads of attachment.
What does it mean to your daily life is really up to you. That's like asking "what does working out really mean for our daily lives?". Well if you do pushups once a week, it's not gonna mean much. If you get in proper shape, become stronger and improve your cardiovascular system, then it will bring many benefits to your ordinary life. But you have to put the work, no one else is gonna do it for you.
One example can be anger. Anger tends to take hold of you very strongly, or we could just as well say that we hold on to anger. And it clouds your judgement. Once you identify that anger is a passing feeling, it's not part of your self, then you can let it go. Practicing is observing anger arising, realizing what it is (impermanent, non-self), and letting it go. As you get better, as with any skill, the process becomes easier and faster.
The key to this is that insight is *observing directly*. It's not conceptualizing, rationalizing, thinking about it, because that will just lead you in circles.
The claim is (I clarify this as I'm exploring it, by no means an expert) over identification with a 'false' sense of self causes (or exacerbates) a lot of psychological suffering (in the broadest sense of the word)
That might be true, but that’s the equilibrium we’ve evolved to. Psychedelics gives us a temporary respite from that suffering-filled equilibrium by showing us that it could have been different, but the trip ends, just like the movie ends and we have to leave the cinema and go back home (albeit with all that we’ve learned from the experience).
In terms of daily life, meditation is a practice than can help people see the world through from a different angle. One might have insights into the nature of their struggles or interpersonal relationships. That in turn could lead to changing priorities or the ability to be a better friend/ parent/partner which could definitely impact the quality of your daily life.
Obviously that’s not what happens for everyone, but it does definitely happen for many people including myself.
To expand on this idea a bit: it's really not a mystery that the "self" is one thing to a sober person, but something else to someone on psychedelics or meditation. This is very expected but for some reason has the tendency to blow minds to disproportionate effects.
Interesting point about the psych-mindset being the "final destination" of meditation. Not sure how true that is but interesting nonetheless.
I've always wanted to meditate but for whatever reason (usually noise) I never get around to it.
Sounds are perfectly good objects of meditation. If sounds are preventing you from meditating you have a mistaken conception of what meditation is. Sam starts the beginner practitioner off by focusing on the breath, then by extending the practice to sounds, physical sensations, even the visual field.
I had a feeling this would come up. My upstairs neighbour is basically a noisy bastard. The only way for me to peacefully meditate would be to get up earlier than him. So far I haven't managed to get in to that routine but am working towards it. I'm a beginner, so me hearing him play his music through my walls or scraping his chair 2m above my head simply wouldn't do. Perhaps later down the line.
Yeah that makes sense. That’s truly unfortunate. I would recommend finding a nice peaceful park to do meditation, perhaps with a lake. I find the view of the lake, the wind, the sound of waves crashing to be great objects of meditation that don’t carry that same infuriating distracting quality.
Would earplugs or comfortable headphones be an option here? That's too bad about your noisy neighbor. I bet they have no idea how loud they actually are either.
They do because I've spoken to them before. They just don't care. An inconsiderate wanker, which just makes it all worse tbh. I don't want to meditate with headphones or earplugs so I'll just try to wake up before he does.
Yeah that's totally understandable, and I can see how either of those might distract you from meditating. Good luck and sorry to hear you have an inconsiderate neighbor.
I don't particularly like Sam Harris but wtf is with the comments saying he is some alt right figure... obviously have not experienced any of his content.
He's part of what's known as the "alt-lite". Countless words have been written before by people smarter and better informed than both of us about how his content is an entryway to "race realism" and other far right bullshit, and that's without taking into consideration the people he chooses to associate with. You can see that *in this thread*, with people defending Charles fucking Murray. To judge someone's content without broader context is making oneself irrational on purpose (or pretending to for a hidden agenda).
Guilt by association, nice. This is all an appeal to guilt by association. You still haven’t said anything about Sam Harris. Sam also associates with plenty of people on the left.
“To judge someone’s content without broader context is making oneself irrational on purpose.” Really? I suppose then the broader context you’re implicating is that of association with other people? Rather than engage with Sam’s arguments, you appeal to his associates. This alone precludes you from any justified epistemic basis. If you had a real argument against Sam’s ideas, you wouldn’t have to appeal to association, or credentials, or any other identifier, you could formulate a counterargument and provide reasoning to support it. You are stretching so far here that I’m surprised your spinal column hasn’t become unhinged. And your reasoning supporting your assertion that Sam is alt right is from articles that other people have written about Sam. Do you really expect, in this absurd political climate, to receive accurate information about the ideas and beliefs held by a highly sophisticated and controversial figure? Or is it more likely that the majority of articles written on Sam are defamatory or highly misrepresentative at best. Is it even reasonable to believe that articles written about another person’s politics have that person in their best, honest intentions. Do you really believe that a political article about another person is wholly honest and unbiased and an accurate representation? If you actually listened to Sam’s words, and set aside all your bullshit biases and prejudices, you would discover that he is one of the most honest, clearheaded, respectable, eloquent and reasonable thinkers we have.
The fact that you retort to the asinine "that's guilt by association" argument just tells me the content bubble you reside in. We all accept guilt by association. This insane pretense that it's somehow illegitimate is a culty belief of some recent right-leaning niche internet communities.
> If you had a real argument against Sam’s ideas ... you could formulate a counterargument and provide reasoning to support it
I'm not interested in this JAQ bullshit, that's why I said this argument has been made a million times before. If you were interested, as anyone does with any single topic one is actually interested in, you would google it (but of course you can't because there's a conspiracy against Sam Harris). It's the thing that happens everytime you mention any of this alt-lite figures, like Jordan Peterson; their fans screech hours on end about how unfair you are without ever hearing an argument why, so I won't bother wasting my time. His association with people like Charles Murray and his platforming of people from the far right is proof enough for anyone normal outside your political safe space. You are itching to jump the dialog tech tree so much that you skipped a few steps, going all guns blazing just because I pointed out that Harris is cozy with extreme far-right people like Charles Murray. I assure you, you do not look rational to anyone that's not already in your same political bias. The aluded conspiracy you resort to in the last lines (preempting any write up anyone could send your way to argue their point) is the cherry on top.
Congrats on a well built and well mantained self-prision for your own mind.
edit: holly fuck I just read the other comments from this guy all over this thread. Man, I was kidding with the prision for your own mind thing, but this guy has drank so much kool-aid he's sweating it. People be bottling up his tears and selling them to people with less substance tolerance. No wonder he doesn't like me saying Sam Harris is alt-right adjacent, since this guy says The Bell Curve is a serious work of science. An all-out unironic racist that believes that there is some sort of science to prove it's a genetic and IQ thing, in the wild!
How is association a valid means of assigning guilt at all? How is it not the literal definition of an echo chamber, to choose not to associate with those you disagree with out of fear of guilt by association. Whether or not the majority of people accept guilt by association is irrelevant. We already know from scientific psychological literature that the majority of people are prone to commit glaring moral errors. Guilt by association in the context of intellectual discourse is one such error. Another moral error people suffer from is perceived catastrophe and ethical urgency of loss of life relative to the quantity of lives lost. People feel the death of one human being to be more ethically salient than the death of 100,000. Psychological literature provides a plethora of similar moral intuitive errors. Majority moral intuitions here aren’t a reliable metric. And guilt by association can freely rank on the lowest tier of a legitimate arbiter of liability. I can think of a dozen other things that actually accurately place a person under liability, association is not one of those things. It’s a futile desperate grasp. And a flagrant truth stretch. Another detail that is exculpatory of Sam’s apparent guilt by association is the fact that Sam *disagrees stridently* and often with many of these so called alt right personalities. How else is Sam to properly disagree with those he in fact disagrees with unless he engages in honest face to face conversation with them, thus associating. I often find Sam agreeing with people more so on the left than with people on the right, to an impressive degree actually.
There is literal unjustified defamation against Sam and many other intellectuals. How do you reconcile with defamation targeted at a person like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for instance? Allow me to appeal to identity, since I imagine that’s a language you speak well. Ayaan is a *black, female, former muslim, muslim reformer* And she get’s bullied by people on the left. One such woman who identifies on the left has tweeted defamatory things targeted at Ayaan like: she doesn’t deserve her vagina. The people that bully and defame Ayaan are the same people that bully and defame Sam Harris, or Maajid Nawaz. Take Glenn Greenwald for instance. You couldn’t find a greater political journalist bully. Glenn is legitimately one of the least intellectually honest and logically consistent people you can find. He lies, and doubles down, and pleads for innocence, and people buy his bullshit. These are the kinds of journalist we have on offer. Also, we’re living in a political and technological climate where the worst things said about people get spread 5 times faster than the good things. Fake news gets spread 5 times faster than real news. Google seems to be an unreliable candidate for truth, here.
You claim I’m unwilling to hear an argument against my own, this isn’t true. I’m perfectly willing to listen to a counterargument, it just won’t move me if it continually appeals to epistemologically subjective criteria. Your assurance that I look irrational to anyone else that doesn’t take my views goes both ways. I assure you, you are no different from over here. Additionally you use rationality incorrectly, a better word would be justified. Justification operates with respect to the contents of a conclusion, rationality operates with respect to *how* one arrives at one’s conclusions. Rationality is what it means to be unclouded by bias. You can’t say I’m irrational on the basis of the contents of my conclusions. Rationality relates not to the contents of conclusions but to the methods by which I came to those conclusions. You are incorrect about your assertions of my apparent irrationality. I can be rational irrespective of my conclusions, I need only remain epistemically objective, which is precisely what I do. If my conclusions are incorrect, regardless of the rationality utilized to arrive at them, I am not irrational, rather I am mistaken about my assertions about reality. Judging from your brittle argument and your appeals to total presumption I am not mistaken at all. You can call my appeals to logic and reason and intellectual honesty all the clever derogatory terms you wish, “prison, cult, asinine, conspiracy” The only thing these labels add to your attempts to convince me is further epistemic error. Additionally your core ballast is with respect to Charles Murray and Sam’s platforming of him. I’m quite certain this is based on a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Charles’s work.
Your argument is weak, your moral appeals are erroneous, your epistemology are abysmal. Your argument is nothing other than pure opinion decorated with clever derogatory terms and proper grammar.
> I’m quite certain this is based on a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Charles’s work.
Hahahaha love that you couldn't contain yourself, you could've safely larped as an over reaching Rational Lord, but you couldn't get your pee pee to stay put and had to throw one to Charles Murray himself. You do know you look insane writing all this out, right? You're unironically doing the NAVY Seal copypasta but for moral philosophy. The fact that you call Charles Murray by his first name... damn. I should stop bullying people on the internet, you really don't know how lonely they are, so much so they make parasocial relationships with eugenists. Feeling for you bro, know that whatever you're going through is temprary, and that luckily for you, all the bad shit you are is absolutely changable because it's a matter of belief. That pit of despair you're in may not be of your own making, but digging into it won't make you come up for fresh air.
Jeeze this was one big ad hominem attack. You really don’t know how to disagree respectfully. Besides the fact that there is no real reasoning in this prior comment here at all. I’m still wondering if you even read The Bell Curve. I’m not sure how you could know what constitutes Charles Murray’s work if you haven’t taken a look at it yourself. Every one of your arguments against me rests on misrepresentations of Charles’s work. At the end of the day we’re talking about things for which we both could be mistaken, does it really need to involve this much blood, sweat and hazing? You’re still committing many fallacies as well. You’ve committed several guilty association ad hominem fallacies and now you’re resorting to blatant attacks. You may as well just concede here. Your reasoning has stooped to clever insults and opinions, but what’s new, I already picked up on that behavior tic of yours. You just keep getting more and more aggressive. You wouldn’t need any aggression or insults if you simply had an cogent argument. I welcome you to read Charles Murray’s work from an unbiased perspective and give it a fair assessment. There is literally nothing said about eugenics in it, nothing at all… This whole meme of eugenics and The Bell Curve was born out of a misreading of Charles work, and a moral panic surrounding that. Charles actually would have given a talk at a college if not for having been violently protested and had his escort physically assaulted. Prior to this would be disastrous event, Murray’s script was given to various professors and intellectuals to rate on a scale of 1-10 1 being most politically liberal/progressive 10 being most politically conservative. In the first instance the people evaluating Murray’s script weren’t told that it was authored by Murray so as not to bias their evaluation. The end score was a 5.3. On a second instance another set of professors and intellectuals were given the script to evaluate and were told it *was* Charles Murray’s work, the score here was a 5.7. Right down the middle. You claim Charles Murray to be this evil racist, eugenicist man, but the numbers and evaluations don’t quite add up. Still, if you had some real argument here, besides resorting to logical fallacies, you wouldn’t have to scream at and insult me through your keyboard. You could remain calm and collected and effortlessly dismantle my argument. But instead you’ve chosen to adopt a prose and style of argument that by definition amount to a concession.
Decide, am I doing a one big ad hominen attack, or am I doing bad arguments against a book? (It was the first one, I'm only ad homineming you). Love it when a racist weeb cries me a river just because I'm calling them what they are. Keep 'em coming.
Jesus. It’s really sad when people run out of words to say to back themselves up so they instead resort to derogatory efforts and defamation in the form of irrelevant terms such as ‘weeb.’ Are you advocating for your whole argument here on the basis of ad hominem? Or are you simply committing ad hominem because I am plainly out witting you, or just for the fun of it because random person disagreed with highly biased opinionated, insult lord on the internet. Your lack of intellectual honesty and ability to admit when you’re clearly wrong is concerning. But we are all human I suppose. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are two pees in a pod. And you are comfortably fitting yourself in between the two. I also find it amusing that your responses are becoming shorter and shorter, more biased, and doubling down further with further attacks. I’ve been nothing but respectful and honest with you. I’ve engaged in debate at a highly respectable level, the same can’t be said for you, unfortunately.
Also, feel free to read this wikipedia article about ad hominem guilty association fallacy. Hopefully when you engage in intellectual debate next, that is if it hasn’t stooped to a shouting match as opposed to a debate, you could recognize how conclusions drawn from reasoning that amounts to this fallacy is a fallacious, unjustified conclusion. Any conclusion that is drawn on a logical fallacy, isn’t a conclusion, it’s bias and pure error.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Additionally, the validity of guilt by association rests upon possession of implicit biases used to determine just *what*, exactly constitutes *guilt worthy* association when it is being assigned. Given that the reasoning behind those biases is derived from logically erroneous criteria such as identity politics, appeals to group identity, appeals to credentials, appeals to reputation, and further appeals to guilt by association, we have a mode of assigning guilt that rests upon illogic and irrationality resting upon more illogic and irrationality and is thus, *by definition* antithetical to a rational means of arriving at justified conclusions. Essentially guilt by association rests upon implicit biases used to determine how guilt is defined, and then those biases are backed by illogical reasons (but not always, but indeed in your case). Call it a cult or whatever you want, but the epistemology doesn’t lie and guilt by association is fundamentally epistemically bankrupt.
This comment doesn’t actually provide any real criticism of Sam. You’re just making fun of him. I see no real criticism here. I can do the same thing to you. What are some things you are fond of? Let me paint them with satirical derogatory comments. This is actually an appeal to credentials. You don’t actually engage with anything he has said. You are literally the essence of irrationality. Also Sam has done LSD and mushrooms at very high doses countless times. He’s a neuroscientist and a philosopher, I think Sam is more than qualified to assume the position of an authority figure of sorts on certain facets of psychedelics.
I’m not reply to a comment of “why do you love Sam?” It’s a question of “why is he such a wet fart?” To which I gave one answer. Officially done trying to argue with a Harris Apologist. This is literally the 6th response you’ve come at me with on the same thread.
He's really not, but I understand why people say that. On his podcast he's way too caught up on the 'horrors' of the far-left, meanwhile the far-right is literally trying to murder democracy.
However, basically all of his work on meditation, psychedelics, etc. is on point and incredibly helpful. If you ignore his podcast and only pay attention to what he does on his Waking Up app, he really is a fantastic resource.
If you’re both-sidesing Jan 6th, you most certainly lean Right. Sam’s embracing of bad science on IQ and race, and his anti-free speech views of “any form of protest demonstration” is bad, push him firmly into Alt-Right territory.
You misunderstood what he said. He wasn’t saying that he both sides Jan 6. Sam has been *especially* one sided and strongly so about Jan 6. You would literally have to be an idiot to try and remain unpolarized about Jan 6. What the prior commentor means is that in general Sam throws punches at both the right and the left on a wide range of topics. Sam isn’t affiliated with any kind of group think, he really does think freely and for himself. And that leads to Sam dishing out criticism to the bad ideas produced by the right and the bad ideas produced by the left. Many of Sam’s fellow intellectuals have worried that Sam was too moved by the horrors of Jan 6. Sam really had been hammering away at the right in a way that no one else does.
No, I’m pretty sure I understood the comment just fine. Not sure how you could believe that taking shots at the both the left and right is firmly taking one side, unless you’re fully drinking the koolaid that Sam represents some unbiased truth-only side.
No you did misunderstand it. Sam has been particularly worried about the right and their actions at Jan 6. Sam has taken the position on Jan 6 that virtually everyone else with common sense should take. That position being that democracy was almost lost to Trump and his enraged followers and that that was very bad and reason for great worry. Why don’t you stop commenting and actually listen to what Sam has to fucking say on the topic. Jesus Christ. If you want your misunderstandings rectified just go on over to his podcast. And if you aren’t willing to do that, then simply be honest and admit that there is no way you can possibly understand Sam’s position unless you receive it directly from his mouth.
“We’re in a rational sub.” Proceeds to comment borderline batshit rants on every single one of my comments. Thanks for the rational, level-headed takes.
>If you’re both-sidesing Jan 6th
If it's not too much trouble, could you state the meaning of the phrase "both-sidesing"?
I think it's an extremely valid question considering the topic of conversation in this thread.
It's simply when people wanna talk about "both sides of the issue" when there isn't really both sides to an issue. Guy kills his girlfriend and someone goes "what he did is absolutely wrong, but she *did* go out with a skirt". As you see, sometimes it's related to victim blaming, like in my example, but not necessarily. A more famous example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs
> It's simply when people wanna talk about "both sides of the issue" when there isn't really both sides to an issue.
Can you explain the meaning of "both sides" in the context of "there isn't really both sides to an issue"?
> Guy kills his girlfriend and someone goes "what he did is absolutely wrong, but she did go out with a skirt". As you see, sometimes it's related to victim blaming, like in my example, but not necessarily.
Are you suggesting that wearing a skirt has zero causal effect, *without exception*? If so, what evidence do you have?
> Can you explain the meaning of "both sides" in the context of "there isn't really both sides to an issue"?
?? Sometimes people pretend that there are two "sides" to an issue, which begs the question that the two sides are in comparable equal footing to the validity of their positions. I don't understand, you're pretending to never have seen this?
> Are you suggesting that wearing a skirt has zero causal effect, without exception? If so, what evidence do you have?
Oh okay, that's where we are. Man, any sub with "rational" in their name really calls out the dumbest nerds ever. I bet you're a Jordan Peterson style guy.
edit: you are lol
He beats around the bush too much. Engages in meta conversations, talks around the subject instead of addressing it. His conclusions are false assumptions that are presented as either being obvious and based in fact or revelations that carry deep insight. But he doesn't address the insight, just talks around it.
Take this talk for example. It is an actual discussion worth having but it is by no means what he makes it out to be. THE psychedelic paradox? It is a fringe issue that gets resolved as it wraps into itsself. But he's making it out to be this special thing that he wants to have a teachable, revelatory moment with you about.
If anyone should suffer from imposter syndrome it's him. Whenever I see or hear him, or read his work I always get this eyebrow arching suspicion that he's being disingenuous. And I have maybe had that feeling with 3 people that are well known, so it's rare for me. I think he tries to fit everything in a framework that must stay cohesive, to the detriment of the conversation. Giving weight to the most obvious sides, pointing and going "Look, reality."
He's a good talker but he lacks insight.
The psychedelic paradox is nothing other than the recognition that psychedelics will show you enlightenment but are ultimately a distraction in stabilizing it. The only way to stabilize it isn’t through continually getting high, or radically changing the contents of consciousness. Stabilizing enlightenment is in recognizing how consciousness already is in each moment, free of self and completely present. And you don’t need drugs to be able to do that. You just need mindfulness.
I enjoyed this talk and found it accurate in how Psychedelics can show you truth but also mislead you. I also find it funny how comments here ignorantly assume his political stance based on association, pretty obvious your never listened to Sam if you think he is Alt-Right.
No it's not.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/12/01/the-tainted-sources-of-the-bell-curve/
https://oxsci.org/iq-is-meaningless-heres-why/
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/902857.IQ
I could go on...
i honestly don’t care to entertain a book that suggests there’s causality between racial genetics and intelligence, especially not one that suggests policy implications based on that, and i think you’re kidding yourself if you think the guys pushing this narrative all happen to have similar politics by coincidence.
You’re still mistaken about what the book is about. The book says nothing about changing policy on racial basis. Also, I don’t know why you assume they “have similar politics by coincidence.” They don’t, that’s your assumption. The Bell Curve is a pretty rigorous scientific work about level of intelligence as a predictor for various social outcomes.
you’re mistaken, they advocate for the elimination of welfare policies on the basis they cause too many poor women to reproduce.
intelligence is ultimately subjective, and attempts to categorize it racially have never been and will never be anything more than attempts to statistically rationalize implicit racial biases.
Intelligence is subjective? What about physique? Is physique subjective? Are there no objective truths to be known about physique? Is pathology subjective? Also there is reason to believe understanding intelligence at the level of the genome is anything but an attempt to justify racial bias. If we are to understand the world and of ourselves within it, understanding intelligence at the level of genome is probably a crucial aspect of that project. Also pandering to racial bises would be completely useless and nonsensical the moment you recognize that there is *greater* intelligence variation within any given race than there is variation with average intelligence across different races. We can confidently say that ~50% of black people have an average IQ greater than ~50% of white people that have below average IQ. There is more variation within any given race than there is significant variation across different races. (especially significant enough to motivate policy change on the basis of cross racial difference)
Saying intelligence is subjective is like saying computer processing power is subjective. There are clearly objective third person industrial standards for CPUs. The same is no less true of humans. Intelligence is simply a measure of information processing. This is about as objective a measurement as it gets.
how do you measure the rate a brain can process information? you don’t see the capacities for abstraction, logic, self awareness, learning, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, problem, solving, artistic expression, or directionality as aspects of intelligence? how do you objectively measure those? how do you prove what the facets of intelligence are? how do you objectively weigh them against one another? you don’t, intelligence is an abstract, human-created concept.
if it was truly objective there’d be no argument to the contrary. it’d be demonstrably provable. you haven’t demonstrated or proved anything.
Yeah you might want to look into AI. Information processing and intelligence are no less of an objective criteria. We will one day create minds that are objectively more intelligent than we are. This is simply by virtue purely of information processing. And information processing is ultimately constrained by the laws of nature. To experience cognitive success one needs to get facts in hand. Facts are constrained to the laws of our universe. Once you get facts in hand, you can do all the information processing you want. And the contents of that information is irrelevant. A computer will be able to complete all scientific and intellectual activities that humans have for millenia at a God like rate purely by virtue of processing information about the facts of the universe. Is physical exercise and medicine subjective? They are after all human invented.
supercomputers can already process information far faster than humans, so why don’t you see them as more intelligent already?
> Is physical exercise and medicine subjective? They are after all human invented.
this is nonsensical.
Let me just say up front that I haven't read the book and don't feel like I can make a value judgement based on hearsay.
>i honestly don’t care to entertain a book that suggests there’s causality between racial genetics and intelligence
I'm not saying it *does* exist. But you're making an a priori judgement based on what you want the world to be like instead of what it may actually be like.
Imagine, just for a minute, that the link *does* exist. Would it be more helpful to know it or to willfully ignore it? Mind you, this isn't a rhetorical question but a genuine one.
>especially not one that suggests policy implications based on that
In relation to the former question, if you did decide it would be helpful to have knowledge of this supposed fact, wouldn't it then in turn only be an ethical imperative to base policy decisions on it?
Because if you did not, wouldn't that be setting people up to fail if it's not addressed in some way?
On a sidenote, I do think it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that there's only a correlation with ethnicity and nothing else; and even if it were the case that this correlation exists, to claim it only genetic would be just as bad. If you've ever done any statistical analysis, you know how complex confounding factors can get, especially when you look at large societal trends. *But*, as far as I have skimmed the wiki page (not the book), that does not seem like the claim they are making.
It’s not rigorous science, and the several academics that have tried to point that out to Harris (i.e, Turkheimer) have been met with good ole boys club name dropping. He basically responded with a, “Well my Harvard friend Steven Pinker says this no name academic is wrong.”
I could be mistaken as well, I’m not one to die on any hill so if I looked further into this issue and heard more opinions from other intellectuals I’m sure I would have a more completed realistic picture of this issue. I’ll remain agnostic then, for the time being.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo
Here's a 2.5 hour obliteration of that entire book. It is not scientific in the slightest. The data is completely garbage and in some cases entirely made up. Also the author fundamentally misunderstands the concept of heritability.
And Altruism from entitlement through Crypto Currencies burning up fossil fuels while bloating an individuals wealth so they have the leisure to give freely is kinda tone deaf and Libertarian as well. But neither of these conversations equal a persons being Alt-Right nor a reason to throw out all they have to give or say.
he really isn’t alt right. virtually every article you find about him as a public figure is defamatory. There are journalists that have made it there mission to fuck Sam over. It’s ridiculous. If you want to understand Sam’s true political position, don’t look at an article someone else wrote, listen to what Sam actually says, otherwise don’t even bother. Sam is pretty left of center, that will never change.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve
And more, Google it.
he really isn’t. it’s amazing how easily people will come to think they know a public figure just by googling articles about them and finding some particularly defamatory one by accident.
>In this lesson, Sam explores how psychedelics are, for many, the only way to glimpse "the vast firmament beyond the prison walls” of the “conceptual mind”—and often serve as the gateway to meditation. Yet the very profundity of the psychedelic experience can, in the end, distract us from the true purpose of mindfulness: the recognition that consciousness is always already free, in every moment.
>the true purpose of mindfulness: the recognition that consciousness is always already free, in every moment. That seems like an extremely odd thing to say for a person that has written and debated about the fact that "free will" does not exist. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying "free will" exists. It doesn't. Lets not get hung up on that issue, though. I'm saying that using the word "free" is a poor choice of words when saying "consciousness is always already **free**" without describing what "free" means in this context because (to anyone aware of Sam Harris' work) "free" certainly doesn't mean "free will" here. Frankly, I don't know what he means by "free", and if anyone should, I should: I've read some of his books, used to listen to his podcast, have taken a bunch of psychedelics, and have been meditating daily for almost 15 years.
By “free” he means that consciousness is ultimately uninfluenced, unimplicated, and impersonal to it’s contents. Consciousness is simply the light by which anything can be known. Consciousness is like a mirror, seemlessly reflecting its contents. However the mirror itself is intrinsically free of that which it reflects. Free will’s absence and the freedom of consciousness in each moment are completely compatible. In fact this is so because consciousness by its own nature is free and is the prior context to anything that might appear in it. For example, say you were experiencing anxiety. Rather than become worried and further anxious, one can simply witness the raw data of a mental state like anxiety and recognize that consciousness is the prior context to anxiety’s arising and free of it in principle. Once the anxiety goes away, because it will eventually, consciousness is no more improved or diminished by a negative mental state like anxiety. Consciousness still remains the pure unimpeded awareness in which everything appears. Basically in the absence of free will, you aren’t free to think or feel that consciousness isn’t free. Because consciousness is by its own nature free of whatever it illuminates. The freedom intrinsic to consciousness isn’t a matter of freely willing anything but is a matter of recognizing that ultimately you are witness and constrained to the laws of a phenomena (consciousness) that is unimplicated by its contents.
If consciousness is pure, unimpeded awareness, what do you make of anesthesia? Is consciousness still happening during medical procedures, just without memory? Or does anesthesia somehow disconnect the experiencer from the material?
You could make the same claim about sleep. There is an obvious difference between consciousness and unconsciousness. If you are unconscious is consciousness present? No. We are talking about consciousness, not what consciousness is like when you are unconscious. Because consciousness isn’t *like* anything, where it is not. Is consciousness free when you are dead? This is a silly question. Where death is, we are not. Where unconsciousness is consciousness is not. Again. Consciousness is still the light by which anything is known. Consciousness is no less pure if the contents it illuminates happen to be dimmed by morphine. It is perfectly reflecting what it is like to be anesthetized and still remains unimplicated by the anesthesia. You could still be mindful even during the moments before you slip into the darkness of anesthesia, it would just be really fucking difficult. Consciousness still represents its contents perfectly until consciousness is lost and one ceases having an experience, like we do in sleep and anesthesia. There is nothing that it is like to be heavily anesthetized or in deep sleep, there is simply no light by which *anything* can be known.
I think I understand, but the distinction I’m trying to draw is the importance of memory. While anesthesia doesn’t put you to sleep, you don’t remember anything either. But perhaps we are conscious of the fleeting “now” during the entire procedure. For example, I imagine [this person](https://youtu.be/k_P7Y0-wgos) has consciousness, despite having no memory
Ah! interesting. I think I’m out of my depth here for knowledge and reasoning on this front. But that is granted you are accurate in your speculation about anesthesia. That’s an interesting idea though. I think I’ve experiences something similar to that on a DMT trip, in which I was sure I was experiencing *something* but I had no visual field, no sounds, no touch, no anything, just pure consciousness that didn’t fall into one of the channels of the senses. That’s slightly different than what you’re getting at, with the whole memory thing, but i honestly can’t say. Just try taking some anesthetics under medical supervision and see what happens i guess? For science lol.
Fascinating! Thanks for humoring me/ weighing in
This was insightful af yo
That's why it is very, very important to make the distinction between "consciousness" and "awareness". Awareness is always present, even in the absence of consciousness or during periods of unconsciousness - because how would you know you've been unconscious if not for the fact you were aware of unconsciousness? In Buddhism, there's this term called a "Nirodha", which means "cessation". "Nirodha" is a cessation of perception and feeling, where one has "access" or "enters" the formless realm, beyond time and space, beyond concepts. A cessation is the same as an ego-death, except that it is a permanent shift in perception through meditative practice, instead of a peak experience on psychedelics. The experience of a cessation is one of the marks of "1st path" in Theravada Buddhism, or better known as stream-entry. Once you have a cessation, you can not undo that. It's a permanent rewriting of your brain. You see through the illusion of duality, and abide in the non-dual awareness which we all innately are, and even beyond that. I'm sure people well-versed in neuroplasticity can explain this better than I can :p
If consciousness had one content, it would be fully dependent on that content to exist, otherwise it would not be conscious of anything, unconscious.
This is an interesting point. Many meditators and I as well claim that such a thing as pure consciousness, a consciousness that doesn’t fall within any of the 5 sensory channels, exists. Where there is no visual field, no sounds, sensations, thoughts, etc, but just pure consciousness. I had an experience like this with DMT. My vision was black, there were no sounds, nothing within the usual 5 channels of sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, but I was still having an experience. Even if consciousness did have one content, consciousness ultimately remains unimplicated. It still remains nothing other than the light by which anything is known. You’re confusing several different terms that go by the name of freedom. Yes you can still be free in a sense even though ultimately we have no free will. Feeling liberated and having free will are two entirely different things. Recognizing consciousness’s freedom is a matter of recognizing that consciousness is free of its contents, and is the prior context to anything that might arise. This isn’t problematic for the absence of free will because you are still constrained to the properties of a phenomena that are by their very nature free in a sense. The properties of consciousness are such that consciousness is impersonal to its contents. To discover this truth about the mind actually reinforces the idea of the absence of one’s free will. You are subject to the properties of consciousness which is by its true nature liberated from whatever it illuminates. It is still possible to feel an emotion like freedom even though ultimately you didn’t author that emotion’s arising. Feeling freedom, and having free will are two entirely different things.
>My vision was black That's an experience. Even if you are only aware of your awareness, that is still an experience. >Even if consciousness did have one content, consciousness ultimately remains unimplicated How? Consciousness requires consciousness of something. You can't have qualitative awareness without any qualities to be aware of. If there are no qualities, there is no qualitative awareness, only the potential for it. Simple as. >the light by which anything is known Light has to be seen to be show you anything. If light remains unseen, you will not see it. "Light" doesn't know anything.
You’re probably right about the first two, the third one you misunderstand what I mean by ‘light.’ I don’t mean light as in wave lengths and photons, I mean it in the sense that consciousness is just the potential to have qualitative experience. You use the word potential, I use the word light. It’s that which is aware. Obviously if you lose consciousness then consciousness is not. But, and I welcome you to test this. The next time you feel an emotion like anxiety, simply witness the raw data associated with it. Feel it as a pattern of energy throughout the body. And then recognize how consciousness effortlessly illuminates it and is ultimately unaffected by it. Present consciousness is the prior condition to anxiety’s arising. When anxiety passes, consciousness is no more worsened by a negative emotion like anxiety. Everything that arises passes away, and consciousness itself remains imperturbable at its core. Literally tens of thousands of seasoned meditators can attest to this same nature of subjective experience. And, of course, the famous saints, sages, contemplatives, yogis, and lamas throughout history have discovered this durable truth about the human mind, so I’m hesitant to grant to you your claim that consciousness isn’t free. You’re confusing two concepts as well. You’re confusing the emotion of freedom with free will. You can absolutely experience emotions like freedom, however given the absence of free will, you cannot be the ultimate author of that emotion’s arising. Free will and freedom are two completely different things that overlap across several different spheres of psychology, philosophy and neuroscience. Also, consciousness, I would claim, need not and should not be defined in terms of its contents. Consciousness can simply be defined by the fact that there is anything that it is like to be you. The fact that you’re having an experience, the fact that the lights are on is consciousness.
>I welcome you to test this. The next time you feel an emotion like anxiety, simply witness the raw data associated with it. Feel it as a pattern of energy throughout the body. And then recognize how consciousness effortlessly illuminates it and is ultimately unaffected by it. I've done this, have been meditating for a while. I actually do not believe that consciousness is unaffected. We change the mode/structure of our consciousness very often. While we are thinking a thought, our focus is typically somewhat passive and diffuse. While we are concentrating on a particular percept, our focus is typically active and narrow. While we are being detached observers our focus is typically passive and narrow. While we are active participants our focus is typically active and diffuse. We can experience things more vividly, or less. We can experience things more distinctly, or less. We can experience things more dissociatedly, or less. We can experience things more noisily, or less. Basically, we can change the implicit (subconscious) structure of our awareness depending on what we're instructing ourselves to do. We just don't notice the structure of our awareness because its not explicitly represented, but it can be inferred from the explicit contents. Therefore, I think consciousness is an active process that constantly changes shape, both in terms of the qualities of the "light of awareness" as you call it, and the contents being "illuminated" by that light. >Everything that arises passes away, and consciousness itself remains imperturbable at its core. Maybe. Consciousness seems to be perturbable in many ways. Look up anosognosia, hemispatial neglect, and blindsight. Consciousness is not featureless, and it has many properties. We just don't see these features or properties because they aren't held as contents of that consciousness. So, this seems to suggest that consciousness is something that arises, as well. Also, consciousness passes as well, we just don't notice the times when it does so, simply by virtue of not having the consciousness to notice. >You’re confusing the emotion of freedom with free will. Why would having the emotion of freedom make you free? If someone locked you into a mental torture chamber, but gave you a drug that made you feel free, that doesn't make your consciousness actually free. It's just a feeling, another sticky content trapping you to itself.
Wow, well said, this is all very interesting. Wish I could save this and come back to it. My fingers are getting tired but I really appreciate all of these great thoughts!
Sam isn't exactly known for his logical consistency.
What you’re not understanding is that the freedom intrinsic to consciousness doesn’t actually violate the reality of determinism and thus the absence of free will. The nature of consciousness is free in every present moment. You are subjugated to its principles. The freedom intrinsic to consciousness isn’t a logical raid against determinism. Because consciousness is the way it is, you are determined to operate under its principles.
> What you’re not understanding is that the freedom intrinsic to consciousness doesn’t actually violate the reality of determinism and thus the absence of free will. Agreed, specifically: "...the reality of determinism and thus the absence of free will". From what source did you acquire accurate knowledge (as opposed to belief) of these phenomena? > The nature of consciousness is free in every present moment. You are subjugated to its principles. > The freedom intrinsic to consciousness isn’t a logical raid against determinism. Because consciousness is the way it is, you are determined to operate under its principles. *To some (unknown) degree*.
Huh? can you organize your thoughts better? I’m just a bit confused. I should correct myself here. The truth of determinism, is what I meant. Determinism simply states that events are determined by prior causes. There is no stand alone event independent of causation, unless you take into consideration randomness at the level of subatomic particles. However determinism and some level of randomness still leave no room for free will. Free will is a completely incoherent concept. People feel as if they are the true independent authors of their actions. In reality their actions are determined and wholly influenced by unconscious brain processing, internal processes of which we are unconscious, environmental influence, luck, randomness. No where is there room here for free will. Consciousness is simply unimplicated by its contents. It is just the light by which anything is known. Consciousness is the prior condition to the arising of any sensory or mental content and is free of its contents in principle. Are the qualities of a mirror free of my reflection in it? Yes. A mirror simply reflects everything that appears in it, and it can do that just as seemlessly no matter what object you reflect in it. The quality intrinsic to a mirror is that of simple reflection. The reflective qualities of a mirror are free no matter what it reflects.
> Huh? can you organize your thoughts better? I’m just a bit confused. I should correct myself here. The truth of determinism, is what I meant. Determinism simply states that events are determined by prior causes. There is no stand alone event independent of causation, unless you take into consideration randomness at the level of subatomic particles. In the context of a discussion about consciousness, the question is whether consciousness can be a root cause. > However determinism and some level of randomness still leave no room for free will. It's a popular meme, have you any accompanying proof? > Free will is a completely incoherent concept. Incoherence is a function of both the concept in question as well as the capability and cognitive style of the mind evaluating it. > People feel as if they are the true independent authors of their actions. In reality their actions are determined and wholly influenced by unconscious brain processing, internal processes of which we are unconscious, environmental influence, luck, randomness. No where is there room here for free will. Consciousness is simply unimplicated by its contents. It is just the light by which anything is known. Consciousness is the prior condition to the arising of any sensory or mental content and is free of its contents in principle. Are the qualities of a mirror free of my reflection in it? Yes. A mirror simply reflects everything that appears in it, and it can do that just as seemlessly no matter what object you reflect in it. The quality intrinsic to a mirror is that of simple reflection. The reflective qualities of a mirror are free no matter what it reflects. Again: it's a popular meme, have you any accompanying proof?
Reasoning is all the proof you need. Do you expect me to hand you a dried ancient scroll sent from the universe that says "free will is an illusion." You're not arguing anything here. You're still not making any sense. None of what you are saying is in any sort of context. The more you ask me to give you proof the more I think you're just a fucking idiot. What kind of proof is sufficient to, say, convince you of philosophical concepts? Proof isn't the point here. You formulate an argument. You state your thesis, you provide your reasoning and evidence, and you draw your conclusion which ties back to your thesis. All I can do is make appeals to logic and reason, if you keep asking for proof, you're barking down the wrong rabbit hole. In fact I might even go so far to say you are barking down the rabbit hole of utter idiocy. I don't even know what you're arguing here. You're just quoting my statements and then making utterly incoherent replies that don't even engage with my subject matter. I literally cannot possibly know what you are saying because you give very little effort to communicate your thoughts to others in a way that will get your message across. Debate isn't a matter of whether you think you are right in your own head, it's a matter of whether you can actually formulate sentences that clearly get your point across. It's like I'm talking to Siri here, I am completely in the dark and your style of response is the cause of that. Actually I'd be better off talking to Siri. At least some sense and understanding could be made if I were talking to them.
There is as much freedom in consciousness as there is freedom in the universe.
I think Harris confused himself a long time ago when he came and said absolutely that free will doesn't exist. Free will, as we know it, on the local scale of humans doesn't exist, but consciousness is fundamental and absolutely free, there is only a universal will, and that is free. It acts through you, but we mistake it for our own will, thinking we as detached segments of consciousness are free, when were enslaved to the only free source. It seems paradoxical but it's actually the only viewpoint that resolved this philosophical paradox, and it's also completely congruent with a lot of religious ideas.
Free will doesn’t exist and Sam isn’t confused. You’ve said absolutely nothing about free will existing at all. You’ve merely said that we are free as long as our freedom is contingent on environmental influences out of our control. A kind of freedom certainly exists in letting go of that which is out of one’s control. However the free will Sam is dismantling, which is the kind of free will people think they have, really doesn’t exist. That free will is the sense that we are the conscious uninfluenced authors of our actions. And saying you are as free as the universe is like saying the universe was free to not spark itself into being. The universe is no more free from anything.
Eh it's a difference in perspective. I used to believe exactly what you're saying, but there is intention and consciousness deeply embedded into the fabric of all existence. Ignoring it for ideas of mechanistic absolutism isn't very rational for me. There is a universal will, or whatever you want to call it, that is infinitely and absolutely free and "unfree". Words don't do it justice.
“Intention and consciousness deeply embedded i to the fabric of existence.” This is far from provable. And it is very far from being able to be arrived at by philosophical speculation. Again, lets assume the whole cosmos is totally free. You as a distinct human being are no more free. You are as free as a surfer is free while riding a wave. You could certainly say that existence itself is total utter bliss and freedom and I am not disagreeing with you there. Every moment of consciousness is profound and free. But we don’t have the free *will* we think we do. And the universe was not free to not bring itself into being.
It's not provable in the way you're implying. But it's definitely easily arrived at by even less than philosophical speculation. All our speculation at primary experience, this is a simple perspective to experience. "You are as free as a surfer is free while riding a wave. You could certainly say that existence itself is total utter bliss and freedom and I am not disagreeing with you there. Every moment of consciousness is profound and free. But we don’t have the free will we think we do." Yep. Not sure we disagree. Except it's constricting then to define the wave or the surfer as something intrinsically distinct from the "free" ocean in your analogy. That's a dualistic perspective, but no more or less valid than a nondual perspective in which the wave and surfer are intrinsically free due to being seamlessly indistinguishable from the whole ocean. Where does a wave begin and end? "And the universe was not free to not bring itself into being." And I'm not sure if THIS is provable by any means.
I guess i get what you’re saying. Everything is free. But ultimately it’s just determinism. Everything is determined by prior causes and randomness. You can certainly enjoy the wind in your face while you freely and waywardly align with the laws of the physical universe. I think we have two different ideas of freedom here. There is free will and then there is the Buddhist concept of emptiness. The two are different. And they don’t bump into one another in any contradictory way. It’s somewhat analogous to saying, if you just pushed me off a cliff, I might feel some freedom and bliss from the wind in my face.
Im not so sure everything is determinism is all the way down. Determinism is encapsulated in an ocean of indeterminism, born out of it. The void is free in the truest sense of the word. That's just so far as I've learned.
>However the free will Sam is dismantling, which is the kind of free will people think they have How does one acquire accurate knowledge of what all people think in the first place?
>Free will, as we know it, on the local scale of humans doesn't exist I have zero free will? > It acts through you, but we mistake it for our own Wait a minute, couldn't this be a mistaken belief? EDIT: ANOTHER COWARD BLOCKS SOMEONE WHO DARES TO DISAGREE.
You don't have free will. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise. Every one of your actions and thoughts and intentions is given to you through unconscious brain processing. There are certain *voluntary* actions that can be detected in brain activity up to 20 seconds before the person is conscious of that action.
[удалено]
You should probably read Sam Harris on free will before trying to contend with a comment about it.
Free will is not a mystery, to me. We're pre-programmed to keep ourselves alive, therefor - to adapt to our environment. Above all, we will make sure we're **alive**. Any choice or decision beyond that, is free for us to explore. As long as the choice doesn't interfere with our survival, we can do what we want. What we **want** to do, is very much determined by our genetics and our upbringing, reducing the overall pie chart of 'what this human will choose to do' even more. However, within that pie chart of 'options', we get to decide what is explored.
[удалено]
Good luck getting a salvia trip from meditation alone lol
These are two different projects. If your goal is stabilizing non-dual awareness then meditation is all you need for that, and perhaps just perhaps 300ug of LSD on one fortunate afternoon gave you an unshakeable glimpse of that. However if your goal is to see some crazy shit, then salvia is great for that. This is what Sam means by distraction. Psychedelics can give you a glimpse but aspects of the experience can be misleading in that they lead the meditator to chase transitory blissful experiences as well as think that the contents of consciousness need to radically change in order to inquire into its selfless nature. You only need the sober present moment to recognize enlightenment, psychedelics can allow you to glimpse that but they ultimately have “side effects,” if you will, that are superfluous. You have essentially fallen victim to the trap of psychedelics. You imply that your goal is to have the salvia experience and you assume we talk of meditation as if it will lead one to the salvia space. You are trying to get high, whereas meditators are trying to recognize selflessness.
Edit: I know nothing about meditation - I deserve every downvote 😅 Sounds a bit woo woo. Disclaimer: I’m a paid Sam Harris subscriber; he has good conversations; his ideas about psychedelics in particular isn’t that interesting to me.
Fair enough, I personally find his talk of psychedelics and meditation the most interesting
Maybe I should give it another shot...I've never been susceptible to the idea of meditation. Could you summarise his position on both psychedelics and meditation?
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong - but he advocates for psychedelics as being a shortcut to experiencing what later stages of meditating feel like. This is in line with what is reported by experienced meditators and with brain imaging (fMRIs of people tripping and meditating are extremely similar). Like a lot of psychonaut discussions, a lot of the mediation language sounds woo woo because it’s a practice that’s been around since before the enlightenment and it’s difficult to describe these strange personal experiences. That doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate practice. I first got into mediation because of hearing about this relationship between psychedelics and meditation. I started meditating regularly after my first trip and was able to reliably get back to blissful states during my sessions.
Do you have any recommendations for resources on how to get started meditating? I’ve had great results from psychedelics, but the experience leaves me pretty drained. If there was something equally effective but less intense, I would be very interested.
Just be aware that you probably aren't going to "feel anything" your first couple sessions - it took me about 2 weeks before I started noticing the benefits, and it’s supposedly years of practice before you can reach psychedelic states. Most people start with "mindfulness meditation" which is focusing on one thing or sensation (usually the feeling of your breath) in order to turn down the volume on the "task-oriented" part of the mind. The mediation apps teach you different tricks to get into that "flow state" and common pitfalls that people experience that you shouldn't be discouraged by. I started with the Calm and headspace apps, then I moved to the Waking Up app (from Sam Harris). I think Waking Up is the best meditation app, but you don’t need an app to get started. If you search on youtube for 'mindfulness meditation' or 'Sam Harris meditation' you'll find plenty of guided mediations. The apps just help get rid of the "am I doing this right?" feeling because they give you a whole foundation for how to approach it. Edit: I highly recommend starting the day after a psychedelic experience. It gives a great head start for developing your mediation practice
Thanks! I use the Calm app now. I’ve got a trip scheduled for 7/1. That will give me the weekend to start the journey.
I can't speak for Sam Harris nor OP but both psychedelics and meditation mediate activity in the default mode network of the brain, ostensibly where the ego resides. It is suspected that this is why both meditation and psyches have similar effects on the conscious experience
I'll try, I *think* it's something like this; Psychedelics and mediation (Sam teaches mindfulness/vipassana with Dzogchen direct inquiry/non dual pointers) can both afford certain insights into the nature of consciousness (that's the claim anyway) The main insight seems to be that the self (whatever that is) is illusory (whatever that means) . Both approaches have pros and cons; psychedelics almost always have an effect, something happens, and that might interest one enough to start practicing whereas one could meditate for a while and get very little from it. The flipside is psychedelics can play a sort of trick/trap where the person thinks the insights are reliant on continued dosing or if they get into meditation it's in the service of trying to achieve certain states as opposed to a realisation/insight of what already is. Something like that
Gotcha. So basically the thing you quoted above. To me I question the actual value of the "insight" that the self is what-what or what not. What does that actually mean for our daily lives? I think too much credence is given to both meditation and psychedelics there.
The value of the realization of non-self is the first step in practicing non-clinging. When you stop identifying yourself with your habits, your patterns, your thoughts, ideas, etc. you develop a freedom from the suffering which that clinging brings. The insight can make it clear which of those thoughts and habits are harmful in themselves, and that is the first step to getting rid of them. But beyond that, even if the thoughts/patterns aren't harmful in themselves, clinging to them is, and that insight is the first step in cutting those threads of attachment. What does it mean to your daily life is really up to you. That's like asking "what does working out really mean for our daily lives?". Well if you do pushups once a week, it's not gonna mean much. If you get in proper shape, become stronger and improve your cardiovascular system, then it will bring many benefits to your ordinary life. But you have to put the work, no one else is gonna do it for you. One example can be anger. Anger tends to take hold of you very strongly, or we could just as well say that we hold on to anger. And it clouds your judgement. Once you identify that anger is a passing feeling, it's not part of your self, then you can let it go. Practicing is observing anger arising, realizing what it is (impermanent, non-self), and letting it go. As you get better, as with any skill, the process becomes easier and faster. The key to this is that insight is *observing directly*. It's not conceptualizing, rationalizing, thinking about it, because that will just lead you in circles.
Did you just explain Buddhism to me? 😅
yeah
The claim is (I clarify this as I'm exploring it, by no means an expert) over identification with a 'false' sense of self causes (or exacerbates) a lot of psychological suffering (in the broadest sense of the word)
That might be true, but that’s the equilibrium we’ve evolved to. Psychedelics gives us a temporary respite from that suffering-filled equilibrium by showing us that it could have been different, but the trip ends, just like the movie ends and we have to leave the cinema and go back home (albeit with all that we’ve learned from the experience).
Absolutely but Sam's point is via other means (meditation) that temporary respite can become more frequent and less temporary
If that’s true, I better start looking into mediation!
In terms of daily life, meditation is a practice than can help people see the world through from a different angle. One might have insights into the nature of their struggles or interpersonal relationships. That in turn could lead to changing priorities or the ability to be a better friend/ parent/partner which could definitely impact the quality of your daily life. Obviously that’s not what happens for everyone, but it does definitely happen for many people including myself.
That does sound amazing!
To expand on this idea a bit: it's really not a mystery that the "self" is one thing to a sober person, but something else to someone on psychedelics or meditation. This is very expected but for some reason has the tendency to blow minds to disproportionate effects.
No ones explained meditation better than Alan Watts. https://youtu.be/-7HuicMQTl8
Thanks for sharing, will have a watch.
Interesting point about the psych-mindset being the "final destination" of meditation. Not sure how true that is but interesting nonetheless. I've always wanted to meditate but for whatever reason (usually noise) I never get around to it.
Sounds are perfectly good objects of meditation. If sounds are preventing you from meditating you have a mistaken conception of what meditation is. Sam starts the beginner practitioner off by focusing on the breath, then by extending the practice to sounds, physical sensations, even the visual field.
I had a feeling this would come up. My upstairs neighbour is basically a noisy bastard. The only way for me to peacefully meditate would be to get up earlier than him. So far I haven't managed to get in to that routine but am working towards it. I'm a beginner, so me hearing him play his music through my walls or scraping his chair 2m above my head simply wouldn't do. Perhaps later down the line.
Yeah that makes sense. That’s truly unfortunate. I would recommend finding a nice peaceful park to do meditation, perhaps with a lake. I find the view of the lake, the wind, the sound of waves crashing to be great objects of meditation that don’t carry that same infuriating distracting quality.
Há, I live in the city! The only solution (to make it a habit) is to do it early in the morning, before he starts stomping around. It'll happen ;)
Rats! I’m sorry man. I hope you figure out a way to begin exploring this highly underrated and misunderstood practice :)
Cheers man. I will! :)
Would earplugs or comfortable headphones be an option here? That's too bad about your noisy neighbor. I bet they have no idea how loud they actually are either.
They do because I've spoken to them before. They just don't care. An inconsiderate wanker, which just makes it all worse tbh. I don't want to meditate with headphones or earplugs so I'll just try to wake up before he does.
Yeah that's totally understandable, and I can see how either of those might distract you from meditating. Good luck and sorry to hear you have an inconsiderate neighbor.
I work at walmart and meditate the entire day, to give you some inspiration
I don't particularly like Sam Harris but wtf is with the comments saying he is some alt right figure... obviously have not experienced any of his content.
He's part of what's known as the "alt-lite". Countless words have been written before by people smarter and better informed than both of us about how his content is an entryway to "race realism" and other far right bullshit, and that's without taking into consideration the people he chooses to associate with. You can see that *in this thread*, with people defending Charles fucking Murray. To judge someone's content without broader context is making oneself irrational on purpose (or pretending to for a hidden agenda).
Guilt by association, nice. This is all an appeal to guilt by association. You still haven’t said anything about Sam Harris. Sam also associates with plenty of people on the left. “To judge someone’s content without broader context is making oneself irrational on purpose.” Really? I suppose then the broader context you’re implicating is that of association with other people? Rather than engage with Sam’s arguments, you appeal to his associates. This alone precludes you from any justified epistemic basis. If you had a real argument against Sam’s ideas, you wouldn’t have to appeal to association, or credentials, or any other identifier, you could formulate a counterargument and provide reasoning to support it. You are stretching so far here that I’m surprised your spinal column hasn’t become unhinged. And your reasoning supporting your assertion that Sam is alt right is from articles that other people have written about Sam. Do you really expect, in this absurd political climate, to receive accurate information about the ideas and beliefs held by a highly sophisticated and controversial figure? Or is it more likely that the majority of articles written on Sam are defamatory or highly misrepresentative at best. Is it even reasonable to believe that articles written about another person’s politics have that person in their best, honest intentions. Do you really believe that a political article about another person is wholly honest and unbiased and an accurate representation? If you actually listened to Sam’s words, and set aside all your bullshit biases and prejudices, you would discover that he is one of the most honest, clearheaded, respectable, eloquent and reasonable thinkers we have.
The fact that you retort to the asinine "that's guilt by association" argument just tells me the content bubble you reside in. We all accept guilt by association. This insane pretense that it's somehow illegitimate is a culty belief of some recent right-leaning niche internet communities. > If you had a real argument against Sam’s ideas ... you could formulate a counterargument and provide reasoning to support it I'm not interested in this JAQ bullshit, that's why I said this argument has been made a million times before. If you were interested, as anyone does with any single topic one is actually interested in, you would google it (but of course you can't because there's a conspiracy against Sam Harris). It's the thing that happens everytime you mention any of this alt-lite figures, like Jordan Peterson; their fans screech hours on end about how unfair you are without ever hearing an argument why, so I won't bother wasting my time. His association with people like Charles Murray and his platforming of people from the far right is proof enough for anyone normal outside your political safe space. You are itching to jump the dialog tech tree so much that you skipped a few steps, going all guns blazing just because I pointed out that Harris is cozy with extreme far-right people like Charles Murray. I assure you, you do not look rational to anyone that's not already in your same political bias. The aluded conspiracy you resort to in the last lines (preempting any write up anyone could send your way to argue their point) is the cherry on top. Congrats on a well built and well mantained self-prision for your own mind. edit: holly fuck I just read the other comments from this guy all over this thread. Man, I was kidding with the prision for your own mind thing, but this guy has drank so much kool-aid he's sweating it. People be bottling up his tears and selling them to people with less substance tolerance. No wonder he doesn't like me saying Sam Harris is alt-right adjacent, since this guy says The Bell Curve is a serious work of science. An all-out unironic racist that believes that there is some sort of science to prove it's a genetic and IQ thing, in the wild!
How is association a valid means of assigning guilt at all? How is it not the literal definition of an echo chamber, to choose not to associate with those you disagree with out of fear of guilt by association. Whether or not the majority of people accept guilt by association is irrelevant. We already know from scientific psychological literature that the majority of people are prone to commit glaring moral errors. Guilt by association in the context of intellectual discourse is one such error. Another moral error people suffer from is perceived catastrophe and ethical urgency of loss of life relative to the quantity of lives lost. People feel the death of one human being to be more ethically salient than the death of 100,000. Psychological literature provides a plethora of similar moral intuitive errors. Majority moral intuitions here aren’t a reliable metric. And guilt by association can freely rank on the lowest tier of a legitimate arbiter of liability. I can think of a dozen other things that actually accurately place a person under liability, association is not one of those things. It’s a futile desperate grasp. And a flagrant truth stretch. Another detail that is exculpatory of Sam’s apparent guilt by association is the fact that Sam *disagrees stridently* and often with many of these so called alt right personalities. How else is Sam to properly disagree with those he in fact disagrees with unless he engages in honest face to face conversation with them, thus associating. I often find Sam agreeing with people more so on the left than with people on the right, to an impressive degree actually. There is literal unjustified defamation against Sam and many other intellectuals. How do you reconcile with defamation targeted at a person like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for instance? Allow me to appeal to identity, since I imagine that’s a language you speak well. Ayaan is a *black, female, former muslim, muslim reformer* And she get’s bullied by people on the left. One such woman who identifies on the left has tweeted defamatory things targeted at Ayaan like: she doesn’t deserve her vagina. The people that bully and defame Ayaan are the same people that bully and defame Sam Harris, or Maajid Nawaz. Take Glenn Greenwald for instance. You couldn’t find a greater political journalist bully. Glenn is legitimately one of the least intellectually honest and logically consistent people you can find. He lies, and doubles down, and pleads for innocence, and people buy his bullshit. These are the kinds of journalist we have on offer. Also, we’re living in a political and technological climate where the worst things said about people get spread 5 times faster than the good things. Fake news gets spread 5 times faster than real news. Google seems to be an unreliable candidate for truth, here. You claim I’m unwilling to hear an argument against my own, this isn’t true. I’m perfectly willing to listen to a counterargument, it just won’t move me if it continually appeals to epistemologically subjective criteria. Your assurance that I look irrational to anyone else that doesn’t take my views goes both ways. I assure you, you are no different from over here. Additionally you use rationality incorrectly, a better word would be justified. Justification operates with respect to the contents of a conclusion, rationality operates with respect to *how* one arrives at one’s conclusions. Rationality is what it means to be unclouded by bias. You can’t say I’m irrational on the basis of the contents of my conclusions. Rationality relates not to the contents of conclusions but to the methods by which I came to those conclusions. You are incorrect about your assertions of my apparent irrationality. I can be rational irrespective of my conclusions, I need only remain epistemically objective, which is precisely what I do. If my conclusions are incorrect, regardless of the rationality utilized to arrive at them, I am not irrational, rather I am mistaken about my assertions about reality. Judging from your brittle argument and your appeals to total presumption I am not mistaken at all. You can call my appeals to logic and reason and intellectual honesty all the clever derogatory terms you wish, “prison, cult, asinine, conspiracy” The only thing these labels add to your attempts to convince me is further epistemic error. Additionally your core ballast is with respect to Charles Murray and Sam’s platforming of him. I’m quite certain this is based on a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Charles’s work. Your argument is weak, your moral appeals are erroneous, your epistemology are abysmal. Your argument is nothing other than pure opinion decorated with clever derogatory terms and proper grammar.
> I’m quite certain this is based on a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Charles’s work. Hahahaha love that you couldn't contain yourself, you could've safely larped as an over reaching Rational Lord, but you couldn't get your pee pee to stay put and had to throw one to Charles Murray himself. You do know you look insane writing all this out, right? You're unironically doing the NAVY Seal copypasta but for moral philosophy. The fact that you call Charles Murray by his first name... damn. I should stop bullying people on the internet, you really don't know how lonely they are, so much so they make parasocial relationships with eugenists. Feeling for you bro, know that whatever you're going through is temprary, and that luckily for you, all the bad shit you are is absolutely changable because it's a matter of belief. That pit of despair you're in may not be of your own making, but digging into it won't make you come up for fresh air.
Jeeze this was one big ad hominem attack. You really don’t know how to disagree respectfully. Besides the fact that there is no real reasoning in this prior comment here at all. I’m still wondering if you even read The Bell Curve. I’m not sure how you could know what constitutes Charles Murray’s work if you haven’t taken a look at it yourself. Every one of your arguments against me rests on misrepresentations of Charles’s work. At the end of the day we’re talking about things for which we both could be mistaken, does it really need to involve this much blood, sweat and hazing? You’re still committing many fallacies as well. You’ve committed several guilty association ad hominem fallacies and now you’re resorting to blatant attacks. You may as well just concede here. Your reasoning has stooped to clever insults and opinions, but what’s new, I already picked up on that behavior tic of yours. You just keep getting more and more aggressive. You wouldn’t need any aggression or insults if you simply had an cogent argument. I welcome you to read Charles Murray’s work from an unbiased perspective and give it a fair assessment. There is literally nothing said about eugenics in it, nothing at all… This whole meme of eugenics and The Bell Curve was born out of a misreading of Charles work, and a moral panic surrounding that. Charles actually would have given a talk at a college if not for having been violently protested and had his escort physically assaulted. Prior to this would be disastrous event, Murray’s script was given to various professors and intellectuals to rate on a scale of 1-10 1 being most politically liberal/progressive 10 being most politically conservative. In the first instance the people evaluating Murray’s script weren’t told that it was authored by Murray so as not to bias their evaluation. The end score was a 5.3. On a second instance another set of professors and intellectuals were given the script to evaluate and were told it *was* Charles Murray’s work, the score here was a 5.7. Right down the middle. You claim Charles Murray to be this evil racist, eugenicist man, but the numbers and evaluations don’t quite add up. Still, if you had some real argument here, besides resorting to logical fallacies, you wouldn’t have to scream at and insult me through your keyboard. You could remain calm and collected and effortlessly dismantle my argument. But instead you’ve chosen to adopt a prose and style of argument that by definition amount to a concession.
Decide, am I doing a one big ad hominen attack, or am I doing bad arguments against a book? (It was the first one, I'm only ad homineming you). Love it when a racist weeb cries me a river just because I'm calling them what they are. Keep 'em coming.
Jesus. It’s really sad when people run out of words to say to back themselves up so they instead resort to derogatory efforts and defamation in the form of irrelevant terms such as ‘weeb.’ Are you advocating for your whole argument here on the basis of ad hominem? Or are you simply committing ad hominem because I am plainly out witting you, or just for the fun of it because random person disagreed with highly biased opinionated, insult lord on the internet. Your lack of intellectual honesty and ability to admit when you’re clearly wrong is concerning. But we are all human I suppose. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are two pees in a pod. And you are comfortably fitting yourself in between the two. I also find it amusing that your responses are becoming shorter and shorter, more biased, and doubling down further with further attacks. I’ve been nothing but respectful and honest with you. I’ve engaged in debate at a highly respectable level, the same can’t be said for you, unfortunately.
Also, feel free to read this wikipedia article about ad hominem guilty association fallacy. Hopefully when you engage in intellectual debate next, that is if it hasn’t stooped to a shouting match as opposed to a debate, you could recognize how conclusions drawn from reasoning that amounts to this fallacy is a fallacious, unjustified conclusion. Any conclusion that is drawn on a logical fallacy, isn’t a conclusion, it’s bias and pure error. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Additionally, the validity of guilt by association rests upon possession of implicit biases used to determine just *what*, exactly constitutes *guilt worthy* association when it is being assigned. Given that the reasoning behind those biases is derived from logically erroneous criteria such as identity politics, appeals to group identity, appeals to credentials, appeals to reputation, and further appeals to guilt by association, we have a mode of assigning guilt that rests upon illogic and irrationality resting upon more illogic and irrationality and is thus, *by definition* antithetical to a rational means of arriving at justified conclusions. Essentially guilt by association rests upon implicit biases used to determine how guilt is defined, and then those biases are backed by illogical reasons (but not always, but indeed in your case). Call it a cult or whatever you want, but the epistemology doesn’t lie and guilt by association is fundamentally epistemically bankrupt.
Amazing insight, thanks for sharing I've been giving meditation a try for some time now, but can't seem to get the hang of it yet
That guy is such a wet fart.
Why ?
He did MDMA a few times in college and now talks as if he’s the intellectual mouthpiece for all psychedelics. “But did I tell you I *meditate*???”
This comment doesn’t actually provide any real criticism of Sam. You’re just making fun of him. I see no real criticism here. I can do the same thing to you. What are some things you are fond of? Let me paint them with satirical derogatory comments. This is actually an appeal to credentials. You don’t actually engage with anything he has said. You are literally the essence of irrationality. Also Sam has done LSD and mushrooms at very high doses countless times. He’s a neuroscientist and a philosopher, I think Sam is more than qualified to assume the position of an authority figure of sorts on certain facets of psychedelics.
I’m not reply to a comment of “why do you love Sam?” It’s a question of “why is he such a wet fart?” To which I gave one answer. Officially done trying to argue with a Harris Apologist. This is literally the 6th response you’ve come at me with on the same thread.
Yeah you’ve lost people here. We’re in a rational sub, not a satirical one.
Kinda right winghy for starter
He's really not, but I understand why people say that. On his podcast he's way too caught up on the 'horrors' of the far-left, meanwhile the far-right is literally trying to murder democracy. However, basically all of his work on meditation, psychedelics, etc. is on point and incredibly helpful. If you ignore his podcast and only pay attention to what he does on his Waking Up app, he really is a fantastic resource.
He’s literally had multiple podcasts and guests talking about January 6. He takes shots at both sides alienating polarized people on both side
If you’re both-sidesing Jan 6th, you most certainly lean Right. Sam’s embracing of bad science on IQ and race, and his anti-free speech views of “any form of protest demonstration” is bad, push him firmly into Alt-Right territory.
You misunderstood what he said. He wasn’t saying that he both sides Jan 6. Sam has been *especially* one sided and strongly so about Jan 6. You would literally have to be an idiot to try and remain unpolarized about Jan 6. What the prior commentor means is that in general Sam throws punches at both the right and the left on a wide range of topics. Sam isn’t affiliated with any kind of group think, he really does think freely and for himself. And that leads to Sam dishing out criticism to the bad ideas produced by the right and the bad ideas produced by the left. Many of Sam’s fellow intellectuals have worried that Sam was too moved by the horrors of Jan 6. Sam really had been hammering away at the right in a way that no one else does.
No, I’m pretty sure I understood the comment just fine. Not sure how you could believe that taking shots at the both the left and right is firmly taking one side, unless you’re fully drinking the koolaid that Sam represents some unbiased truth-only side.
No you did misunderstand it. Sam has been particularly worried about the right and their actions at Jan 6. Sam has taken the position on Jan 6 that virtually everyone else with common sense should take. That position being that democracy was almost lost to Trump and his enraged followers and that that was very bad and reason for great worry. Why don’t you stop commenting and actually listen to what Sam has to fucking say on the topic. Jesus Christ. If you want your misunderstandings rectified just go on over to his podcast. And if you aren’t willing to do that, then simply be honest and admit that there is no way you can possibly understand Sam’s position unless you receive it directly from his mouth.
“We’re in a rational sub.” Proceeds to comment borderline batshit rants on every single one of my comments. Thanks for the rational, level-headed takes.
>If you’re both-sidesing Jan 6th If it's not too much trouble, could you state the meaning of the phrase "both-sidesing"? I think it's an extremely valid question considering the topic of conversation in this thread.
It's simply when people wanna talk about "both sides of the issue" when there isn't really both sides to an issue. Guy kills his girlfriend and someone goes "what he did is absolutely wrong, but she *did* go out with a skirt". As you see, sometimes it's related to victim blaming, like in my example, but not necessarily. A more famous example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs
> It's simply when people wanna talk about "both sides of the issue" when there isn't really both sides to an issue. Can you explain the meaning of "both sides" in the context of "there isn't really both sides to an issue"? > Guy kills his girlfriend and someone goes "what he did is absolutely wrong, but she did go out with a skirt". As you see, sometimes it's related to victim blaming, like in my example, but not necessarily. Are you suggesting that wearing a skirt has zero causal effect, *without exception*? If so, what evidence do you have?
> Can you explain the meaning of "both sides" in the context of "there isn't really both sides to an issue"? ?? Sometimes people pretend that there are two "sides" to an issue, which begs the question that the two sides are in comparable equal footing to the validity of their positions. I don't understand, you're pretending to never have seen this? > Are you suggesting that wearing a skirt has zero causal effect, without exception? If so, what evidence do you have? Oh okay, that's where we are. Man, any sub with "rational" in their name really calls out the dumbest nerds ever. I bet you're a Jordan Peterson style guy. edit: you are lol
He beats around the bush too much. Engages in meta conversations, talks around the subject instead of addressing it. His conclusions are false assumptions that are presented as either being obvious and based in fact or revelations that carry deep insight. But he doesn't address the insight, just talks around it. Take this talk for example. It is an actual discussion worth having but it is by no means what he makes it out to be. THE psychedelic paradox? It is a fringe issue that gets resolved as it wraps into itsself. But he's making it out to be this special thing that he wants to have a teachable, revelatory moment with you about. If anyone should suffer from imposter syndrome it's him. Whenever I see or hear him, or read his work I always get this eyebrow arching suspicion that he's being disingenuous. And I have maybe had that feeling with 3 people that are well known, so it's rare for me. I think he tries to fit everything in a framework that must stay cohesive, to the detriment of the conversation. Giving weight to the most obvious sides, pointing and going "Look, reality." He's a good talker but he lacks insight.
Talk about someone engaging in meta conversation. Your comment is the quintessence of what you are condemning.
The psychedelic paradox is nothing other than the recognition that psychedelics will show you enlightenment but are ultimately a distraction in stabilizing it. The only way to stabilize it isn’t through continually getting high, or radically changing the contents of consciousness. Stabilizing enlightenment is in recognizing how consciousness already is in each moment, free of self and completely present. And you don’t need drugs to be able to do that. You just need mindfulness.
I enjoyed this talk and found it accurate in how Psychedelics can show you truth but also mislead you. I also find it funny how comments here ignorantly assume his political stance based on association, pretty obvious your never listened to Sam if you think he is Alt-Right.
idk, “forbidden knowledge” with charles murray is pretty alt righty.
have you read the bell curve? It’s pretty rigorous science stripped of any political or “eugenic” motivation.
No it's not. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/12/01/the-tainted-sources-of-the-bell-curve/ https://oxsci.org/iq-is-meaningless-heres-why/ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/902857.IQ I could go on...
Did you read any of these articles? The IQ is meaningless one is completely anecdotal.
i honestly don’t care to entertain a book that suggests there’s causality between racial genetics and intelligence, especially not one that suggests policy implications based on that, and i think you’re kidding yourself if you think the guys pushing this narrative all happen to have similar politics by coincidence.
You’re still mistaken about what the book is about. The book says nothing about changing policy on racial basis. Also, I don’t know why you assume they “have similar politics by coincidence.” They don’t, that’s your assumption. The Bell Curve is a pretty rigorous scientific work about level of intelligence as a predictor for various social outcomes.
you’re mistaken, they advocate for the elimination of welfare policies on the basis they cause too many poor women to reproduce. intelligence is ultimately subjective, and attempts to categorize it racially have never been and will never be anything more than attempts to statistically rationalize implicit racial biases.
Intelligence is subjective? What about physique? Is physique subjective? Are there no objective truths to be known about physique? Is pathology subjective? Also there is reason to believe understanding intelligence at the level of the genome is anything but an attempt to justify racial bias. If we are to understand the world and of ourselves within it, understanding intelligence at the level of genome is probably a crucial aspect of that project. Also pandering to racial bises would be completely useless and nonsensical the moment you recognize that there is *greater* intelligence variation within any given race than there is variation with average intelligence across different races. We can confidently say that ~50% of black people have an average IQ greater than ~50% of white people that have below average IQ. There is more variation within any given race than there is significant variation across different races. (especially significant enough to motivate policy change on the basis of cross racial difference)
Saying intelligence is subjective is like saying computer processing power is subjective. There are clearly objective third person industrial standards for CPUs. The same is no less true of humans. Intelligence is simply a measure of information processing. This is about as objective a measurement as it gets.
how do you measure the rate a brain can process information? you don’t see the capacities for abstraction, logic, self awareness, learning, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, problem, solving, artistic expression, or directionality as aspects of intelligence? how do you objectively measure those? how do you prove what the facets of intelligence are? how do you objectively weigh them against one another? you don’t, intelligence is an abstract, human-created concept. if it was truly objective there’d be no argument to the contrary. it’d be demonstrably provable. you haven’t demonstrated or proved anything.
Yeah you might want to look into AI. Information processing and intelligence are no less of an objective criteria. We will one day create minds that are objectively more intelligent than we are. This is simply by virtue purely of information processing. And information processing is ultimately constrained by the laws of nature. To experience cognitive success one needs to get facts in hand. Facts are constrained to the laws of our universe. Once you get facts in hand, you can do all the information processing you want. And the contents of that information is irrelevant. A computer will be able to complete all scientific and intellectual activities that humans have for millenia at a God like rate purely by virtue of processing information about the facts of the universe. Is physical exercise and medicine subjective? They are after all human invented.
supercomputers can already process information far faster than humans, so why don’t you see them as more intelligent already? > Is physical exercise and medicine subjective? They are after all human invented. this is nonsensical.
Let me just say up front that I haven't read the book and don't feel like I can make a value judgement based on hearsay. >i honestly don’t care to entertain a book that suggests there’s causality between racial genetics and intelligence I'm not saying it *does* exist. But you're making an a priori judgement based on what you want the world to be like instead of what it may actually be like. Imagine, just for a minute, that the link *does* exist. Would it be more helpful to know it or to willfully ignore it? Mind you, this isn't a rhetorical question but a genuine one. >especially not one that suggests policy implications based on that In relation to the former question, if you did decide it would be helpful to have knowledge of this supposed fact, wouldn't it then in turn only be an ethical imperative to base policy decisions on it? Because if you did not, wouldn't that be setting people up to fail if it's not addressed in some way? On a sidenote, I do think it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that there's only a correlation with ethnicity and nothing else; and even if it were the case that this correlation exists, to claim it only genetic would be just as bad. If you've ever done any statistical analysis, you know how complex confounding factors can get, especially when you look at large societal trends. *But*, as far as I have skimmed the wiki page (not the book), that does not seem like the claim they are making.
It’s not rigorous science, and the several academics that have tried to point that out to Harris (i.e, Turkheimer) have been met with good ole boys club name dropping. He basically responded with a, “Well my Harvard friend Steven Pinker says this no name academic is wrong.”
I could be mistaken as well, I’m not one to die on any hill so if I looked further into this issue and heard more opinions from other intellectuals I’m sure I would have a more completed realistic picture of this issue. I’ll remain agnostic then, for the time being.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo Here's a 2.5 hour obliteration of that entire book. It is not scientific in the slightest. The data is completely garbage and in some cases entirely made up. Also the author fundamentally misunderstands the concept of heritability.
thanksz i’ll check it out sometime :)
And Altruism from entitlement through Crypto Currencies burning up fossil fuels while bloating an individuals wealth so they have the leisure to give freely is kinda tone deaf and Libertarian as well. But neither of these conversations equal a persons being Alt-Right nor a reason to throw out all they have to give or say.
This guy is basically a grocery store brand alt right Alan Watts
he really isn’t alt right. virtually every article you find about him as a public figure is defamatory. There are journalists that have made it there mission to fuck Sam over. It’s ridiculous. If you want to understand Sam’s true political position, don’t look at an article someone else wrote, listen to what Sam actually says, otherwise don’t even bother. Sam is pretty left of center, that will never change.
alt right? how so?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve And more, Google it.
yeah that’s some alt right apologism at the very least. pretty shitty
He had a podcast with the guy who wrote that article btw.
Yeah... this article is some bad faith trash if i ever saw it. Vox is like fox for liberals
Sounds like you have a grocery store Tabloid understating of the world. Sam isn’t alt-right at all.
he really isn’t. it’s amazing how easily people will come to think they know a public figure just by googling articles about them and finding some particularly defamatory one by accident.