It's so refreshing to pull my mind out of the sewer of politics and corruption and listen to a totally rational and reasoned discourse. Imagine if our politicians could and would sit down and discuss the real issues in a clear minded and rational way such as Sam is able to. Alas, we are so far from that dream that it is hard to even conceive.
@@bradsmith9189I don’t know about “friendly” and “nice” because I haven’t followed Harris that closely, but he is most certainly highly intelligent! And at least in debates, he is not nearly as inflammatory as Richard Dawkins. I think we have to give him credit where credit is due. (And of course a personal God that responds to prayers and/or cares about humanity probably isn’t real, so he’s on the right side there as well).
What's neat about this interview is seeing some of the early threads of Waking Up and realizing that Sam was thinking about these things for a long time.
Watch "Waking Up with Sam Harris #102 - Is Buddhism True? (with Robert Wright)" on UA-cam ua-cam.com/video/i9SGs89x8lY/v-deo.html I also like this interview on the Sam Harris podcast between these two.
Harris NEVER comes up against anyone (such as yours truly) who has "cracked the code" of esoteric spirituality. And he never debates anyone (such as yours truly) who has "cracked the code" of sociopolitics.
What you are about to witness is real. The participants are not actors. They are the actual people who have already either filed suit or been served a summons to appear in a California municipal court. Both parties in the suit have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their disputes settled here, in our forum: The People's Court.
It's called being a psychopath. I wouldn't mistake it for his so called spiritual discipline. He's got some nice ideas to adopt and think about, but be careful what you take from him.
Do you know much about psychopathy and sociopathy? I'm not 100% certain, I can't be (regardless of my qualification), but Sam Harris raises all my red flags. Some of his arguments are very appealing, but I wouldn't mistake his capacity of emotional detachment with some ideology or attainment, certainly not something to be sought after.
Dave Levy Fuck outta here man, Harris has explicitly stated "not to be irrationally detached from your life". I couldn't disagree further, I think it is something to be sought after and I think your ego just might fear that....
I agree with a lot of Sam's stuff. I think that rehabilitating Spirituality from the damage religion's overstayed welcome has inflicted on it is super important, and I think he does a good job at spreading that idea. I think that talking about mindfulness, about meditation, about exploring the self, about ego loss and duality, all these things are great. But I don't believe that any of his moral or ethical stances originate from a conscience or from empathy. I don't think he is capable of compassion, and that is a big deal. So I take Sam Harris with a grain a salt, and advise my friends to do the same. Is that OK with you, or do I need to think more like you for you to be OK with my existence? :)
Whats with all the hate toward Wright? He is terrific. And knows a lot. And is really good at interviewing (maybe he could smile more, but its just his style).
People aren't familiar with his stuff. Also Sam and him don't like each other. A shame because I really like both of them and think it would be beneficial for their views to interact more
The moment I realised that this is the same Robert Wright of one of my fav. book "the moral animal", all my anger against him just dissolved into this flood of compassion and understanding. Folks, don't judge the interviewer by the his body language and counter questioning (which looks irritating at first glance but is not). He is just picking up the mind of Sam Harris. And he is doing it in a rather brilliant way. When I realised this fact, I saw the interview once again from the start and what a treat it was. Sam harris is one of the smartest living public intellectual. I completely agree. But realise the fact that the interviewer here is not far behind. Infact, he is more knowledgeable in some other aspects.
Oh Robert is awesome. He has his flaws but he is just so great in many areas. You are right. He is picking Sam's mind. Although he generally dislikes athiests and probably put Sam in the same cateogory once but you can see in this interview that was beginning to change. In this interview, he is coming to realize that unlike Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens etc, Sam does advocate for Spirituality and that there is something to to extracted from religions. Although this was many years ago, i think his grudge with Sam is no more. They had an amazing talk on Sam's podcast not long ago. It was after the release of Robert's book "Why buddhism is true".
I find myself slightly bothered, however, when at 10:20 Wright shifts the conversation away from its natural arc. Harris had just delivered a credible account of how the experience of ethical concern arises, and how we then develop ethical codes to articulate it, in other words a bottom-up construction of an emergent system. Wright then abruptly introduces, first, an unfounded assertion that natural selection forces self-interest - ignoring the survival advantages that in fact give rise to diverse social species - and then, second, immediately onto the "problem of consciousness." This, to me, felt incurious as to what Harris was saying, and it missed an excellent opportunity to apply the same construction to the emergent system of consciousness, if consideration of consciousness was indeed the matter of interest it appeared to be. Though I appreciate that Wright, along with Harris, might have determined beforehand the need to work through certain themes in the time available, it was still a hasty move and a lost opportunity. Most of the "problem" of consciousness is essentially philosophical rather than empirically grounded, and very prone to fallacies of equivocation. We don't have nearly the same order of difficulty if we approach it from the bottom up. Increasing neural complexity brings with it increasing cognitive potential; there's no dispute about this and ample evidence across the many hundreds of species that have been studied. What we call consciousness is something else, and we have a much more limited selection of species to study, since none other than humans can tell us about their inner experience. We also have an interesting dilemma when introspecting about our own consciousness, namely that we can only introspect when we ARE conscious. We're in the position of wandering around a vast cavern with a very small flashlight, only able to see momentarily an incomplete portion of the whole, and worse, unable to even think about the other portions once they have been left behind in darkness. Most of cognition proceeds unconsciously. Indeed most of our conscious effort to learn new material and new skills is a matter of making it available to our unconscious minds. We learn our first language unconsciously, because (among other reasons) we seem to need language as a basis for forming conscious thoughts. This might not be entirely true, as Buddhist practitioners will attest, but it's commonly the case, and very important for the exercise of abstract conceptualization. An ability to introspect is also a necessary precursor to consciousness, so that we are in the position to think about thinking. And finally, we need some "theory of mind" to ignite the entire emergent process. It's natural to imagine the first sense of theory of mind arising with respect to ourselves, but it's more evolutionarily plausible that it develops first with respect to others in a social species. We benefit from anticipating what the other guy is going to do, proximally by reading facial cues and other body language, but more distally by building up a repertoire of likely patterns of action that follow from each other. Still unconsciously, we arrive at a model of what the other will do, not inevitably but under conditions of choice. This is the key element in a theory of mind. If it then (unconsciously) occurs to us to apply it to ourselves, the light dimly goes on. We understand, because we can to some degree introspect, that we too have a choice. And we can perhaps apply language to that understanding, so that an abstract sense of "we" and "choice" can emerge. This is what we have come to call consciousness. We make much of it, because it's conceptually so powerful, but structurally it's not very much of an add onto general cognitive ability. It does however seem to require the rare confluence of three abilities: introspection, theory of mind, and eventually language.
i judge all christians - and muslims - by how much they criticise god, and it seems to me they all justify god killing whoever he feels like. so in my book there is no "nice christians" just polite liars.
This is perhaps the only conversation on religion where I found the views of both sides compelling. Robert Wright may not have the charm and charisma of Sam Harris and is sometimes criticized for being emotionless and wooden, but he is absolutely an intellect.
They are both quite wooden. I think the challenge is reducing an idea to another idea and then claiming it is false, which is another idea. The fact that some ideas represent the current american republican target for the generation of violence does not peclude other targets. Reductionism is dangerous. Yet, the mind struggles with walking a middle path of reasoning.
Yep.. That's what I feel.. Combining our senses Inputs plus our proprioception, makes us feel like we are "behind" our eyes, ears , arms, legs etc.. A brain/ computer that takes in info from multi-systems ( summarizes it with suggested choices eg thoughts ) & multisenses-inputs ( processed ) .. Then we in the driverseat get those "suggestions", look around etc, then pick from those available choices.. And only EVER from those choices, like a computer can only choose from what it's actually physically programmed to do People say "it has to be a soul or a special separate consciousness" without thinking how else would we be able to have awareness from senses ? AND also be given summaries of what our bodies are doing & how it's working.. Nature wouldn't "write" it in words.. That's a human communication limit.. It obviously makes useful working sense to give us awareness, some control, except for in the myriad essential systems that can be "automated".. Just enough awareness to pick the best choices of action in any given situation.. 🤔☮️🌏
Sam's the best. He has to know on some level he tends to be the smarter guy in the room, yet he would never think to point that out. Very humble without much ego to interfere. A true intellect.
I doubt sam is the smarter one. Yes, he is the calmer one. But the moment I realised that this is the same Robert Wright of one of my fav. book "the moral animal", all my anger against him just dissolved into this flood of compassion and understanding. Don't judge the interviewer by the his body language and counter questioning (which looks irritating at first glance but is not). He is just picking up the mind of Sam Harris. And he is doing it in a rather brilliant way. When I realised this fact, I saw the interview once again from the start and what a treat it was. Sam harris is one of the smartest living public intellectual. I completely agree. But realise the fact that the interviewer here is not far behind. Infact, he is more knowledgeable in some other aspects.
Wright did a good job as an interviewer. If he agreed with everything that Harris said, it would have been boring. A discussion needs something to stimulate it, some thesis antithesis. Isn't that wright?
he still think it's okay for god to kill people for no good reason. politeness just hides immorality. christians really get top marks at fooling themselves, only islam does it better.
Despite the fact that this is a really awkward setup, it was a really good discussion. I find it so interesting that Harris had pretty much the whole meditation book exactly phrased in his head 10 years prior to writing it.
And that's the difference between free thinkers and the religious- religious people flip flop all the time, call things metaphors, etc. Free thinkers, who base their beliefs on logic will be the same at any time.
Funny enough, I see it the opposite. Religious dogma tends to not allow for much change over time, while scientific and rational knowledge admits room for frequent error and revision of ideas in light of evidence.
what he says about the experiences of mysticism and enlightenment through meditation are just inherently qualities of human beings that we can all realize without the need of a "religious" practice
😁😁Bhudist and Confucianism have been doing that, and NO PROGRESS happened in Asia.... Slavery, problem of evil, violence and Scientific backwardness.....Whether you like it or not, Christianity created progress in the world...
Why can’t we all have such discussions, putting aside that few are as intelligent and well spoken on the subject as these two? Great debate/discussion. I sit on Sam Harris side of the argument.
Robert Wright is such a smart dude. I wish these two would sit and have more of a conversation, over some whiskey, maybe some chips and peanuts, and talk about whatever that interests them, in a cordial and open manner.
Nice work Sam. Good review of your common topics. Great patience and even tempered responses. I do often wish that Robert wouldn't just move on to a new topic without conceding or acknowledging, perhaps, a temporary conclusion.
This fellow seems like a pleasant, knowledgeable, reasonable, and relatively open minded theist. He didn't fair any better than the others who've chosen to sit across from Sam, but it was refreshing to see that it CAN be done. TAKE NOTE THEISTS!
Sam talked about this interview in his podcast #102. These guys come around 10 years later lol. It's funny how many rivalries Sam has quashed over his career. Still waiting for Glenn Greenwald episode
Wright insists that organisms have a clear purpose, even in evolutionary terms. But no, they have adaptability to an environment which creates the appearance or semblance of purpose which is not what most people mean by purpose. In general, he makes a lot of excuses for religious belief. One example, Wright persists in repeating that tribalism and ethnic bias causes much conflict and strife between peoples, and Sam is therefore wrong to blame religion. Of course they are ALL three causes of violence and strife, but we don't make excuses for tribalism and ethnic bias. Complete your own circle, Mr. Wright, and put religion alongside those others.
sbornot2b I think it’s fair to say adaptations give the organism fictional capacities, aka purposes (teleology). The purpose of the flagella is movement. The purpose of white blood cells is to combat disease. The purpose of wings is to fly. Etc etc. Regarding your other point, Wright is a well known atheist that’s written influential books of evolutionary theory. He’s not explicitly defending god; he’s defending the complexity he feels Harris is overly simplifying
"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life." Sam Harris - "The End of Faith"
As Robert presents himself as a Buddhist, it's likely that he does not believe in s creater god. Buddha taught that a belief in s creater god is unessasary to gain enlightenment. As for the Buddha's position on God's existence, he famously remained silent.
I know fuck-all about the inner workings of computers! But I do know how to follow simple instructions? If you click on "SHOW MORE", at the bottom of the itemized list, there's the following: "Recorded on September 22, 2006". I don't mean to be an asshat about this, but it seems this happens so often? Anyway Erin (have always absolutely adored that name...), you were dead right about Sam being youngish; he would've been 39 at the time. Having read his first 3 books, I can safely say without fear of contradiction I hope, that this is one of his best clips ever. Having not come across this until now, this is to witness a brilliant mind in full flow... As for Robert Wright, there's something about him that I find particularly off-putting--haven't read any of his stuff, but I find him disagreeable in the extreme. But then again, it might just be me?
+bullhorn3tails in think for 2006 it'd be great but after being read up on all his books it's kinda like the things that would seem the most shocking are the spark notes of his books lol
Hi Frank, have you seen Sam's podcast with Douglas Murray? I think they are both very interesting and intelligent men. On the podcast they cover many topics and it's very funny at times. I just checked and it's on UA-cam as well as Sam's website, it's called, ' The maintenance of civilisation'.
Not at all. Everyone should aspire to have such. High degree of a calm lack of aversion. Most people are continually made uncomfortable by their own mind, because they habbitually react to things.
52:00 this is six years old, thank goodness in the intervening six years religists have come to avoid this accusation cos it just gets kicked out so easily. i'm surprised mr wright hadn't caught up.
I'm digging this theme for years now, but often met two extremes: brutal uncertainty of Atheism and blind trust upon chaos ... which one to follow? it's up to your treatment of topic.
But it's part of the lingo , so I'm not technically incorrect. You can chooe to call it whatever you want, but saying he is an agnostic atheist is correct ie he refutes the belief in a Jesus or a Zeus but he doesn't assert that he believes there is no god absolutely, this is a word which can expand the viewers critical thinking.
RUSSIAN ROBOT atheism is not a belief. It's a lack of belief. It doesn't make sense as a term. Sam Harris even says the term is problematic. The word only makes sense in pair with it's opposite. In no other capacity do we have a word for someone who doesn't do something. There is no word for a non-beekeeper, a non-butcher, a non-golfer. Atheism is not a belief. Atheists simply see no reason to believe that there is a God. That is not the same as agnosticism because agnosticism believes that whether there is a God is unknowable or unknown. It still presupposes some sort of god. Atheists look at the natural world, take the evidence as it comes, and reject explanations that don't make rational sense. God doesn't enter the picture.
+RUSSIAN ROBOT Unfortunately, you're absolutely wrong in what you're saying, and no amount of caps lock will prove it to be otherwise. Agnosticism is not at all exclusive with atheism - they refer to different things altogether. Also atheism is not a "belief" from definition, which undermines your credibility even more :).
Does anyone know what video shows the exchanges between Wright and Harris on the day when Harris had just received a death threat? In his recent podcast with Wright on "Why Buddhism Is True," Sam Harris tells Wright about that event. It can't be this one because Harris looks so relaxed here.
I appreciate how Sam Harris sits and listens to Robert Wright so politely, especially since it seems like Robert Wright's purpose in interviewing him is to preach his own views. I feel like Robert Wright only took up a beef with the "New Atheists" so he could piggyback off of their notoriety and push his own watered down version of their ideas. He's like a little kid following his more successful big brother around yapping "Yeah but, yeah but..."
Given that Robert Wright's work on most of these issues predate the new atheists by a decade or so (the moral animal was what? 1993?), it's not him "pushing his own watered down version of their ideas". Rather, it's the new atheists pushing their pumped-up version of his ideas.
Sam says he doesn't have a daughter and he can still imagine how horrible it would be women treated under sharia law and now he has two daughters. YAY! The way times change
Hi to all who see my typed words. Have you ever considered accepting an ordinary layman or lay-woman into the dialogue? Have you noticed that always we are exposed to intellectual giants, never a person with basic education? I know from my 62 yrs experience that intelligence is not academic qualifications. Simplicity and easy words will carry the explanation across! Most folk have not had your education, but they will deliver a super retort to any question.
tobo86 I had to listen to this with headphones (unlike I would with any other video like this because I'd rather be listening to this away from my computer) because everything else was completely inaudible. Near-silent videos are a fucking sin.
does he get his mic muted around 54:37 ? and just when he has Wright up against the ropes, pummeling the "Nazis were killing in the name of atheism" shtick.
I'm a little confused when he says that atheists tend to be materialistic; when discussing the nature of consciousness, they miss the mark. They haven't thought about it. They see it just as neurons firing off in the brain. I'm sorry, but what else could it be? How is consciousness outside of the brain? How can it form without some sort of collection of complex data storage/sending system?
Since we don't know everything about the human brain with 100% certainty, anything which can be conceived by said brain is potentially true. Therefore, because we can conjure up other potential explanations for consciousness in our brains, despite the lack of evidence, they must also be Seriously Considered. I think that's the general line, anyway.
al gore information is not material, but it can be interpreted by material means. I think some people interpret consciousness like they interpret information. it theoretically exists in itself, but cannot enter into reality other than through material means.
al gore i onno. i was just slightly facetiously paraphrasing the kind of argument i've heard before. there's a fuckton of philosophical literature on this question, but i haven't read most of it because it's super dull and ultimately pointless. 'consciousness is not material because we have not been able to explain how it arises neurologically, thus it must be SPOOKY. like a ghost or a skellington [sic]'. similar argument to 'um well what happened before the big bang? oh, you don't know? well then IT MUST HAVE BEEN GOD (or similar).'
Robert Wight "If it turns out there is a god, who would have been more right, the atheist, or the theists?" For Christ sake, by far most atheists take the stance that there is not enough evidence to lead them to believe there is a god. Why can't people understand that?
The fact is that neither of them would have been "more right." Just because something ends up being true or not, when the claimer doesn't make the claim based on fact and obviously does not know the truth at the time, rather takes a guess, they can't be right...they can just get lucky.I think both theists and atheists would be equally shocked to witness the next coming of the lord. Although the former would call it "awe" instead of shock.
if religion proceeded by internal corrective mechanisms in the same that science does then religious texts would be updated in the same way science texts are. example: why isn't genesis annotated to provide an interpretation consistent with current views on cosmology?
I see what Mr. Harris means by 'deposition' now- this crazy format of zoomed opposing faces in front of courtroom-like wood panels is just...weird and distracting. I'm half expecting to see mr. Harris in an orange jumpsuit. Someone needs to let the host know that body language is also key when appreciating a person's exposition and response to questions. Pan out occasionally for Teapot's sake!
All it took is a minute and a half to sum up everything, that's how lucid and compact Sam's vocab and enunciation is. Even without him, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the scheme behind and skepticism over religious faith and organized religion as a whole..but alas, the apologists and indoctrinated majority are often unreachable.
I agree with Sam Harris on almost everything. Unfortunately he's made one fatal flaw and Robert Wright rightfully confronts him on it. Sam only acknowledges his own meditative transformational experiences while discarding those of others. I did the opposite. I was an avid meditator for a long period in my life, putting in many more many hours than Mr. Harris. This was possible because I forewent expensive guru retreats.....but each to their own. ; ) I learned a great deal about the nature of consciousness this way. As a result I now understand much better the true nature of the 'exterior' reality we all appear to share, as I took the time to listen closely to others. Reality is a mirror of our individual and collective reality. Sam reflects back toward himself his own worldview... as do we all. This rule applies at all 'levels of consciousness.' If one is awake, dreaming, while in a meditative state or even upon death we each reflect our inner worldview. A key to learning this to be true, is what Pauli and Jung tried extremely hard to come to terms with, synchronicity. This may be why Sam is cracking the door open to esp and reincarnation for instance. He may be noting his reflection in the mirror of reality? I'd love to query him on this. Has he had any strange coincidences that go far beyond confirmation bias? I myself am no Theist, but I understand now why others are. I too see the divisions of religion as likely the most dangerous aspect of todays world. However you cannot fight a reflection in a mirror! You must tackle the root problem.....which is that we are ALL creating our own mirrors.
I find your comment interesting and aim to ask some questions of you to dig deeper into what you are claiming in the hopes of gaining a better understanding of your claims and to apply a little critical pressure to see how your claims hold up. Please don’t mistake my questions for rudeness, I’m just interested in a Socratic dialogue. Your thoughts color your experience of the world no doubt. This can be understood without that much extensive meditation practice. But you are suggesting what exactly? That the existence of the so called “exterior reality” that most people assume is independent from their minds is somehow parasitic upon the existence of the worldviews of those who perceive it? The world is just a reflection so if we all died it would fundamentally cease to exist? And are you actually claiming that my beliefs shape the world, or are you just claiming that my beliefs shape my *perception* of the world? And how radical a shaping do you claim this is? Can I fly if I truly, truly believe I can fly? Or are you just making the more ordinary claim that if I believe people are generally nice, for example, I’ll notice kindness more and therefore reinforce that belief in the goodness of others? What is the mechanism by which our own worldview is reflected back to us? If what we think is true reflects itself back to us in the world, how do we ever change our minds? If my believing X to be true means that X is reflected back to me, how can I ever change my mind that X is the case? And yet, people do change their minds. How does reason and the capacity to change one’s mind fit into your model of a reality that is reflected back to oneself by their own worldview?
As to why all genocidal dictators are atheists, the answer is not that a god-shaped void tends one toward nihilism and then rampant violent tendencies. The answer is megalomaniacal narcissism: if you're a dictator, you think you ARE God, and demand others treat you as such, so of COURSE you'd see religion as competition and despise it- Henry VIII is the most obvious example, plus the fact that in so many cultures the emperor was literally considered to be a God (Rome, Persia, Japan, etc.).In fact, narcissism is a far more dangerous force than nihilism: nihilism leads to suicide, its narcissism that leads to homicide. That this is so obviously true makes me wonder why this talking point still gets brought up in every one of these debates.
Robert Wright sounds like a Ben Afleck rewind. He's too focused on political correctness and feeling good about oneself. Changing someone's religious views is not a warm and cozy procedure and never will be.
I love these types of discussions, but I think there is a cognitive disconnect that keeps appearing in almost all of them. It involves the tension between the agnosticism that technically has to be applied to the possibility of some abstract conception of a possible god (which I take to be Wright's position), and the atheism that can, and should, be applied to the possible existence of the Abrahamic god, or Allah, or any of the other man made creations that exist entirely within the purview of critical assessment and which consequently must be capable of being defended using logic, evidence, etc. (ala Harris)
I think Sam Harris is an Impersonalists, like Avaita Vedanta, which is just outside of the dualistic framing of Abrahamic-Theism v "Atheism," but which might be more accurately called philosophy, but which was not excluded form the mystical/spiritual/theological movements of mainstream religion (in India), and shares a lot in common with Spinosa's God, with Lurianic Kabbalah's "theism," or Hegel's Dialectic.
Just my thoughts. I would love to see a debate between Sam Harris and Swami Sarvapriyananda who incidentally happens to have great admiration for Sam Harris.
Robert Wright is determined to validate his open minded views no matter how delusional they are. Reminds me of a quote "liberals are so open minded, their brains have fallen out".
Don't bismirch the great Robert Wright, pointing out that Sam deliberately avoids geopolitical context when it comes to Islam isn't liberal bs. We rip up Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan for their resources and expect no consequences? I subscribe to both the Non Zero newsletter and Waking Up, they're both great but Sam has previously stated his Islam rhetoric is for convincing people who are more pure logic focused and that there are other people/lanes for reducing radicalism that matter
@@realericanderson We have the ability to harm one another with more and more efficiency as 20th century destructive technology keeps advancing and yet we are still playing footsie with delusional beliefs that ultimately are very divisive. In my opinion we are running out of runway. Now if you and "the great" Robert Wright are concerned over people's feelings (which is a liberal focal point), than I would submit to you that the majority of the uneducated, religious world will continue to dwell in their ignorant bliss.
@@tensecondbuickgn I don't disagree. But their ignorant bliss is being intruded upon by American made, funded or launched artillery. There's a difference between "caring about feelings" and using cognitive empathy to understand what motivates the person your dealing with. The former is leftist rhetoric; the latter, diplomacy. "Great" was partly in jest/goading, but honestly hes one of the only public intellectuals I can see who's able to communicate effectively with all sides of the debate, not because he's "woke", but because he has decades of relevant foreign policy knowledge and a genuine curiosity about others views.
@@realericanderson Describe him how you will, but I see a whiney individual who is incapable of taking a stand and is more concerned with political correctness. Your statements have a lot of Chomsky undertones. He's the guy who you press the button for when you want to motherfuck the U.S. . Hey, fair enough. But explain to me, if you will, how you conduct diplomacy with a religion of delusional psychosis and are reinforced by martyrdom?
This is a good discussion, given both are anti-theists, and to their own admissions, not atheists but differ after that due to other factors they differ on.
He isn't defending, he's showing patience and good manners and who wouldn't having to listen to this charlaton...get back into your closet..whatever. Good job Sam.
Like many others like him, Sam really seems ahead of the global curve. He sees what humans are capable of (better and worse) which is why he is never surprised with every exotic claim that any theist can make, just as we see it here, as always, wielding Occam's razor with finesse! Good questions though! 😀 Harris for president!! :P
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I wish I was just 10% as articulate as Sam.
It's so refreshing to pull my mind out of the sewer of politics and corruption and listen to a totally rational and reasoned discourse. Imagine if our politicians could and would sit down and discuss the real issues in a clear minded and rational way such as Sam is able to. Alas, we are so far from that dream that it is hard to even conceive.
trouble is, like the politician they are just being polite while still justifying god killing everyone on the planet "cos it was a good idea"
❤
I absolutely love to see Sam Harris when he is talking, He seems so friendly and nice and smart.
In reality however, he is most certainly not
@@bradsmith9189I don’t know about “friendly” and “nice” because I haven’t followed Harris that closely, but he is most certainly highly intelligent! And at least in debates, he is not nearly as inflammatory as Richard Dawkins. I think we have to give him credit where credit is due. (And of course a personal God that responds to prayers and/or cares about humanity probably isn’t real, so he’s on the right side there as well).
What's neat about this interview is seeing some of the early threads of Waking Up and realizing that Sam was thinking about these things for a long time.
He was procrastinating
Harris doesn't usually come up against such thoughtful or intelligent interviewers. Very good video.
What? Oh, never mind...
Both of these intellectuals help humanity evolve to higher state of being.
Watch "Waking Up with Sam Harris #102 - Is Buddhism True? (with Robert Wright)" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/i9SGs89x8lY/v-deo.html
I also like this interview on the Sam Harris podcast between these two.
Harris NEVER comes up against anyone (such as yours truly) who has "cracked the code" of esoteric spirituality. And he never debates anyone (such as yours truly) who has "cracked the code" of sociopolitics.
@@l.rongardner2150 you haven't " cracked your ego code...
What you are about to witness is real. The participants are not actors. They are the actual people who have already either filed suit or been served a summons to appear in a California municipal court. Both parties in the suit have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their disputes settled here, in our forum: The People's Court.
Sam looks deeply enlightened in this interview. No ego, no mental chatter, just open and aware. What a guy.
It's called being a psychopath. I wouldn't mistake it for his so called spiritual discipline. He's got some nice ideas to adopt and think about, but be careful what you take from him.
Do you know much about psychopathy and sociopathy? I'm not 100% certain, I can't be (regardless of my qualification), but Sam Harris raises all my red flags.
Some of his arguments are very appealing, but I wouldn't mistake his capacity of emotional detachment with some ideology or attainment, certainly not something to be sought after.
Dave Levy Fuck outta here man, Harris has explicitly stated "not to be irrationally detached from your life".
I couldn't disagree further, I think it is something to be sought after and I think your ego just might fear that....
:) Dude, chill out, everything's OK.
If you want to talk, cool. If not, also fine. But I'm not up for a shit fight.
I agree with a lot of Sam's stuff. I think that rehabilitating Spirituality from the damage religion's overstayed welcome has inflicted on it is super important, and I think he does a good job at spreading that idea. I think that talking about mindfulness, about meditation, about exploring the self, about ego loss and duality, all these things are great.
But I don't believe that any of his moral or ethical stances originate from a conscience or from empathy. I don't think he is capable of compassion, and that is a big deal.
So I take Sam Harris with a grain a salt, and advise my friends to do the same.
Is that OK with you, or do I need to think more like you for you to be OK with my existence? :)
I feel like Sam is defending himself in Court, lol.
He's the "expert witness"
Why does this guy look like he wants to rip Sam's head off?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I was about to comment the same. He interviews like he’s a lawyer in a deposition 😅
It's called Wright getting his ass kicked.
Whats with all the hate toward Wright? He is terrific. And knows a lot. And is really good at interviewing (maybe he could smile more, but its just his style).
More than anyone, Robert's proof that your face can stick like that.
People aren't familiar with his stuff. Also Sam and him don't like each other. A shame because I really like both of them and think it would be beneficial for their views to interact more
This Robert Wright guy is a brilliant host/ interviewer, I can't think of the word..
The moment I realised that this is the same Robert Wright of one of my fav. book "the moral animal", all my anger against him just dissolved into this flood of compassion and understanding. Folks, don't judge the interviewer by the his body language and counter questioning (which looks irritating at first glance but is not). He is just picking up the mind of Sam Harris. And he is doing it in a rather brilliant way. When I realised this fact, I saw the interview once again from the start and what a treat it was. Sam harris is one of the smartest living public intellectual. I completely agree. But realise the fact that the interviewer here is not far behind. Infact, he is more knowledgeable in some other aspects.
Oh Robert is awesome. He has his flaws but he is just so great in many areas. You are right. He is picking Sam's mind. Although he generally dislikes athiests and probably put Sam in the same cateogory once but you can see in this interview that was beginning to change. In this interview, he is coming to realize that unlike Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens etc, Sam does advocate for Spirituality and that there is something to to extracted from religions. Although this was many years ago, i think his grudge with Sam is no more. They had an amazing talk on Sam's podcast not long ago. It was after the release of Robert's book "Why buddhism is true".
I find myself slightly bothered, however, when at 10:20 Wright shifts the conversation away from its natural arc. Harris had just delivered a credible account of how the experience of ethical concern arises, and how we then develop ethical codes to articulate it, in other words a bottom-up construction of an emergent system.
Wright then abruptly introduces, first, an unfounded assertion that natural selection forces self-interest - ignoring the survival advantages that in fact give rise to diverse social species - and then, second, immediately onto the "problem of consciousness."
This, to me, felt incurious as to what Harris was saying, and it missed an excellent opportunity to apply the same construction to the emergent system of consciousness, if consideration of consciousness was indeed the matter of interest it appeared to be.
Though I appreciate that Wright, along with Harris, might have determined beforehand the need to work through certain themes in the time available, it was still a hasty move and a lost opportunity. Most of the "problem" of consciousness is essentially philosophical rather than empirically grounded, and very prone to fallacies of equivocation. We don't have nearly the same order of difficulty if we approach it from the bottom up. Increasing neural complexity brings with it increasing cognitive potential; there's no dispute about this and ample evidence across the many hundreds of species that have been studied.
What we call consciousness is something else, and we have a much more limited selection of species to study, since none other than humans can tell us about their inner experience. We also have an interesting dilemma when introspecting about our own consciousness, namely that we can only introspect when we ARE conscious. We're in the position of wandering around a vast cavern with a very small flashlight, only able to see momentarily an incomplete portion of the whole, and worse, unable to even think about the other portions once they have been left behind in darkness.
Most of cognition proceeds unconsciously. Indeed most of our conscious effort to learn new material and new skills is a matter of making it available to our unconscious minds. We learn our first language unconsciously, because (among other reasons) we seem to need language as a basis for forming conscious thoughts. This might not be entirely true, as Buddhist practitioners will attest, but it's commonly the case, and very important for the exercise of abstract conceptualization. An ability to introspect is also a necessary precursor to consciousness, so that we are in the position to think about thinking.
And finally, we need some "theory of mind" to ignite the entire emergent process. It's natural to imagine the first sense of theory of mind arising with respect to ourselves, but it's more evolutionarily plausible that it develops first with respect to others in a social species. We benefit from anticipating what the other guy is going to do, proximally by reading facial cues and other body language, but more distally by building up a repertoire of likely patterns of action that follow from each other. Still unconsciously, we arrive at a model of what the other will do, not inevitably but under conditions of choice. This is the key element in a theory of mind. If it then (unconsciously) occurs to us to apply it to ourselves, the light dimly goes on. We understand, because we can to some degree introspect, that we too have a choice. And we can perhaps apply language to that understanding, so that an abstract sense of "we" and "choice" can emerge.
This is what we have come to call consciousness. We make much of it, because it's conceptually so powerful, but structurally it's not very much of an add onto general cognitive ability. It does however seem to require the rare confluence of three abilities: introspection, theory of mind, and eventually language.
i judge all christians - and muslims - by how much they criticise god, and it seems to me they all justify god killing whoever he feels like. so in my book there is no "nice christians" just polite liars.
@@starfishsystems tl;dr
flawless dialectic logic at display here. surprising that most of the comments don't see insightful questioning of Harris by Wright.
How Sam can try to explain common sense to this guy without laughing is worthy of a Noble peace prize.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
A Nobel would work too
You missed the point.
He’s actually not that bad for an apologist
Because he don't want to understand.
Think I may have begun watching this ten years ago, but never finished it. Glad to finish it now
This is perhaps the only conversation on religion where I found the views of both sides compelling. Robert Wright may not have the charm and charisma of Sam Harris and is sometimes criticized for being emotionless and wooden, but he is absolutely an intellect.
They are both quite wooden. I think the challenge is reducing an idea to another idea and then claiming it is false, which is another idea. The fact that some ideas represent the current american republican target for the generation of violence does not peclude other targets. Reductionism is dangerous. Yet, the mind struggles with walking a middle path of reasoning.
2021 here.. these guys look so young. Robert sure can hold a great conversation.
'The more you think about it, the clearer it doesn't get' - my feelings exactly about philosophy of mind.
Yep.. That's what I feel..
Combining our senses Inputs plus our proprioception, makes us feel like we are "behind" our eyes, ears , arms, legs etc..
A brain/ computer that takes in info from multi-systems ( summarizes it with suggested choices eg thoughts ) & multisenses-inputs ( processed ) ..
Then we in the driverseat get those "suggestions", look around etc, then pick from those available choices..
And only EVER from those choices, like a computer can only choose from what it's actually physically programmed to do
People say "it has to be a soul or a special separate consciousness" without thinking how else would we be able to have awareness from senses ?
AND also be given summaries of what our bodies are doing & how it's working..
Nature wouldn't "write" it in words.. That's a human communication limit..
It obviously makes useful working sense to give us awareness, some control, except for in the myriad essential systems that can be "automated"..
Just enough awareness to pick the best choices of action in any given situation..
🤔☮️🌏
"we had to craft a secular ritual that was not embarrassing"
hahahaha I ❤ you sam Harris hahahaha
Impressive. Really enjoyed what Sam Harris talked about.
"Two years spread over ten ... " You made me laugh Mr. Harris. Thank you. I love your mind.
Great conversation. Thanks Robert and Sam! ❤️🙏
Sam's the best. He has to know on some level he tends to be the smarter guy in the room, yet he would never think to point that out. Very humble without much ego to interfere. A true intellect.
I doubt sam is the smarter one. Yes, he is the calmer one. But the moment I realised that this is the same Robert Wright of one of my fav. book "the moral animal", all my anger against him just dissolved into this flood of compassion and understanding. Don't judge the interviewer by the his body language and counter questioning (which looks irritating at first glance but is not). He is just picking up the mind of Sam Harris. And he is doing it in a rather brilliant way. When I realised this fact, I saw the interview once again from the start and what a treat it was. Sam harris is one of the smartest living public intellectual. I completely agree. But realise the fact that the interviewer here is not far behind. Infact, he is more knowledgeable in some other aspects.
despite the whole trial feeling, this is a very intellectually stimulating and mind-opening dialogue.
That was an amazing interview...
Wright did a good job as an interviewer. If he agreed with everything that Harris said, it would have been boring. A discussion needs something to stimulate it, some thesis antithesis. Isn't that wright?
Robert Wright is so humble and underrated. Non-Zero changed my whole life.
he still think it's okay for god to kill people for no good reason. politeness just hides immorality. christians really get top marks at fooling themselves, only islam does it better.
What’s non-zero??
Surprisingly good talk from both participants, glad I ran into it.
Someone here after the podcast?!
Wonderful!
Despite the fact that this is a really awkward setup, it was a really good discussion. I find it so interesting that Harris had pretty much the whole meditation book exactly phrased in his head 10 years prior to writing it.
agree. just completed that book and saw this video. Mind blow when i realised the video is 11 years old.
True
Sam is really great
And that's the difference between free thinkers and the religious- religious people flip flop all the time, call things metaphors, etc. Free thinkers, who base their beliefs on logic will be the same at any time.
Funny enough, I see it the opposite. Religious dogma tends to not allow for much change over time, while scientific and rational knowledge admits room for frequent error and revision of ideas in light of evidence.
what he says about the experiences of mysticism and enlightenment through meditation are just inherently qualities of human beings that we can all realize without the need of a "religious" practice
😁😁Bhudist and Confucianism have been doing that, and NO PROGRESS happened in Asia.... Slavery, problem of evil, violence and Scientific backwardness.....Whether you like it or not, Christianity created progress in the world...
Harris's aging is directly proportional to the raising of his right eyebrow over the years!
This one's incredibly good of Sam.
Interesting interview. Got even more interesting when he said he's open to any ideas regarding death & after death.
Sam's eyebrow (e.g. 50:48) is the only thing contrasting his calm and composure every time
Hah too true!
It’s like how in inception that guy uses a spinning totem. Sam uses his eyebrows
Why can’t we all have such discussions, putting aside that few are as intelligent and well spoken on the subject as these two? Great debate/discussion. I sit on Sam Harris side of the argument.
Robert Wright is such a smart dude. I wish these two would sit and have more of a conversation, over some whiskey, maybe some chips and peanuts, and talk about whatever that interests them, in a cordial and open manner.
The clown kept interrupting Sam constantly...
Nice work Sam. Good review of your common topics. Great patience and even tempered responses. I do often wish that Robert wouldn't just move on to a new topic without conceding or acknowledging, perhaps, a temporary conclusion.
Fantastic discussion!
This fellow seems like a pleasant, knowledgeable, reasonable, and relatively open minded theist. He didn't fair any better than the others who've chosen to sit across from Sam, but it was refreshing to see that it CAN be done.
TAKE NOTE THEISTS!
Sam talked about this interview in his podcast #102. These guys come around 10 years later lol. It's funny how many rivalries Sam has quashed over his career. Still waiting for Glenn Greenwald episode
I thought he wasn't speaking to Robert Wright after the Wired article a few years ago.
It's filmed like we are watching a cross examination by a detective.
Wright insists that organisms have a clear purpose, even in evolutionary terms. But no, they have adaptability to an environment which creates the appearance or semblance of purpose which is not what most people mean by purpose. In general, he makes a lot of excuses for religious belief. One example, Wright persists in repeating that tribalism and ethnic bias causes much conflict and strife between peoples, and Sam is therefore wrong to blame religion. Of course they are ALL three causes of violence and strife, but we don't make excuses for tribalism and ethnic bias. Complete your own circle, Mr. Wright, and put religion alongside those others.
sbornot2b I think it’s fair to say adaptations give the organism fictional capacities, aka purposes (teleology). The purpose of the flagella is movement. The purpose of white blood cells is to combat disease. The purpose of wings is to fly. Etc etc.
Regarding your other point, Wright is a well known atheist that’s written influential books of evolutionary theory. He’s not explicitly defending god; he’s defending the complexity he feels Harris is overly simplifying
"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life." Sam Harris - "The End of Faith"
One of the most honest interactions with Sam from a theist I've seen!
He’s not a theist.
@@waxingwampeter How is someone who believes in a god "not a theist" ?
@@xXxTeenSplayer He doesn’t believe in God.
he is "spiritual" not theist. He doesn't accept GOD as real, but he is open to other dimensions etc.. he's big into meditation
As Robert presents himself as a Buddhist, it's likely that he does not believe in s creater god. Buddha taught that a belief in s creater god is unessasary to gain enlightenment. As for the Buddha's position on God's existence, he famously remained silent.
Very good debate from two interesting guys.
Enjoying this. Thanks.
lmao why is a 10 year old conversation just being released?
The date is in the description, though, and it's 2006 D: Unless you're talking generally.
I was just thinking if he had something done to his face lol.
He still looks good though.
I'd make the claim that every teapot in existence is in orbit around the sun.
This is a long cross-examination. Bring on a new witness already.
heh.. I'm pretty sure he's just playing off what Harris said on social media that this comes across like a deposition.
TheZatchmo Whoosh
I should have read the comment section before making the exact same comment many more have made...
how old is this??? it looks new but that's young Sam
I know fuck-all about the inner workings of computers! But I do know how to follow simple instructions?
If you click on "SHOW MORE", at the bottom of the itemized list, there's the following: "Recorded on September 22, 2006".
I don't mean to be an asshat about this, but it seems this happens so often?
Anyway Erin (have always absolutely adored that name...), you were dead right about Sam being youngish; he would've been 39 at the time.
Having read his first 3 books, I can safely say without fear of contradiction I hope, that this is one of his best clips ever. Having not come across this until now, this is to witness a brilliant mind in full flow...
As for Robert Wright, there's something about him that I find particularly off-putting--haven't read any of his stuff, but I find him disagreeable in the extreme.
But then again, it might just be me?
+bullhorn3tails in think for 2006 it'd be great but after being read up on all his books it's kinda like the things that would seem the most shocking are the spark notes of his books lol
Sam Harris gets my vote for smartest living public intellectual
Agreed. Douglas Murray is another,.
Hi Frank, have you seen Sam's podcast with Douglas Murray? I think they are both very interesting and intelligent men. On the podcast they cover many topics and it's very funny at times. I just checked and it's on UA-cam as well as Sam's website, it's called, ' The maintenance of civilisation'.
Hi Tracy. Yes, that podcast was my introduction to Douglas Murray. Have you seen Dr. Richard Carriers presentations on the Historicity of Jesus?
He Trumps
This is "smartest living public intellectual's" "faith"
www.tabletmag.com/scroll/180808/sam-harris-why-dont-i-criticize-israel
There's a backstory to why this wasn't made public earlier, right? I wish I could remember.
Was there really?
The split-screen is creepy....like they're just staring at each other at times, maniacally, inches from each other's face.
Not at all. Everyone should aspire to have such. High degree of a calm lack of aversion. Most people are continually made uncomfortable by their own mind, because they habbitually react to things.
52:00 this is six years old, thank goodness in the intervening six years religists have come to avoid this accusation cos it just gets kicked out so easily. i'm surprised mr wright hadn't caught up.
I'm digging this theme for years now, but often met two extremes: brutal uncertainty of Atheism and blind trust upon chaos ... which one to follow? it's up to your treatment of topic.
22:00 i like how he's making light of thousands of abuse cases. well i mean i'm not.
This looks like a deposition. What's up with the tension?
Sam Harris stole your comment in his Facebook post
It's because Robert Wright doesn't know how to smile, apparently
Juan Gabriel Ruiz Sam tweeted that very sentiment
I was flattered haha
No. That comment on his podcast was not about this interview. It was the other debate with Robert he was talking about.
Jesus! When he asked the agnostic question my first thought was, "Did you hear anything he just said?!"
Reginald Finley
It's a very viable question, Harris is not a hard atheist, he's an agnostic atheist.
But it's part of the lingo , so I'm not technically incorrect. You can chooe to call it whatever you want, but saying he is an agnostic atheist is correct ie he refutes the belief in a Jesus or a Zeus but he doesn't assert that he believes there is no god absolutely, this is a word which can expand the viewers critical thinking.
RUSSIAN ROBOT atheism is not a belief. It's a lack of belief. It doesn't make sense as a term. Sam Harris even says the term is problematic. The word only makes sense in pair with it's opposite. In no other capacity do we have a word for someone who doesn't do something. There is no word for a non-beekeeper, a non-butcher, a non-golfer. Atheism is not a belief. Atheists simply see no reason to believe that there is a God. That is not the same as agnosticism because agnosticism believes that whether there is a God is unknowable or unknown. It still presupposes some sort of god. Atheists look at the natural world, take the evidence as it comes, and reject explanations that don't make rational sense. God doesn't enter the picture.
+RUSSIAN ROBOT Unfortunately, you're absolutely wrong in what you're saying, and no amount of caps lock will prove it to be otherwise. Agnosticism is not at all exclusive with atheism - they refer to different things altogether. Also atheism is not a "belief" from definition, which undermines your credibility even more :).
Was this filmed at The People's Court? What's with all the wood paneling?
The split screen made it look like they were going to sing a duet. I was disappointed they didn't.
Does anyone know what video shows the exchanges between Wright and Harris on the day when Harris had just received a death threat? In his recent podcast with Wright on "Why Buddhism Is True," Sam Harris tells Wright about that event. It can't be this one because Harris looks so relaxed here.
I appreciate how Sam Harris sits and listens to Robert Wright so politely, especially since it seems like Robert Wright's purpose in interviewing him is to preach his own views. I feel like Robert Wright only took up a beef with the "New Atheists" so he could piggyback off of their notoriety and push his own watered down version of their ideas. He's like a little kid following his more successful big brother around yapping "Yeah but, yeah but..."
Given that Robert Wright's work on most of these issues predate the new atheists by a decade or so (the moral animal was what? 1993?), it's not him "pushing his own watered down version of their ideas". Rather, it's the new atheists pushing their pumped-up version of his ideas.
Sam says he doesn't have a daughter and he can still imagine how horrible it would be women treated under sharia law and now he has two daughters. YAY! The way times change
This had the atmosphere of a deposition more than an interview.
Hi to all who see my typed words. Have you ever considered accepting an ordinary layman or lay-woman into the dialogue? Have you noticed that always we are exposed to intellectual giants, never a person with basic education? I know from my 62 yrs experience that intelligence is not academic qualifications. Simplicity and easy words will carry the explanation across! Most folk have not had your education, but they will deliver a super retort to any question.
They look younger.
What year did this discussion take place?
When he explains something which is the basis of his cause....sound drops....really
Could we get some subtitles? I can't hear a thing
Why don't you transcribe them and send to the op
be...cause... he can't hear a thing?
Unless he's actually got a hearing problem, no-one else here is struggling to comprehend it
The sound is low, but audible.
tobo86
I had to listen to this with headphones (unlike I would with any other video like this because I'd rather be listening to this away from my computer) because everything else was completely inaudible.
Near-silent videos are a fucking sin.
They've morphed into a Sambert Wrightis
Low audio.
does he get his mic muted around 54:37 ? and just when he has Wright up against the ropes, pummeling the "Nazis were killing in the name of atheism" shtick.
We all mostly know what is what, simply by our basic instincts. The `LAW` OF THE JUNGLE` prevails, it is so still there on every street!
thanks god sam has good audio.
I'm a little confused when he says that atheists tend to be materialistic; when discussing the nature of consciousness, they miss the mark. They haven't thought about it. They see it just as neurons firing off in the brain. I'm sorry, but what else could it be? How is consciousness outside of the brain? How can it form without some sort of collection of complex data storage/sending system?
Since we don't know everything about the human brain with 100% certainty, anything which can be conceived by said brain is potentially true. Therefore, because we can conjure up other potential explanations for consciousness in our brains, despite the lack of evidence, they must also be Seriously Considered.
I think that's the general line, anyway.
Mr Wednesday Okay. But how is the answer non-material? How is consciousness not material.
al gore information is not material, but it can be interpreted by material means. I think some people interpret consciousness like they interpret information. it theoretically exists in itself, but cannot enter into reality other than through material means.
al gore i onno. i was just slightly facetiously paraphrasing the kind of argument i've heard before. there's a fuckton of philosophical literature on this question, but i haven't read most of it because it's super dull and ultimately pointless. 'consciousness is not material because we have not been able to explain how it arises neurologically, thus it must be SPOOKY. like a ghost or a skellington [sic]'. similar argument to 'um well what happened before the big bang? oh, you don't know? well then IT MUST HAVE BEEN GOD (or similar).'
Sael But I think information is material. I guess it depends on what information is.
Wow this is great! Sam Harris spits hot fire
fantastic ending
Sam was reasonably articulate in this inquisition.
Well good for you. How much money did it take to get that insight
Robert Wight "If it turns out there is a god, who would have been more right, the atheist, or the theists?"
For Christ sake, by far most atheists take the stance that there is not enough evidence to lead them to believe there is a god. Why can't people understand that?
The fact is that neither of them would have been "more right." Just because something ends up being true or not, when the claimer doesn't make the claim based on fact and obviously does not know the truth at the time, rather takes a guess, they can't be right...they can just get lucky.I think both theists and atheists would be equally shocked to witness the next coming of the lord. Although the former would call it "awe" instead of shock.
EconTalk, Rationally Speaking, ............. and after a long delay ... Waking Up. I Thought that Wright's podcast book tour timing was strange.
if religion proceeded by internal corrective mechanisms in the same that science does then religious texts would be updated in the same way science texts are. example: why isn't genesis annotated to provide an interpretation consistent with current views on cosmology?
Does the foot that feels the ground feel the foot?
I see what Mr. Harris means by 'deposition' now- this crazy format of zoomed opposing faces in front of courtroom-like wood panels is just...weird and distracting. I'm half expecting to see mr. Harris in an orange jumpsuit. Someone needs to let the host know that body language is also key when appreciating a person's exposition and response to questions. Pan out occasionally for Teapot's sake!
And the sound recording is unprofessional.
All it took is a minute and a half to sum up everything, that's how lucid and compact Sam's vocab and enunciation is. Even without him, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the scheme behind and skepticism over religious faith and organized religion as a whole..but alas, the apologists and indoctrinated majority are often unreachable.
I agree with Sam Harris on almost everything. Unfortunately he's made one fatal flaw and Robert Wright rightfully confronts him on it. Sam only acknowledges his own meditative transformational experiences while discarding those of others. I did the opposite. I was an avid meditator for a long period in my life, putting in many more many hours than Mr. Harris. This was possible because I forewent expensive guru retreats.....but each to their own. ; ) I learned a great deal about the nature of consciousness this way. As a result I now understand much better the true nature of the 'exterior' reality we all appear to share, as I took the time to listen closely to others. Reality is a mirror of our individual and collective reality. Sam reflects back toward himself his own worldview... as do we all. This rule applies at all 'levels of consciousness.' If one is awake, dreaming, while in a meditative state or even upon death we each reflect our inner worldview. A key to learning this to be true, is what Pauli and Jung tried extremely hard to come to terms with, synchronicity. This may be why Sam is cracking the door open to esp and reincarnation for instance. He may be noting his reflection in the mirror of reality? I'd love to query him on this. Has he had any strange coincidences that go far beyond confirmation bias? I myself am no Theist, but I understand now why others are. I too see the divisions of religion as likely the most dangerous aspect of todays world. However you cannot fight a reflection in a mirror! You must tackle the root problem.....which is that we are ALL creating our own mirrors.
I find your comment interesting and aim to ask some questions of you to dig deeper into what you are claiming in the hopes of gaining a better understanding of your claims and to apply a little critical pressure to see how your claims hold up. Please don’t mistake my questions for rudeness, I’m just interested in a Socratic dialogue.
Your thoughts color your experience of the world no doubt. This can be understood without that much extensive meditation practice. But you are suggesting what exactly? That the existence of the so called “exterior reality” that most people assume is independent from their minds is somehow parasitic upon the existence of the worldviews of those who perceive it? The world is just a reflection so if we all died it would fundamentally cease to exist?
And are you actually claiming that my beliefs shape the world, or are you just claiming that my beliefs shape my *perception* of the world? And how radical a shaping do you claim this is? Can I fly if I truly, truly believe I can fly? Or are you just making the more ordinary claim that if I believe people are generally nice, for example, I’ll notice kindness more and therefore reinforce that belief in the goodness of others?
What is the mechanism by which our own worldview is reflected back to us? If what we think is true reflects itself back to us in the world, how do we ever change our minds? If my believing X to be true means that X is reflected back to me, how can I ever change my mind that X is the case? And yet, people do change their minds. How does reason and the capacity to change one’s mind fit into your model of a reality that is reflected back to oneself by their own worldview?
1:01:01
Thank you. Thank you, Sam.
They actually WERE offered the Jewish autonomous region in Russia . . . but declined.
As to why all genocidal dictators are atheists, the answer is not that a god-shaped void tends one toward nihilism and then rampant violent tendencies. The answer is megalomaniacal narcissism: if you're a dictator, you think you ARE God, and demand others treat you as such, so of COURSE you'd see religion as competition and despise it- Henry VIII is the most obvious example, plus the fact that in so many cultures the emperor was literally considered to be a God (Rome, Persia, Japan, etc.).In fact, narcissism is a far more dangerous force than nihilism: nihilism leads to suicide, its narcissism that leads to homicide. That this is so obviously true makes me wonder why this talking point still gets brought up in every one of these debates.
Robert Wright sounds like a Ben Afleck rewind. He's too focused on political correctness and feeling good about oneself. Changing someone's religious views is not a warm and cozy procedure and never will be.
Batman-Return style you might call it.
I love these types of discussions, but I think there is a cognitive disconnect that keeps appearing in almost all of them. It involves the tension between the agnosticism that technically has to be applied to the possibility of some abstract conception of a possible god (which I take to be Wright's position), and the atheism that can, and should, be applied to the possible existence of the Abrahamic god, or Allah, or any of the other man made creations that exist entirely within the purview of critical assessment and which consequently must be capable of being defended using logic, evidence, etc. (ala Harris)
I think Sam Harris is an Impersonalists, like Avaita Vedanta, which is just outside of the dualistic framing of Abrahamic-Theism v "Atheism," but which might be more accurately called philosophy, but which was not excluded form the mystical/spiritual/theological movements of mainstream religion (in India), and shares a lot in common with Spinosa's God, with Lurianic Kabbalah's "theism," or Hegel's Dialectic.
Just my thoughts. I would love to see a debate between Sam Harris and Swami Sarvapriyananda who incidentally happens to have great admiration for Sam Harris.
Robert Wright is determined to validate his open minded views no matter how delusional they are. Reminds me of a quote "liberals are so open minded, their brains have fallen out".
Don't bismirch the great Robert Wright, pointing out that Sam deliberately avoids geopolitical context when it comes to Islam isn't liberal bs. We rip up Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan for their resources and expect no consequences? I subscribe to both the Non Zero newsletter and Waking Up, they're both great but Sam has previously stated his Islam rhetoric is for convincing people who are more pure logic focused and that there are other people/lanes for reducing radicalism that matter
@@realericanderson We have the ability to harm one another with more and more efficiency as 20th century destructive technology keeps advancing and yet we are still playing footsie with delusional beliefs that ultimately are very divisive. In my opinion we are running out of runway. Now if you and "the great" Robert Wright are concerned over people's feelings (which is a liberal focal point), than I would submit to you that the majority of the uneducated, religious world will continue to dwell in their ignorant bliss.
@@tensecondbuickgn I don't disagree. But their ignorant bliss is being intruded upon by American made, funded or launched artillery. There's a difference between "caring about feelings" and using cognitive empathy to understand what motivates the person your dealing with. The former is leftist rhetoric; the latter, diplomacy. "Great" was partly in jest/goading, but honestly hes one of the only public intellectuals I can see who's able to communicate effectively with all sides of the debate, not because he's "woke", but because he has decades of relevant foreign policy knowledge and a genuine curiosity about others views.
@@realericanderson Describe him how you will, but I see a whiney individual who is incapable of taking a stand and is more concerned with political correctness. Your statements have a lot of Chomsky undertones. He's the guy who you press the button for when you want to motherfuck the U.S. . Hey, fair enough. But explain to me, if you will, how you conduct diplomacy with a religion of delusional psychosis and are reinforced by martyrdom?
How long has Wright been doing these and he still can't get the audio right. Get a teen from local AV club to teach you how mics work Bob.
This is a good discussion, given both are anti-theists, and to their own admissions, not atheists but differ after that due to other factors they differ on.
Religion is to blame for much,much suffering!
To blame for what? Until the question is complete, it cannot be answered.
F I’m so tired of the religious attempting to make out they’re being honest/ thinking / reasoning…
Why this talk reminds me a court appearance? 😅
He isn't defending, he's showing patience and good manners and who wouldn't having to listen to this charlaton...get back into your closet..whatever.
Good job Sam.
Like many others like him, Sam really seems ahead of the global curve. He sees what humans are capable of (better and worse) which is why he is never surprised with every exotic claim that any theist can make, just as we see it here, as always, wielding Occam's razor with finesse! Good questions though! 😀
Harris for president!! :P