Friday, January 21, 2011

We are Lost in Thought

by Dr. Sam Harris, Neuroscientist; Chairman, Project Reason; Author, The Moral Landscape
"I invite you to pay attention to anything — the sight of this text, the sensation of breathing, the feeling of your body resting against your chair — for a mere sixty seconds without getting distracted by discursive thought. It sounds simple enough: Just pay attention. The truth, however, is that you will find the task impossible. If the lives of your children depended on it, you could not focus on anything — even the feeling of a knife at your throat — for more than a few seconds, before your awareness would be submerged again by the flow of thought. This forced plunge into unreality is a problem. In fact, it is the problem from which every other problem in human life appears to be made.
"I am by no means denying the importance of thinking. Linguistic thought is indispensable to us. It is the basis for planning, explicit learning, moral reasoning, and many other capacities that make us human. Thinking is the substance of every social relationship and cultural institution we have. It is also the foundation of science. But our habitual identification with the flow of thought — that is, our failure to recognize thoughts as thoughts, as transient appearances in consciousness — is a primary source of human suffering and confusion. 
"Our relationship to our own thinking is strange to the point of paradox, in fact. When we see a person walking down the street talking to himself, we generally assume that he is mentally ill. But we all talk to ourselves continuously — we just have the good sense to keep our mouths shut. Our lives in the present can scarcely be glimpsed through the veil of our discursivity: We tell ourselves what just happened, what almost happened, what should have happened, and what might yet happen. We ceaselessly reiterate our hopes and fears about the future. Rather than simply exist as ourselves, we seem to presume a relationship with ourselves. It's as though we are having a conversation with an imaginary friend possessed of infinite patience. Who are we talking to?
"While most of us go through life feeling that we are the thinker of our thoughts and the experiencer of our experience, from the perspective of science we know that this is a distorted view. There is no discrete self or ego lurking like a minotaur in the labyrinth of the brain. There is no region of cortex or pathway of neural processing that occupies a privileged position with respect to our personhood. There is no unchanging "center of narrative gravity" (to use Daniel Dennett's phrase). In subjective terms, however, there seems to be one — to most of us, most of the time.
"Our contemplative traditions (Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.) also suggest, to varying degrees and with greater or lesser precision, that we live in the grip of a cognitive illusion. But the alternative to our captivity is almost always viewed through the lens of religious dogma. A Christian will recite the Lord's Prayer continuously over a weekend, experience a profound sense of clarity and peace, and judge this mental state to be fully corroborative of the doctrine of Christianity; A Hindu will spend an evening singing devotional songs to Krishna, feel suddenly free of his conventional sense of self, and conclude that his chosen deity has showered him with grace; a Sufi will spend hours whirling in circles, pierce the veil of thought for a time, and believe that he has established a direct connection to Allah.
"The universality of these phenomena refutes the sectarian claims of any one religion. And, given that contemplatives generally present their experiences of self-transcendence as inseparable from their associated theology, mythology, and metaphysics, it is no surprise that scientists and nonbelievers tend to view their reports as the product of disordered minds, or as exaggerated accounts of far more common mental states — like scientific awe, aesthetic enjoyment, artistic inspiration, etc. 
"Our religions are clearly false, even if certain classically religious experiences are worth having. If we want to actually understand the mind, and overcome some of the most dangerous and enduring sources of conflict in our world, we must begin thinking about the full spectrum of human experience in the context of science.
"But we must first realize that we are lost in thought."


Friday, January 14, 2011

doubt the non-doubters

"Doubt is the adult attitude. And only people who refuse to doubt will ask that I doubt my doubts. Doubt is a filter that helps me sift out what to believe from what not to believe. I cannot do away with that filter and remain an adult person who thinks critically."  John W. Loftus

Monday, January 3, 2011

better to be honest rather than delusional

P.Z. Myers can be an acerbic sort of fellow at times, especially to those of faith. His Sunday blog post really hit a sore spot inside me. I used to think life was simple in my former "believer" state of mind. "Pray to Jesus and your problems will be solved." "Surrender to God and He will take care of you." "The 'simplicity of the gospel' is all a person needs to live." "All things work together for good." (This never seemed to work the way I thought it should much to my chagrin over many years of trying. These kinds of platitudes are rampant in the Christian world.)

This thinking is also simplistic, lazy, childish, and an irresponsible way to approach life. It mummifies a person's brain and the synapses that should fire don't fire. Problems that a person should or could be solving go unsolved waiting for their God to do it. How many times did I miss an opportunity to progress while waiting for God to move? How many relationships were harmed because I failed to act on behalf of myself or someone else while waiting for God to do something about the situation?

There will never be a complete set of answers to these questions. Many memories have already been lost by the brain never to be recovered. There are a few, however, that come to mind and those are regrettable, almost unconquerable events. The past is impossible to change. It contains circumstances that will affect me for the rest of my life, leaving a sadness which makes its rounds every once in a while.

I'm not any kind of an expert on these matters. This is just the way it seems to me. We all  need to make sense of our life story in order to continue moving forward. Better to be honest rather than delusional. Figuring out the difference between the two is the difficult task we all face.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

any other way seems dangerous

Don't know if this will come as a shock, but I no longer can attribute any of my human experiences to the god that is described in the Christian/Jewish holy books. The process I went through to get to this place is complicated and at the same time quite deliberate. After years of consideration and study, it seems to me that "evil/wickedness/all the atrocious things that happen to people" must be equally attributable to this same god, which in turn makes him/her/it evil also. In my mind this totally undermines the idea of a loving, omniscient, omnipotent Christian God, which in turn shoots the whole thing out of the water.


I see religion as mankind's attempt to make sense of life. Cultural and geographical differences have created the thousands of religions and sects which we see around the world today. Our brain convinces us that our religion is the one true religion. Obviously not everyone can be right. And the idea that I think mine is right and everyone else is wrong leads to selfish, prideful living. So I've decided to live life from a very different place. If a thing can't be known for certain, I will not believe it. In other words, I won't believe because I don't have the evidence. Any other way to live in this causal world seems a dangerous way.



Tuesday, December 21, 2010

greetings to all

I refuse to participate in the "Christmas greeting war"; after all, isn't it supposed to be a time of peace, joy, and goodwill to all, including those who don't believe like me or you (maybe especially to those who don't believe the same). Exclusivity won't draw anyone to an opposing view. Aren't the "Merry Christmas" warriors being slightly incongruent with their own beliefs regarding love and winning people to their Christ? Or is war the only response to those who disagree with them and are offended by their insistence on greeting the way they greet. It all seems childish and silly to me.

So.....

Merry Christmas
Happy Christmas
Happy Hanukkah
Happy Holidays
Happy Kwanza
Happy Winter Solstice
Season's Greetings
Merry Xmas
Happy New Year.... to ALL!!!


Friday, December 17, 2010

say

Seems like it's time for another change. I've decided to pull out all the stops and start over again. When the next blog opens its doors for business, I'll post the link here at Take Another Look. Until then I'll be practicing saying what I need to say... gotta love John Mayer (he's so good!).

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

openness or skepticism

Here are a few Carl Sagan quotes taken from his book The Demon-Haunted World which I am currently reading (my emphasis in bold):

"...the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. The collective enterprise of creative thinking and skeptical thinking, working together, keeps the field on track."

"If you're only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything. You become a crotchety misanthrope convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) Since major discoveries at the borderlines of science are rare, experience will tend to confirm your grumpiness. But every now and then a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you're too resolutely and uncompromisingly skeptical, you're going to miss (or resent) the transforming discoveries in science, and either way you will be obstructing understanding and progress. Mere skepticism is not enough."

"...science requires the most vigorous and uncompromising skepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong, and the only way to winnow the wheat from the chaff is by critical experiment and analysis. If you're open to the point of gullibility and have not a microgram of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the promising ideas from the worthless ones. Uncritically accepting every proffered notion, idea, and hypothesis is tantamount to knowing nothing. Ideas contradict one another; only through skeptical scrutiny can we decide among them. Some ideas really are better than others."

"No one can be entirely open or completely skeptical. We all must draw the line somewhere. An ancient Chinese proverb advises, 'Better to be too credulous than too skeptical,' but this is from an extremely conservative society in which stability was much more prized than freedom and where the rulers had a powerful vested interest in not being challenged. Most scientists, I believe, would say, 'Better to be too skeptical than too credulous.' But neither is easy. Responsible, thoroughgoing, rigorous skepticism requires a hard-nosed habit of thought that takes practice and training to master. Credulity -- I think a better word here is 'openness' or 'wonder' -- does not come easily either. If we really are to be open to counterintuitive ideas in physics or social organization or anything else, we must grasp those ideas. It means nothing to be open to a proposition we don't understand."