Sam Harris

[Sky]

Some short videos:

The Self is an Illusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

***

Mindfulness is Powerful, But Keep Religion Out of It https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwac6Uk-zyk

***
Purpose of Life with Sam Harris  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxkqz7-DmsE

***

Insight Into Practicing Meditation with Sam Harris  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8U5J_LV3UI

***

[Katya]

Wow! I see that you are slowly becoming a fan of his philosophy.  I think that due to your solid philosophical background and life experience you are well ready for absorption of the information of this kind.  I myself acquainted with his interesting philosophy not so long ago, in April of this year.  But I confuse that he has pretty aggressive approach toward tradition religions, although he has solid religious background: he was studying buddhist and hindus psychotechniques for 11 years.

[Sky]

Wow! I see that you are slowly becoming a fan of his philosophy.  I think that due to your solid philosophical background and life experience you are well ready for absorption of the information of this kind.  I myself acquainted with his interesting philosophy not so long ago, in April of this year.  But I confuse that he has pretty aggressive approach toward tradition religions, although he has solid religious background: he was studying buddhist and hindus psychotechniques for 11 years.

I really love his ideas about mindfulness, I cannot explain why, but something special happened with me when I found this video (religion and mindfulness). I need more time to ponder...

[Katya]

But it is really not his ideas. They are very old.  The gist of his work is a creating of combination of modern neuroscience with some east philosophical ideas and selling this combination to modern west public which obsessed with neuroscience and other brain related stuff. I myself is pretty obsessed with this freaky stuff. But  brain is a very messy thing.

[Sky]

But it is really not his ideas. They are very old.  The gist of his work is a creating of combination of modern neuroscience with some east philosophical ideas and selling this combination to modern west public which obsessed with neuroscience and other brain related stuff. I myself is pretty obsessed with this freaky stuff. But  brain is a very messy thing.

Yes,  you are right,  these ideas are not new, but... you know...in this particular case, it is not important what he said but how he did it. Sometimes people tell right things, but we do not believe them because we cannot catch this "special sense of truth". Нe is authentic.
Kirill, thank you very much  for information about this amazing scientist.   

[Katya]

Kirill, thank you very much  for information about this amazing scientist.   

You are welcome   

in this particular case, it is not important what he said but how he did it.

But I think that his work is incomplete, particularly on free will.  It is big omission that he has not mentioned in his lectures or books about the hard problem of consciousness, a very serious issue of modern philosophy.  The hard problem of consciousness was formulated by David Chalmers 20 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers   The gist of the hard problem of consciousness is the question «why does the feeling which accompanies awareness of sensory information exist at all?» The issue of free will can't be resolved without resolving the hard problem of consciousness.  Why do a lot of people feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions? And could events in consciousness have impact on the material realm? Or maybe free will is only an illusion, an artifact of the complex unconsciousness processes? If we don't know  about the mechanism of emerging «qualia» in general, we can't   conclusive answer on the question «Why do a lot of people feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions?» and therefore  we can't resolve the issue of free will.  I will elaborate this problem  in the philosophical section of the forum for the local folk in the next year.

Нe is authentic.

I think «flamboyant» is a  better word for describing him and his books and lectures. He is flamboyant.  And he looks a little bit like Ben Stiller. You are also a little bit flamboyant, but in the other realm.    

[Sky]

  But I think that his work is incomplete, particularly on free will.  It is big omission that he has not mentioned in his lectures or books about the hard problem of consciousness, a very serious issue of modern philosophy.  The hard problem of consciousness was formulated by David Chalmers 20 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers   The gist of the hard problem of consciousness is the question «why does the feeling which accompanies awareness of sensory information exist at all?» The issue of free will can't be resolved without resolving the hard problem of consciousness.  Why do a lot of people feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions? And could events in consciousness have impact on the material realm? Or maybe free will is only an illusion, an artifact of the complex unconsciousness processes? If we don't know  about the mechanism of emerging «qualia» in general, we can't   conclusive answer on the question «Why do a lot of people feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions?» and therefore  we can't resolve the issue of free will.  I will elaborate this problem  in the philosophical section of the forum for the local folk in the next year.

It'll take some time before I can answer. I have to read and think about it.

I think «flamboyant» is a  better word for describing him and his books and lectures. He is flamboyant.  And he looks a little bit like Ben Stiller.

He is flamboyant, but I wanted to emphasize that he is true himself, he is truly genuine. My definition(authentic) is correct from my perspective. By the way, have you read Sam Harris' books?

You are also a little bit flamboyant, but in the other realm.    

Interesting.... could you please give me some more information about that.

[Katya]

I have to read and think about it.

Do you feel any  urgency to read philosophy?   

He is flamboyant, but I wanted to emphasize that he is true himself, he is truly genuine. My definition(authentic) is correct from my perspective.

Thank you for explanation.  

have you read Sam Harris' books?

I have read free fragments of his books, which I could find in the Internet.

Interesting.... could you please give me some more information about that.

I have obligation not to discuss peculiarities of your personality in the public. 

[Sky]

I have obligation not to discuss peculiarities of your personality in the public. 

Feel  free to send me PM