Posted inBooks Buddhism Science

Sam Harris interview with author of “Illusion of the Self”

Damn! (but actually I'm happy) Another $19.57 has found its way from my VISA account into Amazon's accounts receivable, thanks to Sam Harris' interview with the author of Illusion of the Self -- another neuroscience book that the "I" who isn't me was led to order by largely unconscious brain processes over which the "I" who isn't me has no control. If you're interested in this stuff, but not twenty bucks worth of interested, it'll cost you nothing to read the interview. I'm fascinated by the increasingly evident neuroscientific conclusion that there's no such thing as a Self to be…
3
Posted inReality Science Universe

Physics knows more about “nothing” than theology or philosophy

It's amazing, how much can be said about nothing. Nothing always has been a favorite topic of theologians and philosophers. Now physicists are getting into the Nothing Game, big time (see here and here). There's a basic dispute between fact-focused scientists on one side, and concept-obsessed thinkers on the other: is "nothing" a something that can be investigated, or an absolute absence of anything? (including "absence") I've read a bunch of books and articles that argue both sides of this question, which is central to the classic Why is there something rather than nothing? question. More and more I favor…
6
Posted inScience

Neuroscience says people aren’t things. We’re processes.

Who am I? That's a big question. For the ancient Greeks, and many others, it's the biggest question. "Know yourself." An imperative. Modern neuroscience is casting factual light on this philosophical issue. Well, not only philosophical. Religon, spirituality, mysticism -- they also have explanations of what essential human nature is. Usually, dualistic. Meaning, supposedly there's the human body, which includes the brain. Then there's a mysterious something else. Soul, mind, psyche, spirit, some thing which inhabits, connects with, or otherwise associates with the body while we're physically alive. But since that thing isn't physical, usually it is believed to survive bodily death.…
5
Posted inScience Wu Project

Great free will question: What do we want to be free from?

Having given up a belief in resurrection, physical immortality, eternal soul, or living on through my works, I've settled on another approach for dealing with my eventual demise: Not being me.  Now, some will say, "That's Buddhism 101." Sort of true. Anatta, not-self, is indeed a core Buddhist concept. But I'm lazy. Buddhists, including those of the Zen variety, go through a heck of a lot of effort to realize that the entity striving to become enlightened doesn't exist. My feeling is, why not simply begin and end with the nothing-much-of-anything that I am?  Done. Finis. Enlightenment trophy, please. There's no…
23
Posted inGod Religions Science

Analytical thinking weakens religious belief

This is one of those scientific findings that cause me to say, "Well, yeah, of course!": analytical thinking leads people away from religious believing. TIME magazine has a good summary of the not-unexpected research conclusions. We all fly both ways, on the complementary wings of intuition and analysis. These basically correspond to "fast thinking" and "slow thinking," the brain's System 1 and System 2 in the parlance of Daniel Kahneman (see my blog post, Don't mistake God for your intuitive brain speaking. Sometimes it makes sense to intuit; other times, to analyze. As the TIME article says, both brain capabilities…
2
Posted inReality Science Taoism/Tai Chi

How humans perceive the cosmos isn’t how it really is

Really. A great word. It can be used, or said, so many ways.  Put a question mark on the end; add a note of sarcasm; and you've got an ironic Really? Or... Finish with an exclamation mark; make your tone confident; and you've got a declarative Really! I find it easy to swing both ways. To me, the scientific method is our best way of defending a Really! However, this only applies what can really be known by us humans. And what we can know is determined/limited by how we know -- using the human brain and sense organs. So when…
20
Posted inReality Science

Self-consciousness comes and goes. Like the self.

Everybody has had this sort of experience: Walking into the house after driving home, I'm carrying the car keys in my hand. A few minutes later I'm wandering around the living room, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom, muttering Where the hell are my damn car keys?! I was conscious the entire time after I came in the front door. I didn't black out. I didn't suffer amnesia. At every moment I was aware of where I was. Yet at some point I became divided into a "me" who had put down the keys somewhere, and a "me" who had no idea…
5
Posted inScience

What science says will make you happy

I'm a bit suspicious of "top ten" lists. Seems to be too much of a coincidence that the number of fingers we humans have is the same number of important things. Why aren't there more "top eight" or "top twelve" lists? Regardless... Yes magazine's "10 Things Science Says Will Make You Happy" seems eminently believable, by and large. I note there's no mention of God or religion. My favorite is numero uno: Savor Everyday Moments Pause now and then to smell a rose or watch children at play. Study participants who took time to “savor” ordinary events that they normally…
No Comments
Posted inScience

Nibiru/Planet X won’t destroy Earth in 2012

Today I learned that I'm out of the loop of wacko conspiracy theories about the End of the World in 2012. I listened to a podcast featuring astrobiologist David Morrison, who answers questions submitted to NASA's "Ask an Astrobiologist." I'd heard about the supposed Mayan prediction that Earth ends this year (Morrison says that's news to the ancestors of ancient Mayans still living in Mexico), but didn't know that lots of people are freaked out about a large planetary object -- Nibiru/Planet X -- that they believe is on a collision course with Earth. Of course, that isn't true. Just…
3
Posted inMorality Radha Soami Satsang Beas Religions

Religion is wrong, but it feels right to believers

So how is it that religious beliefs are almost certainly wrong, yet the vast majority of people in the world accept them? What makes religiosity so attractive?  A central theme of my previous post, New Scientist looks at the science of religion, is that belief in the supernatural comes naturally to humans. Early on in childhood development we understand that "agents" with desires, intentions, and a consciousness like our own exist even though we can't perceive these beings. It isn't much of a jump to divine unseen agents, gods and other entities. But after listening to a Point of Inquiry…
4
Posted inReligions Science

New Scientist looks at the science of religion

Why do so many people believe in God or in other sorts of supernatural beings? Most religious folks would have no trouble answering that question. "Because God is real," they'd say.  Well, that's highly debatable. And I'm being generous to religion. That's ridiculous is closer to how I really feel. The most recent issue of New Scientist dives into these "Why believe?" waters. An editorial does a good job of summarizing core themes in the following articles. It ends with: Secularists would also do well to recognise the distinction between the "popular religion" that comes easily to people's minds and…
No Comments
Posted inReality Science

Einstein was right. Neutrinos don’t travel faster than light.

Love it. Another triumph of the scientific method. Which does so much better at revealing the secrets of reality than religions do. An experiment to repeat a test of the speed of subatomic particles known as neutrinos has found that they do not travel faster than light. Results announced in September suggested that neutrinos can exceed light speed, but were met with scepticism as that would upend Einstein's theory of relativity. A test run by a different group at the same laboratory has now clocked them travelling at precisely light speed. Now, this doesn't conclusively settle the question of whether…
5
Posted inFree will Morality Science

Free will is a limiting, destructive belief

Free will. Who could be against this seemingly wonderful notion? The opposite idea seems to be a depressing downer: Unfree determinism.  After I'd read the first part of Sam Harris' new book, "Free Will," I shared my enthusiasm with my wife about giving up the belief that I can freely decide what I think, feel, or do. She wasn't nearly as enthused, perhaps because of her lengthy experience as a psychotherapist. "But wouldn't people then use I've got no free will as an excuse for doing whatever they want? And wouldn't this take away people's motivation to change, to improve…
6
Posted inBooks Free will Science

The dizzying joy of being freed from “free will”

Free will is an illusion. We're full of wants, desires, thoughts, emotions, and such. But we can't want our wants, desire our desires, think our thoughts, emote our emotions, or freely choose anything. This is the convincing central message of Sam Harris' "Free Will," a short book that I read halfway through today and am enjoying as much as I thought I would. It's only 66 pages long. Yet it could have been even shorter, because Harris necessarily repeats his no free will theme in various ways -- getting his point across from different perspectives. I say "necessarily" since the…
1
Posted inBooks Free will Science

Sam Harris’ “Free Will” arrives today

Ooh, ooh, I'm so excited! Amazon tells me my pre-ordered copy of "Free Will" by Sam Harris should be delivered today. Can't help my excitement. I have no free will. Harris gives away the plot line of his book in The Illusion of Free Will. In that short piece he ends with a great question: How can we make sense of our lives, and hold people accountable for their choices, given the unconscious origins of our conscious minds? His new book is just 96 pages long. Good. I want to learn Harris' answer.
4
Posted inPersonal/Stories Science

Doubt is the stepping stone to truth

I was so sure that I was right. It turned out that I was wrong. But after finding this out, I was able to get on the road to rightness. What got me facing in the right direction was doubt. Thank you, doubt! If it weren't for you, I'd have headed in the wrong direction for quite a bit longer. I'm not talking about a religious belief, though I could be. The lesson I learned last week is universal: don't be completely, absolutely, 100% sure about anything. Even when we're super confident that we're correct, it's important to leave open the…
4
Posted inScience Universe

“Nothing” replaces “God” in modern cosmology

Nothing is a big deal in physics nowadays. As noted in a previous post, scientists have found that even seemingly empty space actually is seething with energetic activity.  So much so, as cosmologist Lawrence Krauss describes in his new book, "A Universe from Nothing," nothing can reasonably be viewed as the creative principle which brought the universe into being -- a job most religions give to God. We have discovered that we live in a universe in which empty space -- what formerly could have passed for nothing -- has a new dynamic that dominates the current evolution of the…
1
Posted inGod Science Universe

Science’s “nothing” different from religion’s “nothing”

You'd think that if secular scientists and religious true believers could agree on anything, it'd be the nature of nothing. After all, isn't nothing, well, nothing? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Absence. Void.  But, no, here too science and religion are butting heads. Scientific nothing is quite different from religious nothing. And while I used to be more on religion's side when I thought about what nothing meant in the Big Question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", now I strongly lean toward the headbutt (or to the faithful, butthead) of science. Physicist/cosmologist Lawrence Krauss does a great job laying out…
7
Posted inReality Science Universe

Universe may not be eternal, but existence is

Believers in God who follow modern science will be heartened by a recent article in New Scientist, "Why physicists can't avoid a creation event."  While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech. For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by…
1
Posted inFree will Morality Science

There’s no free will, so you’re unable to believe me

I gave it my best try last night -- arguing that we humans don't have free will, though it seems ever so obvious that we do. (Of course, it also seems obvious that the sun goes around the Earth, which demolishes the "obviousness" argument for anything.) My wife and I belong to a three-couple book/article discussion group. Yesterday the subject was the justice system. When it came time for me to share my thoughts, I started off by quoting from Jerry Coyne's column in USA Today, "Why you don't really have free will." The issue of whether we have of…
16