Wow - this one definitely makes the list of favorite episodes. Both of you brilliantly match and uphold each other’s obligation to rigorous, honest transmission of the kind of ideas that people seldom discuss but yet, that hold the potential for such transformative power in our lives. Thank you for sharing!
notes I made before I had to stop and make dinner: We exist as persons, rather than ‘selves’ An illusion is something that exists in one way, but APPEARS in another way. A mirage exists as a refraction of light - but appears as a body of water. A person exists as a person, but appears as a self. We think we are the ‘me’ that owns our body. The agent that acts upon the world, but isn’t quiet in the world. We think we own our minds and bodies. Imagine somebody who’s body you’d like to have. For a short or long time. The moment you’ve formed that desire - you’ve told yourself you’re not your body, that you HAVE your body, and that in principle could have another body. Or that you could have somebodies mind for a while. We regard ourselves to ‘have’ a mind. The thing we think of behind our experience. The thing that’s always subject and never object. That’s pure agent that acts upon the world. That is the illusion of self. Yet it’s the way we exist. We believe we are a passenger in the body - appropriating the body from a position of subjectivity. Specifically in the head. Behind the eyes. A singular area of attention, free will, consciousness, mind, inner-monologue. The sense that you’re behind your eyes as a subject, is our ‘i’ or ‘me’. When you experience self consciousness. Talking in front of a crowd perhaps. Or when you lock eye contact with another person in a certain context. You feel as if there’s an inner identity being exposed. Your own face becomes a kind of mask. When it blushes it’s misbehaving and telling. Against your will. Feeling at war with your experience. At this point your body is in the reality of the world - your mind is not. Part of the self illusion is that part of our experience happens inside a space, that’s separate to the outer space-time reality. Somehow physical space and time is all exterior to us, but we have an inner life in an inner space. It removes us from consciousness and the world, and reveals the world to be a separate arena in which we can act, but to which we don’t belong. The moment we stop consciously recognizing this - we slip perfectly back into the illusion. A default. The significance? There is some duty to us as humans to understand our own experience. Moral: The self illusion acts as a foundation of egoism, and moral attitudes: blame, anger. The self illusion actually inhibits our relationships. Self consciousness. It is that antithesis of flow-state, the mind state most transcendent of ego. It’s all the psychological suffering of self.
Glad to see you aren't as heavily invested in twitter as other people, like Jordan Peterson. He's kind of going crazy :P. Staying away from that site and having informed discussions with other academics is so much more productive! :)
Yeah, much like other gurus, he seems to think he's an expert on just about anything. Noticed the same with Andrew Huberman 🙄 It's like the fame gets the best of them.
@@rogersimpson6509 he sounds like a vindictive little bitch when he is almost shouting as he tries to "prove" that there is no self, I mean wtf dude, we know that you want to believe that but you can't, no need to make such scene
The difficult part of this is reminding myself that free will is an illusion. When I listen to Sam, I can in that moment forgive even the worst mass murderer, only to wanting to harm the person who designed soap dispencers who aim straight forward instead of down a moment later.
the fact that you can logically deduce you have no "free will" (or rather, as Sam puts it well - it doesn't mean anything to say that some agent has "free will", the term itself is meaningless) - has nothing to do necessarily with how you act or feel just because you know that "free will" doesn't exist doesn't mean you will immediately start acting entirely based on that fact, since other things determine your actions - such as your instincts, your emotions, and so on. in fact, that's the entire point. there is no single "you" - "you" is a result of a multitude of loosely linked mental faculties that combine together to form a "thinking machine" - but each one of those acts semi-independently, providing its own input to the "feedback loop" that is your brain the important thing is to reach correct understanding of the world ---- improving the way you act or feel to make it more in line with this understand might come with time, or might never come at all (and it won't be your fault).
The point of not having free will isn't at all to mean we must forgive every wrong action. Trying to exert free will over a lack of free will is just trying to pull one over on the game. You are better off trying to figure out the mechanism and why you feel how you do about things than you are with trying to change it. If you don't know how your foundation is laid then any building you do on top is dangerous.
Your free will is NOT an illusion because you have agency. Your will is limited and not totally free but you still can make choices regardless of those limits. The term "free will" is a misnomer plain and simple, BUT the choices you make can and do affect the world around you. Sometimes the effects of your choices manifest immediately, sometimes after some period of time , and sometimes the effects go unnoticed as a type of background noise. Through it all is your agency, your ability to make change happen, even now.
If free will is an illusion then why does Sam waste so much time debating and trying to change peoples minds? Glad you can forgive mass murderers though I guess mission successful?
The goal is to have a “centered self without being self-centered”. The difference is the direction of flow. A centered self is balanced and emergent, adding their unique talents and energy to life. The pejorative term self-centered implies a self that takes energy from their environment, selfishly adding nothing of themselves.
I've heard someone express a point of view that our mind comes FROM our body: As our brains grow and develop, its neurons arrange themselves in a manner dependant on the input they receive from the body, which is furthermore dependant on the body's interactions with the environment. So our brain and its content are inextricably linked to and controlled by the environment.
what about choice? animals make choices. the more intelligent and emotionally aware the animal, the more depth there is to their choices. certainly, sam is more or less accurately describing a fish, or another early product of evolution. but a great ape like ourselves is no bio-machine; our actions aren't easily reduced down to deterministic inevitabilities.
@@wizard4203 You said it- our behavior isn't "easily" understood by its physical antecedents. The physical world is complex. Numerous factors control our behavior. Lots of people think nature deals us the cards, and it's our job to play them. But our capacity to play them has already been dealt us as well. I myself used to work as a caregiver for people with intellectual disabilities. I had the experience of seeing concretely every day, the relationship between damage to specific brain structures and one's capacity for choice. Also consider strokes and related personality changes. And mental illnesses. In ancient times, erratic behavior was regarded as demonic in origin. Now we understand schizophrenia and epilepsy: real world behavioral antecedents.
@@wizard4203 That's an answer? If the Big Bang Theory is correct, all the matter and energy present in the universe today is an expression of what existed at the inception. Matter dramatically increased in complexity over time. Infintessimal fluctuations, according to chaos theory, can give rise to enormous, extremely difficult to predict changes later. By definition, the universe is everything that exists. It sounds like you're asserting that something else was "injected" later. THAT would be a great assumption.
@@mongoharry the nature of the human consciousness is too big of a question to answer here. we can at least say, no scientific data has proven consciousness has a deterministic foundation. in the words of theoretical physicist Brian Greene, consciousness is "still a complete mystery." this is why i said you're wrong, and call your statement a mere assumption.
Self is what exists and the illusion is that we are the body and not Self. That is Maya and ignorance from previous several births. That is Advaitha. Self or Atman only exists.
When i see the word exist ,self,free will , god, win at social & political life. It's excited me the most , i am not nerd, I have readed very few books , but when ever i find book or videos on the topic, I never leave it.😏
@@ivankaramasov An illusion implies that you know the difference between real and fake. To say the self is an illusion is to say "I have seen a real self, and this version I am now seeing is a lot like but is different from the real thing." So what is the real thing that the 'self is illuding to?
Good stuff. Thank you.... in 1951, when I was 10, in the fourth grade in Roxbury Kansas, and they were doing their best to break me, I decided to adhere to the Nuremberg code for the rest of my life... " it is the moral obligation of every human being to reject immoral orders. "... this solemn oath allowed me to survive with my character somewhat intact.
There's a recent video by Ajarn Amaro entitled 'Who Am I?' that explores the idea of the self and how it can be tracked back to nothingness. Much simpler and practical for anyone looking for a hands on approach. Not to say that this video wasn't very interesting also. I really enjoyed the intelligent back and forth.
I appreciate that tip because I want to get it, but this didn't do that for me. Went and listened to him elsewhere and still doesn't click, his examples do not make sense, as Sam said.
I was thinking... We (as information processors) process a disproportionate amount more sensory input within a certain radius, and there's the inevitability of touching and interacting with ourselves to cause feedback loops. It seems as if our pleasure reward/defence system is behind our sense of "want", and that "I" is to clarify which neural receptors exactly want feeding. So why do certain molecules feel nice or bad to us? In cases of Alzheimer's or "split-brain" patients to name a couple, it's been well demonstrated how paradoxical the brain can behave, showing how thoughts are/can be retrieved only by asking the right questions. I've noticed how despite not having been diagnosed with any memory-related condition, I have noticed how occasionally I have needed to be asked a question in a certain way for me to acknowledge a phrase/word i've always known. It leads me to believe that we may all be on the spectrum in a way, and that what feels like a a cloud of consciousness which reports back to the same central governing body, might instead be millions of individual agents working autonomously who [as one of many parallel chains of command] each get the opportunity to act as the the main guy (mouth, arms etc).
It's been evident for quite a while that evolution "built" a very large number of brain-circuits optimized to do things that are unrelated to anything like "conscious" effort, and the idea of a central conductor or decision-maker inside the brain is fundamentally incorrect. For example, the cerebellum is clearly very specifically built to encode and store the rules about how bodily-motion works, and as it does so it makes extremely complex movements completely unconscious and gets them out of the way of the "thinking" part of the brain. Absolutely there are many individual agents (or daemons, to use a slightly older term) which are working independently towards various ends without most people's knowledge. Even looking at nothing but what appear to be the simplest "conscious reasoning" circuits, called "cortical columns," there are hundreds of thousands of them (if I recall correctly) in everyone's neocortex. That redundancy is very helpful in ensuring people don't lose all knowledge of some given thing after suffering injury or illness which wipes some of them out.
The self is not an illusion. An illusion doesn't mean that something does not exist but rather an illusion is something which doesn't appear to be what it is. When you use the word "illusion", you're defining something in relation to that thing which is considered to be real. For example, on a hot summer's day, the road at a distance looks like there's water on it since it appears wet. Getting closer to the road, you then realize that the wetness you saw before was a mirage or an illusion. Since you're calling the wetness you saw before an illusion, then it's an illusion of what? Well, it's an illusion of water where water is considered to be a real thing and what you saw before was not real, thus an illusion. To call the self an illusion, then what in relation to the self is it an illusion of? So the self is really not an illusion but rather the self does not exist.
The illusion is separation. The material world is an illusion and the boundless conscious awareness known as the self is the ‘real,’ though Buddhists challenge even that and say that the self is an illusion and you do not exist at all
It is a construct. The self as a consistent persistent phenomenon is an illusion. As the author explains is it something which is constructed by the mind on the fly as is necessary for expediency. It is not a soul or a persistent part of our makeup. IMOP. No criticism indented, just my reading. Glad to hear corrections. Bring them .
I might be missing something, but I think Jay Garfield clearly addressed this at the start. We exist as a person, just a brain and body. But, it appears to us that we are something more than just a brain and body. A self that has a brain, and has a body. Therefore, you are right, the self doesn't exist. But, like the water in the mirage, it is an illusion as it appears to exist, until you get closer and see the reality.
Glad Covid wasn't too bad Sam. Don't overdo things in the following weeks - better chance to avoid long Covid... Enjoyed the episode btw. Def one of those to listen to again.
The state of being one with the Self... Those who have experienced the Turiya stage of self-consciousness have reached the pure awareness of their own non-dual Self as one with everyone and everything, for them the knowledge, the knower, the known becomes one, they are the enlightened Immortals...
Nope. No matter what feeling you experience, no matter what philosophy you embrace, then you die and you no longer exist. The specific combination of chemicals that makes you 'you', dissolves and is no longer existent. Like pieces of a mosaic. The mosaic is the mosaic only when the pieces stick together, but not after they're separated, same with a person, only a gazillion times more comples. People just take up philosophy and art to help themselves deal with mortality.
I am currently majoring in philosophy at a major private University. The semester I spent reading the Buddhist philosophy was excellent and really opened my eyes to the different perspectives on meta-physics that people use
So....what are you going to do for money with your philosophy degree? Teach spoilt kids for low pay? Write a book and hope it does well? Become Aristotle?
For what it’s worth, my perspective, Through shattering my self-concept via spiritual breakthrough. I have come to learn, I was a prisoner for 11 years….There is no objective self, identity, no objective sense of self. Only possible through the mind, consciously understood or not. The mind is the author, through consciousness we are the editor. The only identity that I say I am in line with reality, is the person, the human being. The mind is a machine, you are the driver. If you can’t find your keys, the machine (mind) will produce infinite amount of reasons to be mad, but, the machine (mind) does not know what YOU want, it’s just providing a Function, then you can turn into your values to the present moment and pivot and direct then you and the mind can be into life and not a spectator to circumstance. Once this is understood, you can LIBERATE and LIVE the life YOU want. To appreciate you and the mind in harmony but with hierarchy in finality of outcome. YOU are the one who is the driver, but the mind drives and we get lost, become blind. To see it as this, the mind doesn’t know what YOU want, it knows what it’s function is. You change to what you want, you teach the mind HOW it needs to function and that it is NOT in the drivers seat. But important to feel what needs to be felt, listen to mind with openness, compassion, and make the adjustments that your reality requires. Then you find yourself in Love with both sides of the human. To liberate towards potential and freedom from infinite Destruction of the mind. You are LOVE, it’s deep inside of you, keep asking questions, with your eyes open, arms open wide, to be with. We are all on our own journey, I know you are capable of liberation. With Love, liberation, I wish you all the best in life, Tyler
Hi Sam. Could awakening be that the sense of “I am”, which can take infinite perspectives, settles back into the quiet of the formless perspective, therefore the experience becomes whatever arises is the present? Nothing actually changing but perspective
From the perspective of the “Will” (which is being channelled to obtain the best outcome for the individual) it is completely free and choosing the most favourable outcome according to the known factors at the time.
I don't believe in "free will" but I am strongly libertarian. Each person is an intensely complex biological computer with a unique and biased view of the universe. On some greater level our behavior is an expression of the universe, those who intend to control and guide that are megalomaniacs with the same limitations as the rest of us.
As am I. Libertarianism would also work with conventional individual existence, as a framework to resolve conflict. This would be Hoppe’s theoretical contribution , to use intersubjectivity and communication as a basis for conflict resolution.
Great talk overall. Thanks. @7:00 No. Buddhism is not the origin of no self. 1500 BC - Vedic period, origins of Advaita developed 800-300 BC - Vedic texts "Upanishads" were composed - containing central conceptual roots for Hinduism and Buddhism c. 563/480 - c. 483/400 BC :Gautama Buddha was born. During the period between 2000 BCE - 1000 BCE, 4 distinct Vedas were compiled; Rig Veda (composed of hymns), Yajur Veda (sacrificial formulae), Sama Veda (melodies) and the Atharva Veda (incantations) . It is the Rig Veda, consisting of 1,071 hymns divided into ten books or mandalas, which comprises the knowledge basis of "Oneness" and the Advaita doctrine of Vedanta (the philosophy contained at the end of the Vedas)
I’m still confused on this concept. I sort of “get it,” but there doesn’t seem to be much here. Are we just one self experiencing itself as individual persons? This seems like supernatural mumbo jumbo. I can’t wrap my head around it. But apparently I don’t have a head according to Sam. I’m so confused.
It's just that all is in flux. Including self. Which is just streams of thoughts emotions, thoughts, sensations, perceptions etc. It's not that you don't have a self. It's that that self isn't fixed.
There's a still centre in us all which is beyond thought and words. We can call it presence or awareness etc, but it is beyond description. It just is. "That what is" is really the experiencer of life in us all! One can call it the higher self, to give it a label, but it is a mystery what it is. It is always here, whether we're still, or whether the mind is busy, from birth to death. It is our still centre, with other words, there is no self or no "I" or me. Who we all generally think we are, is due to identification with thought, but that is an illusion. Everything disappears when we're asleep, or with mental illness like Alzheimer's etc. When this is realised it is obvious, and equally a mystery.
Been a big San Harris fan for decades and never miss a podcast but this one lost me. I have no idea what they are on about. Sam said they'd explain it for the layperson but they didn't.
This is driving me crazy that I don't get this. I just listened to the first half hour about 3 or 4 more times skipping back and forth to the parts I think at the most important. Still got no idea.
Buddhism was born in a collectivist society, and brought to the west, an individualistic society. This context is crucial and also is a metaphor for the beautiful tension between the soul and the ego. They are inexorably intertwined.
The only thing that is is the self. Everything else radiates out from there, whether by distance or time. The moment is the only time which exists. It’s upsetting to me that the existence of the self would be reduced to “person” inside of an experienced world.
An Illusion/Mirage realizing it's an Illusion or a Mirage. Very interesting. Seems like these Illusions or Mirages have spent alot of time thinking of themselves that don't actually exist.
The awareness of self is surely a natural extension of the requirement that for life to survive, the structures involved in DNA processes have to be maintained. With the presence of potential pathogens in the external environment, an organism must possess the means to neutralize these - and ONLY these. This is the molecular expression of self-recognition. The psychological self arises out of this
around when I was first introduced to this notion, someone I hardly knew told me 'you THINK your self is real but I KNOW it's not' over the phone. i paused not really knowing what to say, and when I started talking again they cut me off and repeated it 😅
This conversation was mostly baffling, but the more I listen the more I start to understand. I also love to hear two zealots discussing a topic they obviously love. Ol' Sam feels obligated to crush the moron Trump as well as the woke mob, but this is the type of discussion he clearly loves.
Love that you tackle the blameworthiness of god and how the religious are so desperate to protect god from blame. In their desperation, they spawned the lie of free will. And propagate it to this very day.
@@Mac-ku3xu it was an easy decision for me to refuse the vaccine based on what I knew about myself....I knew I was taking no risk. It was easy to see through the lies & deceit from early 2020. My "risk" paid off.
@alex timer striking how Mr. Harris automatically attributed his experience of covid as ameliorated by his vaccinations and boostings as a stone cold fact rather than an assumption unsupported and unsupportable by direct irrefutable scientific confirmation. Might that be another symptom of his long TDS?
Sam Harris gives me serious cognitive dissonance. I was a fan for fifteen years. How can someone who speaks so eloquently, precisely and insightfully about the self that is not a self--and about how experiencing this insight can alleviate all kinds of suffering--and who also seems very preoccupied with moral behavior, simultaneously be peddling experimental injections pushed by a corrupt corporatocracy in league with unelected plutocrats and oligarchs who have--unilaterally--decided humanity's course? The data about covid vaccine injuries is pouring in--it is no longer the stuff of "conspiracy theorists". An agenda is at work here, and I need Sam to come clean on his stance. What are his private rationalizations for participating in this evil? Maybe he thinks all this suffering is justified when compared to the greater suffering he thinks will result if humanity were not so coerced? What mental gymnastics is he performing? Or is he perhaps using not-self as a kind of escape hatch--a cauterizing, if you will, or cremation of care?
From a country in the south of Africa, I haven't a bank account, I can't afford to subscribe in your website but I would like to listen to the full episode.
11:20 If it exists then doesn’t one Have to concede tha reality? I’ve had cataract surgery I can barely type and the speech to text on my iPhone 8+ isn’t very concise. I would really like to elaborate more but I fear it’s just going to turn into gibberish, which I must admit is very similar to my normal modality of speech.
I never understand to me calling myself self after knowing I have no self at centre ( controlling sitting ,inside ) it just feeling created by brain and when we said object it's object to whom,if someone observingg then or it's just observance I mean it's mystery whn did we develop this illusory world
Animals make a model of the world around them for the purpose of moving through it to gather the necessities for life (and to avoid danger). Those that don’t do this perish without reproducing; evolution forgets them. The self is an hypothesis constructed to represent the animal inside that model of the world. In the model, there is a self. But the world is not a model. In the world, all of the universe is continuous; there is no self/other distinction, it’s all one thing. We don’t live in the world, we live in the model.
Sam stated that the self wasn't in this unknown area inside the head where we imagine it to be ... but why shouldn't it be there? If there is some physical material inside us that would cause us to lose our (model of) self when damaged, then surely the self can protect this material the best if it is actually is where the self expects it to be? Natural selection does appear to have equipped us with the sensory systems, reactions, and bone structure to protect this area too.
Okay but are we to have no concept of ourselves? Like, you guys are certainly passionate about this and it certainly seems to somewhat exemplify “who” you guys are with the things you identify with and pursue. Just one of the questionS I have! Love Sam just trying to understand better! Any response would be appreciated! Thanks.
And maybe the point is you’re not born with a self internally instead it is only constructed through experience therefore the idea of having a self is actually an illusion constructed by external forces
I perceive some comparable concepts that align with The Case Against Reality by Donald Hoffman and the game changing research of Lisa Feldman Barrett in Seven and a Half Lessons and How Emotions are Made.
I think they are both avowed physicalists as Sam flatly stated that the self is embedded in an unquestioned physical reality. Hoffman is unquestionably in the idealist camp and posits that matter is derivative of greater consciousness. Sam Harris’s dogmatic position is unfortunate and I believe it explains why from all I heard from him I never sensed that he could take that full unfolded stand in consciousnesses. Ultimately under this paradigm consciousness-even when correctly discerned as pure awareness rather than a psychological construct - is still just a magical meaningless “ghost” emerging from the random causal flux of matter and nothing else. Oneness is only completely whole within the correct metaphysics-the physical constraints of the materialist ontological model are existentially binding and cannot be limitless.
This is dangerous thinking. How long is forever? What is space without a boundary? You cannot answer a relative question with truth (absolute). When all questions are destroyed then what? Nothing (everything) The paradox is there is no paradox. You would do yourself a favor by looking at the white background of this then trying to figure out the black symbols. Sam, if you enjoyed this you can donate to me. I am donation based.🙃
All conscious beings exist in 2 states at once. The individual consciousness of the components on the body and the entangled whole that we call the self. The brain integrates all the senses that allows us to exist in the 4 dimensions. Consciousness itself exists in a timeless space and it's anchored to reality thru the entanglement with the wave. Death is the disentanglement of the "self" with the wave.
All this philosophising is good but Naropa didn’t get enlightened until he left Nalanda and found the madman crazy wisdom yogi Tilopa. There must be room for logic and magic equally or the path is not complete.
Physics has shown a reliance on consciousness as demonstrated repeatedly in the double slit experiment. So I think you do have to take that into account beyond simply materialism.
That's a misinterpretation of that experiment. "Observer" in the quantum mechanics sense doesn't imply "consciousness" in any way--it refers to interaction with other forces/particles. Our understanding of the "big three" theories of physical interaction are inadequate, anyway, though, so you certainly couldn't draw much of a conclusion about the implications of that experiment either way.
There is a least one very misleading interpretation of the double-slit experiment, which armchair 'woo-woo' scientists use in order to sell books. If you can accept that there is no free will, then it isn't consciousness itself which is affecting the experiment, but the physical actions of the observer. And those actions are themselves simply inevitable events predicated on previous events, etc.
The person on which I am hitchhiking is a 320 lb. food addict. Based on this, how do I get it to work out? Telling it to, ain't workin.....based on my understanding of Sam, it is a product of all the experiences up through June 26, 2022 and why would "I" think "I" could make it change???
It is not dangerous but good to feel pride and guilt where it is deserved It is not wrong to judge others bad behavior. We must struggle to overcome our own programming and circumstances to grow and become free agents. We can not accept that we have no free will or else we are mere monkeys!
It's the philosophy of Duh, No shit! So basically simply yet thousands and thousands still need a elemental introduction to the very ideas of interdependence. Nice work Sam and Jay.
The self is not an illusion, it's the only thing that's really real. Guess this is the difference between Vedanta and Buddhism. Just seems to me that denying the existence of the self can't but lead to paradoxes, especially in the realm of language where the self or subject is the basis of everything.
@@emuccino Wow, you came up with that all on your own? 🤣🥸 It’s funny how you people that buy into all the esoteric BS have such problems dealing with people you don’t like. 🤣 Now, go meditate. 🧘♀️ 🤣🤣
This was one of the most life changing conversations I've ever listened to. Thanks a lot. I'm looking forward to reading Jay's new book, hoping it will help me live without a self. Western philosophy was among my tools a few years back, and now I'm very deep into mindfulness and yoga. I hope this book opens a new chapter where I can reunite spiritual practice and philosophy.
![Engaging Buddhism | Robert Wright & Jay Garfield [The Wright Show]](/img/1.gif)
Wow - this one definitely makes the list of favorite episodes. Both of you brilliantly match and uphold each other’s obligation to rigorous, honest transmission of the kind of ideas that people seldom discuss but yet, that hold the potential for such transformative power in our lives. Thank you for sharing!
You say it best when you say nothing at all 😉
Well said
Jay Garfield is perhaps the most clued up philosopher currently alive. It’s a tough pill to swallow, what he says, but it’s mighty liberating.
One of the best discussions I've heard from this podcast (it's my favorite topic). I can tell Sam really enjoyed it as well. Just brilliant.
If he carries on like this (i.e. not mentioning Trump), I'm going to resubscribe.
@@tonycatman That's facts my friend.
@@tonycatman You are acting like Sam Harris is waiting with bated breath for you to resubscribe 🤦♂️
notes I made before I had to stop and make dinner:
We exist as persons, rather than ‘selves’
An illusion is something that exists in one way, but APPEARS in another way.
A mirage exists as a refraction of light - but appears as a body of water.
A person exists as a person, but appears as a self.
We think we are the ‘me’ that owns our body.
The agent that acts upon the world, but isn’t quiet in the world.
We think we own our minds and bodies.
Imagine somebody who’s body you’d like to have. For a short or long time.
The moment you’ve formed that desire - you’ve told yourself you’re not your body, that you HAVE your body, and that in principle could have another body.
Or that you could have somebodies mind for a while.
We regard ourselves to ‘have’ a mind.
The thing we think of behind our experience.
The thing that’s always subject and never object.
That’s pure agent that acts upon the world.
That is the illusion of self.
Yet it’s the way we exist.
We believe we are a passenger in the body -
appropriating the body from a position of subjectivity.
Specifically in the head. Behind the eyes.
A singular area of attention, free will, consciousness, mind, inner-monologue.
The sense that you’re behind your eyes as a subject, is our ‘i’ or ‘me’.
When you experience self consciousness. Talking in front of a crowd perhaps.
Or when you lock eye contact with another person in a certain context.
You feel as if there’s an inner identity being exposed. Your own face becomes a kind of mask.
When it blushes it’s misbehaving and telling. Against your will.
Feeling at war with your experience.
At this point your body is in the reality of the world - your mind is not.
Part of the self illusion is that part of our experience happens inside a space, that’s separate to the outer space-time reality. Somehow physical space and time is all exterior to us, but we have an inner life in an inner space. It removes us from consciousness and the world, and reveals the world to be a separate arena in which we can act, but to which we don’t belong.
The moment we stop consciously recognizing this - we slip perfectly back into the illusion. A default.
The significance?
There is some duty to us as humans to understand our own experience.
Moral: The self illusion acts as a foundation of egoism, and moral attitudes: blame, anger.
The self illusion actually inhibits our relationships. Self consciousness.
It is that antithesis of flow-state, the mind state most transcendent of ego.
It’s all the psychological suffering of self.
Great notes man
Thanks for this.
Thanks for the notes. Appreciated. 🤝
Damn, Jay Garfield! He's great. I took a class on Buddhist philosophy with him years ago. Can't wait to listen. So glad he and Sam connected.
Glad to see you aren't as heavily invested in twitter as other people, like Jordan Peterson. He's kind of going crazy :P. Staying away from that site and having informed discussions with other academics is so much more productive! :)
Peterson is a c-list intellectual. Harris was an a-list intellectual turned b-list due to TDS
Yeah, much like other gurus, he seems to think he's an expert on just about anything.
Noticed the same with Andrew Huberman 🙄
It's like the fame gets the best of them.
Very interesting conversation as always. Cheers, Sam.
And as usual the most interesting conversation starts right when the free part ends
@@matttzzz2 that's business for you
Your guest speaks exceptionally well! I was pleased to hear you both speak
This is one of the better ones you've ever done, Sam.
So stoked to see Jay on this podcast. Basically wrote my whole dissertation on that guy !
I wish you didn't. He is delusional like a moth in a bunch of christmas lights.
@@rogersimpson6509 he sounds like a vindictive little bitch when he is almost shouting as he tries to "prove" that there is no self, I mean wtf dude, we know that you want to believe that but you can't, no need to make such scene
🥺😳😳😮😧😯😲
The difficult part of this is reminding myself that free will is an illusion. When I listen to Sam, I can in that moment forgive even the worst mass murderer, only to wanting to harm the person who designed soap dispencers who aim straight forward instead of down a moment later.
the fact that you can logically deduce you have no "free will" (or rather, as Sam puts it well - it doesn't mean anything to say that some agent has "free will", the term itself is meaningless) -
has nothing to do necessarily with how you act or feel
just because you know that "free will" doesn't exist doesn't mean you will immediately start acting entirely based on that fact,
since other things determine your actions - such as your instincts, your emotions, and so on.
in fact, that's the entire point.
there is no single "you" - "you" is a result of a multitude of loosely linked mental faculties that combine together to form a "thinking machine" -
but each one of those acts semi-independently, providing its own input to the "feedback loop" that is your brain
the important thing is to reach correct understanding of the world ----
improving the way you act or feel to make it more in line with this understand might come with time, or might never come at all (and it won't be your fault).
@Jay Rodriguez Stop spamming...
The point of not having free will isn't at all to mean we must forgive every wrong action. Trying to exert free will over a lack of free will is just trying to pull one over on the game. You are better off trying to figure out the mechanism and why you feel how you do about things than you are with trying to change it. If you don't know how your foundation is laid then any building you do on top is dangerous.
Your free will is NOT an illusion because you have agency. Your will is limited and not totally free but you still can make choices regardless of those limits. The term "free will" is a misnomer plain and simple, BUT the choices you make can and do affect the world around you. Sometimes the effects of your choices manifest immediately, sometimes after some period of time , and sometimes the effects go unnoticed as a type of background noise. Through it all is your agency, your ability to make change happen, even now.
If free will is an illusion then why does Sam waste so much time debating and trying to change peoples minds? Glad you can forgive mass murderers though I guess mission successful?
The goal is to have a “centered self without being self-centered”. The difference is the direction of flow. A centered self is balanced and emergent, adding their unique talents and energy to life. The pejorative term self-centered implies a self that takes energy from their environment, selfishly adding nothing of themselves.
Hey it's Jay Garfield! Loved his TTC lecture series, Meaning of Life.
I've heard someone express a point of view that our mind comes FROM our body: As our brains grow and develop, its neurons arrange themselves in a manner dependant on the input they receive from the body, which is furthermore dependant on the body's interactions with the environment. So our brain and its content are inextricably linked to and controlled by the environment.
what about choice? animals make choices. the more intelligent and emotionally aware the animal, the more depth there is to their choices. certainly, sam is more or less accurately describing a fish, or another early product of evolution. but a great ape like ourselves is no bio-machine; our actions aren't easily reduced down to deterministic inevitabilities.
@@wizard4203 You said it- our behavior isn't "easily" understood by its physical antecedents. The physical world is complex. Numerous factors control our behavior.
Lots of people think nature deals us the cards, and it's our job to play them. But our capacity to play them has already been dealt us as well.
I myself used to work as a caregiver for people with intellectual disabilities. I had the experience of seeing concretely every day, the relationship between damage to specific brain structures and one's capacity for choice. Also consider strokes and related personality changes. And mental illnesses.
In ancient times, erratic behavior was regarded as demonic in origin. Now we understand schizophrenia and epilepsy: real world behavioral antecedents.
@@mongoharry wrong. this is not a conclusive statement. it is a large assumption, which is characteristic of determinist thinking.
@@wizard4203 That's an answer?
If the Big Bang Theory is correct, all the matter and energy present in the universe today is an expression of what existed at the inception. Matter dramatically increased in complexity over time.
Infintessimal fluctuations, according to chaos theory, can give rise to enormous, extremely difficult to predict changes later.
By definition, the universe is everything that exists. It sounds like you're asserting that something else was "injected" later. THAT would be a great assumption.
@@mongoharry the nature of the human consciousness is too big of a question to answer here.
we can at least say, no scientific data has proven consciousness has a deterministic foundation. in the words of theoretical physicist Brian Greene, consciousness is "still a complete mystery."
this is why i said you're wrong, and call your statement a mere assumption.
Self is what exists and the illusion is that we are the body and not Self. That is Maya and ignorance from previous several births. That is Advaitha. Self or Atman only exists.
Exactly. Believing there is no self is an idea of a reductionist idiot
When i see the word exist ,self,free will , god, win at social & political life. It's excited me the most , i am not nerd, I have readed very few books , but when ever i find book or videos on the topic, I never leave it.😏
I feel the same way about cocaine
Sam at the end:
"If you'd like to continue with this existential crisis, you'll have to pay for the full ride..."
Choose wisely. Oh, wait...
It is very liberating realizing that the self is an illusion.
It really is as well as the lack of free will.
He says to himself
@@ExistenceUniversity It is a strong illusion
@@ivankaramasov An illusion implies that you know the difference between real and fake. To say the self is an illusion is to say "I have seen a real self, and this version I am now seeing is a lot like but is different from the real thing." So what is the real thing that the 'self is illuding to?
@@ExistenceUniversity The self is that one is one entity coherent over time
finally you upload another video Sam Harris, I was waiting for this.
Good stuff. Thank you.... in 1951, when I was 10, in the fourth grade in Roxbury Kansas, and they were doing their best to break me, I decided to adhere to the Nuremberg code for the rest of my life... " it is the moral obligation of every human being to reject immoral orders. "... this solemn oath allowed me to survive with my character somewhat intact.
Based
And who defines morality?
@@croissants1280 ... It's pretty easy for any rational and decent person to tell right from wrong. Is this hard to do for you?
You're 80?
@@joedavis4150 rational and decent by whose judgment? Can you point to an absolute morality?
Starts at 3:15.
There's a recent video by Ajarn Amaro entitled 'Who Am I?' that explores the idea of the self and how it can be tracked back to nothingness. Much simpler and practical for anyone looking for a hands on approach.
Not to say that this video wasn't very interesting also. I really enjoyed the intelligent back and forth.
I appreciate that tip because I want to get it, but this didn't do that for me. Went and listened to him elsewhere and still doesn't click, his examples do not make sense, as Sam said.
I was thinking...
We (as information processors) process a disproportionate amount more sensory input within a certain radius, and there's the inevitability of touching and interacting with ourselves to cause feedback loops. It seems as if our pleasure reward/defence system is behind our sense of "want", and that "I" is to clarify which neural receptors exactly want feeding. So why do certain molecules feel nice or bad to us?
In cases of Alzheimer's or "split-brain" patients to name a couple, it's been well demonstrated how paradoxical the brain can behave, showing how thoughts are/can be retrieved only by asking the right questions. I've noticed how despite not having been diagnosed with any memory-related condition, I have noticed how occasionally I have needed to be asked a question in a certain way for me to acknowledge a phrase/word i've always known. It leads me to believe that we may all be on the spectrum in a way, and that what feels like a a cloud of consciousness which reports back to the same central governing body, might instead be millions of individual agents working autonomously who [as one of many parallel chains of command] each get the opportunity to act as the the main guy (mouth, arms etc).
It's been evident for quite a while that evolution "built" a very large number of brain-circuits optimized to do things that are unrelated to anything like "conscious" effort, and the idea of a central conductor or decision-maker inside the brain is fundamentally incorrect. For example, the cerebellum is clearly very specifically built to encode and store the rules about how bodily-motion works, and as it does so it makes extremely complex movements completely unconscious and gets them out of the way of the "thinking" part of the brain.
Absolutely there are many individual agents (or daemons, to use a slightly older term) which are working independently towards various ends without most people's knowledge.
Even looking at nothing but what appear to be the simplest "conscious reasoning" circuits, called "cortical columns," there are hundreds of thousands of them (if I recall correctly) in everyone's neocortex. That redundancy is very helpful in ensuring people don't lose all knowledge of some given thing after suffering injury or illness which wipes some of them out.
The self is not an illusion. An illusion doesn't mean that something does not exist but rather an illusion is something which doesn't appear to be what it is. When you use the word "illusion", you're defining something in relation to that thing which is considered to be real.
For example, on a hot summer's day, the road at a distance looks like there's water on it since it appears wet. Getting closer to the road, you then realize that the wetness you saw before was a mirage or an illusion. Since you're calling the wetness you saw before an illusion, then it's an illusion of what? Well, it's an illusion of water where water is considered to be a real thing and what you saw before was not real, thus an illusion.
To call the self an illusion, then what in relation to the self is it an illusion of?
So the self is really not an illusion but rather the self does not exist.
The illusion is separation. The material world is an illusion and the boundless conscious awareness known as the self is the ‘real,’ though Buddhists challenge even that and say that the self is an illusion and you do not exist at all
👍
It is a construct. The self as a consistent persistent phenomenon is an illusion. As the author explains is it something which is constructed by the mind on the fly as is necessary for expediency. It is not a soul or a persistent part of our makeup. IMOP. No criticism indented, just my reading. Glad to hear corrections. Bring them
.
I might be missing something, but I think Jay Garfield clearly addressed this at the start. We exist as a person, just a brain and body. But, it appears to us that we are something more than just a brain and body. A self that has a brain, and has a body.
Therefore, you are right, the self doesn't exist. But, like the water in the mirage, it is an illusion as it appears to exist, until you get closer and see the reality.
One of your top 10 talks for sure even though I have to look up the meaning of some words. Thanks.
Do not argue with anyone in private, you will not convince them, argue in public to convince others.
Glad Covid wasn't too bad Sam.
Don't overdo things in the following weeks - better chance to avoid long Covid...
Enjoyed the episode btw. Def one of those to listen to again.
The state of being one with the Self... Those who have experienced the Turiya stage of self-consciousness have reached the pure awareness of their own non-dual Self as one with everyone and everything, for them the knowledge, the knower, the known becomes one, they are the enlightened Immortals...
Nope. No matter what feeling you experience, no matter what philosophy you embrace, then you die and you no longer exist. The specific combination of chemicals that makes you 'you', dissolves and is no longer existent. Like pieces of a mosaic. The mosaic is the mosaic only when the pieces stick together, but not after they're separated, same with a person, only a gazillion times more comples. People just take up philosophy and art to help themselves deal with mortality.
I am currently majoring in philosophy at a major private University. The semester I spent reading the Buddhist philosophy was excellent and really opened my eyes to the different perspectives on meta-physics that people use
So....what are you going to do for money with your philosophy degree? Teach spoilt kids for low pay? Write a book and hope it does well? Become Aristotle?
We observe. Self is another thing we observe.
For what it’s worth, my perspective, Through shattering my self-concept via spiritual breakthrough. I have come to learn, I was a prisoner for 11 years….There is no objective self, identity, no objective sense of self. Only possible through the mind, consciously understood or not.
The mind is the author, through consciousness we are the editor.
The only identity that I say I am in line with reality, is the person, the human being.
The mind is a machine, you are the driver. If you can’t find your keys, the machine (mind) will produce infinite amount of reasons to be mad, but, the machine (mind) does not know what YOU want, it’s just providing a Function, then you can turn into your values to the present moment and pivot and direct then you and the mind can be into life and not a spectator to circumstance. Once this is understood, you can LIBERATE and LIVE the life YOU want.
To appreciate you and the mind in harmony but with hierarchy in finality of outcome. YOU are the one who is the driver, but the mind drives and we get lost, become blind.
To see it as this, the mind doesn’t know what YOU want, it knows what it’s function is. You change to what you want, you teach the mind HOW it needs to function and that it is NOT in the drivers seat. But important to feel what needs to be felt, listen to mind with openness, compassion, and make the adjustments that your reality requires.
Then you find yourself in Love with both sides of the human. To liberate towards potential and freedom from infinite Destruction of the mind.
You are LOVE, it’s deep inside of you, keep asking questions, with your eyes open, arms open wide, to be with. We are all on our own journey, I know you are capable of liberation.
With Love, liberation, I wish you all the best in life,
Tyler
Hi Sam. Could awakening be that the sense of “I am”, which can take infinite perspectives, settles back into the quiet of the formless perspective, therefore the experience becomes whatever arises is the present? Nothing actually changing but perspective
From the perspective of the “Will” (which is being channelled to obtain the best outcome for the individual) it is completely free and choosing the most favourable outcome according to the known factors at the time.
I don't believe in "free will" but I am strongly libertarian. Each person is an intensely complex biological computer with a unique and biased view of the universe. On some greater level our behavior is an expression of the universe, those who intend to control and guide that are megalomaniacs with the same limitations as the rest of us.
Political/social free will is real, no one in their right mind denies that. It's so-called "metaphysical free will" that is undefinable.
As am I. Libertarianism would also work with conventional individual existence, as a framework to resolve conflict. This would be Hoppe’s theoretical contribution , to use intersubjectivity and communication as a basis for conflict resolution.
I shit therefore I am.
Great talk overall. Thanks.
@7:00 No. Buddhism is not the origin of no self.
1500 BC - Vedic period, origins of Advaita developed
800-300 BC - Vedic texts "Upanishads" were composed - containing central conceptual roots for Hinduism and Buddhism
c. 563/480 - c. 483/400 BC :Gautama Buddha was born.
During the period between 2000 BCE - 1000 BCE, 4 distinct Vedas were compiled; Rig Veda (composed of hymns), Yajur Veda (sacrificial formulae), Sama Veda (melodies) and the Atharva Veda (incantations) . It is the Rig Veda, consisting of 1,071 hymns divided into ten books or mandalas, which comprises the knowledge basis of "Oneness" and the Advaita doctrine of Vedanta (the philosophy contained at the end of the Vedas)
I looked at the tiny elephant in my hand and chuckled, it was so cute when it reared up on its hind legs
I’m still confused on this concept. I sort of “get it,” but there doesn’t seem to be much here. Are we just one self experiencing itself as individual persons? This seems like supernatural mumbo jumbo. I can’t wrap my head around it. But apparently I don’t have a head according to Sam. I’m so confused.
It's just that all is in flux.
Including self.
Which is just streams of thoughts emotions, thoughts, sensations, perceptions etc.
It's not that you don't have a self. It's that that self isn't fixed.
I can imagine all sorts of false things. That doesn't mean I believe any of them even for an instant.
There's a still centre in us all which is beyond thought and words.
We can call it presence or awareness etc, but it is beyond description. It just is.
"That what is" is really the experiencer of life in us all!
One can call it the higher self, to give it a label, but it is a mystery what it is. It is always here, whether we're still, or whether the mind is busy, from birth to death. It is our still centre, with other words, there is no self or no "I" or me.
Who we all generally think we are, is due to identification with thought, but that is an illusion.
Everything disappears when we're asleep, or with mental illness like Alzheimer's etc.
When this is realised it is obvious, and equally a mystery.
Such a great explainer.
Been a big San Harris fan for decades and never miss a podcast but this one lost me. I have no idea what they are on about.
Sam said they'd explain it for the layperson but they didn't.
in your experience,is there a thinker of thoughts ?
@@robertjsmith yes it's me. I think thoughts inside my head. What am I missing?
This is driving me crazy that I don't get this. I just listened to the first half hour about 3 or 4 more times skipping back and forth to the parts I think at the most important. Still got no idea.
@@tomgrant6563 actual here and now experience about reality ,are not the same as what thought says
are you the author of thoughts?
is thought aware of what it says?
Sam agrees with the Calvinists! There is no ultimate free will!
one of the few scholars who understands that notself does not negate real persons
Check out Brad Stanfield's longevity videos. Hopefully Sam invites him to podcast, Brad is a medical doctor.
so random but I agree
That's an Attia thing.
Buddhism was born in a collectivist society, and brought to the west, an individualistic society. This context is crucial and also is a metaphor for the beautiful tension between the soul and the ego. They are inexorably intertwined.
As far as I'm concerned consciousness is the self
consciousness is an illusion as well
Yes, you do! If interpretations of neuroscience suggest that what we know is true isn't true, then we should change those interpretations.
The only thing that is is the self. Everything else radiates out from there, whether by distance or time. The moment is the only time which exists. It’s upsetting to me that the existence of the self would be reduced to “person” inside of an experienced world.
An Illusion/Mirage realizing it's an Illusion or a Mirage. Very interesting. Seems like these Illusions or Mirages have spent alot of time thinking of themselves that don't actually exist.
I clicked it faster than pulling my hands out of a hot pot .
So did I.
Not happy I did.
Does the ego exist?
@Highland Bullterrier
A syrupy retort.
It definitely exists, just doesn't define you or me wholly.
@@bytefu
How should one's ego be dealt with?
@@jeffersonianideal You dont
@@jeffersonianideal You cant.You want to get rid of it well you have to die
The awareness of self is surely a natural extension of the requirement that for life to survive, the structures involved in DNA processes have to be maintained. With the presence of potential pathogens in the external environment, an organism must possess the means to neutralize these - and ONLY these. This is the molecular expression of self-recognition. The psychological self arises out of this
What is this artwork of the eye? That’s lovely.
What’s the point of these interviews after Jim Newman’s one ?
around when I was first introduced to this notion, someone I hardly knew told me 'you THINK your self is real but I KNOW it's not' over the phone. i paused not really knowing what to say, and when I started talking again they cut me off and repeated it 😅
This is the good stuff.
This conversation was mostly baffling, but the more I listen the more I start to understand. I also love to hear two zealots discussing a topic they obviously love. Ol' Sam feels obligated to crush the moron Trump as well as the woke mob, but this is the type of discussion he clearly loves.
Love that you tackle the blameworthiness of god and how the religious are so desperate to protect god from blame. In their desperation, they spawned the lie of free will. And propagate it to this very day.
Good thing the religious didn’t have the free will to be in a state of desperation, and good thing we can’t blame them for that 😏
@@JarrodDSchneider This is true.
They mean the self that you are aware that others are aware of
I'm unvaxxed and had COVID, it wasn't an unpleasant experience for me, nothing at all similar to a COVID experience others have described.
We knew from the beginning many with covid had no symptoms. Bad for some, nothing for others.
Thanks for sharing
He doesn’t want to face up to the fact that he’s been conned, and played Russian roulette for no reason.
@@Mac-ku3xu it was an easy decision for me to refuse the vaccine based on what I knew about myself....I knew I was taking no risk. It was easy to see through the lies & deceit from early 2020. My "risk" paid off.
@alex timer striking how Mr. Harris automatically attributed his experience of covid as ameliorated by his vaccinations and boostings as a stone cold fact rather than an assumption unsupported and unsupportable by direct irrefutable scientific confirmation. Might that be another symptom of his long TDS?
Sam Harris gives me serious cognitive dissonance. I was a fan for fifteen years. How can someone who speaks so eloquently, precisely and insightfully about the self that is not a self--and about how experiencing this insight can alleviate all kinds of suffering--and who also seems very preoccupied with moral behavior, simultaneously be peddling experimental injections pushed by a corrupt corporatocracy in league with unelected plutocrats and oligarchs who have--unilaterally--decided humanity's course? The data about covid vaccine injuries is pouring in--it is no longer the stuff of "conspiracy theorists". An agenda is at work here, and I need Sam to come clean on his stance. What are his private rationalizations for participating in this evil? Maybe he thinks all this suffering is justified when compared to the greater suffering he thinks will result if humanity were not so coerced? What mental gymnastics is he performing? Or is he perhaps using not-self as a kind of escape hatch--a cauterizing, if you will, or cremation of care?
Cry me a river
Except there are actually nowhere near as many injuries from Covid vaccines as you're trying trying to imply. Vaccines have been very effective
I didn't get the vax, and caught covid. It wasn't even as bad as a cold. So thank Jah I didn't get the vax, could have been a lot worse.
Thank you for this video :)
From a country in the south of Africa, I haven't a bank account, I can't afford to subscribe in your website but I would like to listen to the full episode.
There is quite a bit of Jay Garfield on RUclips if you do a search.. enjoy 😊
I have subscribed to your youtube channel at least 4x now and someone how I keep getting removed. Someone at RUclips is not a fan of your work.
11:20 If it exists then doesn’t one Have to concede tha reality? I’ve had cataract surgery I can barely type and the speech to text on my iPhone 8+ isn’t very concise. I would really like to elaborate more but I fear it’s just going to turn into gibberish, which I must admit is very similar to my normal modality of speech.
This is the most radical idea. Buddha must be genius to come up with it 2500 years ago
What is it exactly that can discover there is no self if there is no self?
I never understand to me calling myself self after knowing I have no self at centre ( controlling sitting ,inside ) it just feeling created by brain and when we said object it's object to whom,if someone observingg then or it's just observance I mean it's mystery whn did we develop this illusory world
Animals make a model of the world around them for the purpose of moving through it to gather the necessities for life (and to avoid danger). Those that don’t do this perish without reproducing; evolution forgets them. The self is an hypothesis constructed to represent the animal inside that model of the world. In the model, there is a self. But the world is not a model. In the world, all of the universe is continuous; there is no self/other distinction, it’s all one thing. We don’t live in the world, we live in the model.
You don't know that the universe is continuous
@@mau5che - Without a substantive comment, you are just trolling.
Does anyone understand this?
Sam stated that the self wasn't in this unknown area inside the head where we imagine it to be ... but why shouldn't it be there? If there is some physical material inside us that would cause us to lose our (model of) self when damaged, then surely the self can protect this material the best if it is actually is where the self expects it to be? Natural selection does appear to have equipped us with the sensory systems, reactions, and bone structure to protect this area too.
Okay but are we to have no concept of ourselves? Like, you guys are certainly passionate about this and it certainly seems to somewhat exemplify “who” you guys are with the things you identify with and pursue. Just one of the questionS I have! Love Sam just trying to understand better! Any response would be appreciated! Thanks.
And maybe the point is you’re not born with a self internally instead it is only constructed through experience therefore the idea of having a self is actually an illusion constructed by external forces
@@sethroberts627 you realise there is no inherent self,when you realise there is no inherent self to realise it
I perceive some comparable concepts that align with The Case Against Reality by Donald Hoffman and the game changing research of Lisa Feldman Barrett in Seven and a Half Lessons and How Emotions are Made.
I think they are both avowed physicalists as Sam flatly stated that the self is embedded in an unquestioned physical reality. Hoffman is unquestionably in the idealist camp and posits that matter is derivative of greater consciousness.
Sam Harris’s dogmatic position is unfortunate and I believe it explains why from all I heard from him I never sensed that he could take that full unfolded stand in consciousnesses. Ultimately under this paradigm consciousness-even when correctly discerned as pure awareness rather than a psychological construct - is still just a magical meaningless “ghost” emerging from the random causal flux of matter and nothing else. Oneness is only completely whole within the correct metaphysics-the physical constraints of the materialist ontological model are existentially binding and cannot be limitless.
This is dangerous thinking. How long is forever? What is space without a boundary?
You cannot answer a relative question with truth (absolute). When all questions are destroyed then what? Nothing (everything)
The paradox is there is no paradox. You would do yourself a favor by looking at the white background of this then trying to figure out the black symbols.
Sam, if you enjoyed this you can donate to me. I am donation based.🙃
That was extremely interesting! Thank you!
Is this also on the Waking up app?
All conscious beings exist in 2 states at once. The individual consciousness of the components on the body and the entangled whole that we call the self. The brain integrates all the senses that allows us to exist in the 4 dimensions. Consciousness itself exists in a timeless space and it's anchored to reality thru the entanglement with the wave. Death is the disentanglement of the "self" with the wave.
All this philosophising is good but Naropa didn’t get enlightened until he left Nalanda and found the madman crazy wisdom yogi Tilopa. There must be room for logic and magic equally or the path is not complete.
Physics has shown a reliance on consciousness as demonstrated repeatedly in the double slit experiment. So I think you do have to take that into account beyond simply materialism.
That's a misinterpretation of that experiment. "Observer" in the quantum mechanics sense doesn't imply "consciousness" in any way--it refers to interaction with other forces/particles. Our understanding of the "big three" theories of physical interaction are inadequate, anyway, though, so you certainly couldn't draw much of a conclusion about the implications of that experiment either way.
There is a least one very misleading interpretation of the double-slit experiment, which armchair 'woo-woo' scientists use in order to sell books.
If you can accept that there is no free will, then it isn't consciousness itself which is affecting the experiment, but the physical actions of the observer. And those actions are themselves simply inevitable events predicated on previous events, etc.
oh dear I wish I 'got' it' from their conversation. Must be me that's just very dumb. Thanks for trying Mr Harris. appreciated.
Alan Watts talks about this in his many lectures and weighs heavy on the side if we are it but we don't know it. Difficult to comprehend.
The moment you realize you're perfectly free to be stuck or not stuck, then you're unstuck.
The person on which I am hitchhiking is a 320 lb. food addict. Based on this, how do I get it to work out? Telling it to, ain't workin.....based on my understanding of Sam, it is a product of all the experiences up through June 26, 2022 and why would "I" think "I" could make it change???
It is not dangerous but good to feel pride and guilt where it is deserved It is not wrong to judge others bad behavior. We must struggle to overcome our own programming and circumstances to grow and become free agents. We can not accept that we have no free will or else we are mere monkeys!
There is a free will to get off the couch and mirror the flow of life. The false self loves sofas.
You guys should check out Tony Parsons in the U.K.
Sam please release full thing and skip the pay wall. I cannot afford and I've messaged your team with no response. Miss your free meditations.
Alan Watts spoke that way many years ago.
Does Method Man flow like the Hudson?
If the self is an illusion, who benefits from meditation?
It'd be so funny if he started with...
"Do you really have a self?
Uhhh... Nope!"
And just let music run for an hour.
It's the philosophy of Duh, No shit!
So basically simply yet thousands and thousands still need a elemental introduction to the very ideas of interdependence.
Nice work Sam and Jay.
The self is not an illusion, it's the only thing that's really real. Guess this is the difference between Vedanta and Buddhism. Just seems to me that denying the existence of the self can't but lead to paradoxes, especially in the realm of language where the self or subject is the basis of everything.
Cool! Good to see some more meditation type content again :)
🤮
@@alextimer8055 why are you here
@@emuccino because I’m alive & have to be somewhere. Weirdo.
@@alextimer8055 That doesn't mean you have to be here 👇.
@@emuccino Wow, you came up with that all on your own? 🤣🥸
It’s funny how you people that buy into all the esoteric BS have such problems dealing with people you don’t like. 🤣 Now, go meditate. 🧘♀️ 🤣🤣
44:21 Augustinian theodicy posits the modern idea of free will (voluntas) in order to get God off the hook for the garden of Eden.
fuck it, I'll listen
No serious evaluation of the self (the idea of the self) can be carried out without taking into account the works of the late Carlos Castaneda.
This was one of the most life changing conversations I've ever listened to. Thanks a lot. I'm looking forward to reading Jay's new book, hoping it will help me live without a self. Western philosophy was among my tools a few years back, and now I'm very deep into mindfulness and yoga. I hope this book opens a new chapter where I can reunite spiritual practice and philosophy.
You should deffinitely check out Alan Watts.
45:00
This one should be on Waking Up 🧘♂️
The full conversation is on Waking Up under Theory/Conversations (at least in my app).👍
@@nathangreene2626 Oh I just found it there! thanks man :)