My (only) big problem with Sam Harris' "Waking Up" book

I'm re-reading Sam Harris' Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.

Having read it first in 2014, I wanted to see if I looked upon the book any differently now -- having altered my views about meditation, consciousness, and such during the past few years.

Well, I'm still having a problem with how Harris looks upon consciousness. It's pretty much the same problem I talked about in "Questions I had in Sam Harris' 'Waking Up' meditation chapter."

It sure seems in the "In fact..." passage that Harris is touting the good that comes from feeling that he is a subject with awareness, who looks upon sadness or fear as a content of the consciousness that he is not, he being consciousness itself.

Well, I have no idea what "consciousness itself" could be like. Yet in various places in his book Harris implies that consciousness isn't just the workings of the mind/brain, even though he also says that no one is sure what consciousness is.

This bothered me. It appeared to bring back a big dose of dualism into "Waking Up" that wasn't much different from the soul-body dualism Harris had decried in earlier chapters.

For now Harris was implying that there is (1) consciousness and (2) what consciousness knows. In order for this to be true, rather than just a belief, seemingly there would have to be demonstrable evidence that consciousness can be separated from any and all objects or contents of consciousness. 

Let's be clear: Sam Harris considers that the brain produces consciousness. He doesn't show any sign of believing in a transcendent non-physical consciousness (like soul or spirit) which exists apart from the brain. So I have no problem with this aspect of Harris' view of consciousness.

But as I said in the previous post, I can't grasp what Harris is getting at when he writes about what he experienced while meditating:

There were periods during which all thought subsided, and any sense of having a body disappeared. What remained was a blissful expanse of conscious peace that had no reference point in any of the usual sensory channels. 

Many scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness is always tied to one of the five senses -- and that the idea of a "pure consciousness" apart from seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching is a category error and a spiritual fantasy. I am confident that they are mistaken.

Hmmmm. I'm just as confident that they are not mistaken.  It seems obvious that everyday consciousness isn't limited to sense experiences. Dreaming is a conscious act. It doesn't involve seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, or touching via the five senses. 

Likewise, I can believe that in a state of deep meditation, Sam Harris did indeed lose any sense of having a body, and wasn't thinking in any ordinary sense. But Harris was still conscious of something, right? He speaks of this as "a blissful expanse of conscious peace." 

That doesn't sound like "pure consciousness." It sounds like consciousness of a blissful expanse of conscious peace. No thought. No sensory impressions. But there were contents within Harris' consciousness: bliss, an expanse, peace.

Harris appears to view consciousness as something separate and distinct from what the brain does. Yet Harris makes clear that brains are us. For example:

We know, of course, that human minds are the product of human brains. There is simply no question that your ability to decode and understand this sentence depends upon neurophysiological events taking place inside your head at this moment. But most of this mental work occurs entirely in the dark, and it is a mystery why any part of the process should be attended by consciousness.

This passage makes good sense. Aside from the final part of the last sentence. 

Harris sees a mystery where there doesn't have to be one. He distinguishes between (1) brain processes and (2) consciousness. But if consciousness is a product of the human brain, not something separate and distinct from the brain, then consciousness is part of what the brain does.

Consciousness is a brain process.

Another book I'm reading, Paul Singh's The Great Illusion: The Myth of Free Will, Consciousness, and the Self, has a more accurate way of looking upon consciousness.

Unscientific philosophy has been able to talk about "consciousness" ever since the word was invented during the Middle Ages. For centuries, this consciousness (mind or soul) has been credited with possessing all sorts of unnatural and immaterial features and powers.

Philosophical discussions of consciousness down to this day have a common strategy: start from the claim that this consciousness has key features that aren't simply examples of being aware or sentient or thoughtful about what is going on, and then claim that only a second kind of mental reality can explain those peculiar features.

Philosophers make this claim appear intuitive and hard to deny. It's so easy to convert being "conscious" into "consciousness" just by adding the suffix "ness" to that word. The English language makes it easy to convert an adjective into a noun. What else can the suffix "ness" get attached to, in order [to] make a new thing seem to pop into its own existence?

If that apple looks red, then why can't that apple have redness. Then why can't we just detach that redness and suppose that redness can be its own sort of entity, quite apart from red things like apples? After this linguistic magic, philosophers can then say things like, "I see the red apple in front of me, but I can also be conscious of that redness as well, and that redness is something else besides any apple's color."

And where is this extra redness, if it isn't something in the apple itself?

Likewise, Sam Harris seems to believe that consciousness is something "extra" that gets added on to brain processes. Otherwise, why would Harris speak about "pure consciousness"? 

Here's another passage from Singh's book which speaks to this issue.

Complaining that psychology can't explain why red things look red to our brains is like complaining that a chef who has demonstrated how to combine and cook all the ingredients of a casserole still hasn't explained why a casserole has come out of the oven.

Casseroles simply are what get produced by that precise cooking procedure. Conscious experiences simply are what get produced by environments stimulating brains to deal with ongoing events.

I'm with Singh.

Harris has an extensive history of meditating under the tutelage of various teachers. He has left behind most of the mystical crap that was part of those teachings, but seemingly not all of it. Harris' attachment to "consciousness" being something distinct from what the brain does appears to be a holdover from those earlier Buddhist days. 

This is another Paul Singh quote that makes a lot of sense to me.

Being conscious is necessary for enjoying life, but consciousness isn't something that people have. Biologically and psychologically, it only makes sense to say that an animal can consciously enjoy eating food, but it is the eating of food that is enjoyed and not the consciousness as well.

We don't say, "That meal was a pleasure to eat, and my consciousness of eating was pleasurable too." There is no such thing as consciousness as yet another thing for us to enjoy. We simply enjoy the things around us. It is the food that is enjoyable, not the consciousness of the food.

Similarly, when I open my eyes and look at an apple on the table in front of me, I see the apple, not a consciousness of the apple. There aren't two things, a seen apple and a consciousness of the apple, involved here. If I say, "The apple is in my consciousness," I can only mean to say "I see the apple," or "The apple is in my range of vision."

Imagine a psychologist asking a subject to look at that apple on the table, and then asking, "Don't tell me whether you see the apple. I'm sure that you see the apple. I just want you to tell me if the apple is in your consciousness." 

Surely this would be a joke. Seeing the apple is just being conscious of the apple. Having consciousness is simply being conscious of what's going on. There is no such thing as consciousness over and above simply being alive and aware of one's surroundings.

Comments

[Phil]

While may be only lightly relevant to this post, I have posted many years ago about my RSSB experiences and why I stopped following their path. I had many issues that just did not add up to the teachings
In the intervening time, I have been using my professional scientific skills (I have published papers at University of Cambridge, and so have some idea about scientific process) to make thorough investigation of the teachings of Sant Mat. This has taken some years and been quite challenging, however, I have reached a conclusion that consists of two parts:
1. I fully agree with your choice of your wording in this article, when you write "I can't grasp . . . . " This is absolutely valid statement and reflects back on the investigator, not what is being investigated
2. I have accumulated enough scientifically sound evidence that demonstrates without any doubt that the teachings of RSSB are correct and accurate.
I have had the impression that your blog is absolutely not intended to be biased in any way, but open for intelligent dialogue.
It is for this reason that I would appreciate this post being published to put into balance the words I had written and that you also published when I was very much in the state of "I can't grasp".
Kindly yours
Phil

[Turan]

Yes, Paul Singh does make a good point regarding the suffix ‘ness’. Adding ‘ness’ to being conscious does create a quality that most likely does not exist. We can know we are conscious but need not add the extra dimension of conscious’ness’ giving the impression of it being an entity in its own right.

Regarding Sam Harris’s ‘pure consciousness’ experience, I understand that through the practice of meditation it can happen that the poor old overworked brain processes that bombard us with information (mind activity) and maintaining a sense of self may involuntary relax. Temporarily freed from frantic ‘self’ conscious promotional thinking may be responsible for ‘blissful peace’.

Meditation (the practice or training to be aware of the processes that form the mind and self structure – a non-religious definition) is said to help identify habitual thought patterns allowing one to think and act differently and perhaps experience peace or bliss – but it is still brain activity. No separate entities as mind, self, free will or consciousness need be evoked.

I like Singh’s summing up at the end of his book. “Our brains do in fact give us free will, the experience of consciousness and the sense of self. These are simple facts. But we must never forget that it is the brain that does all this.”

[Andrew]

“Our brains do in fact give us free will, the experience of consciousness and the sense of self. These are simple facts. But we must never forget that it is the brain that does all this.”

----How is free will being defined in this passage? Likewise, we can have experiences through our brain activity consciousness. A sense of self comes from such brain consciousness too.

" Meditation (the practice or training to be aware of the processes that form the mind and self structure – a non-religious definition) is said to help identify habitual thought patterns allowing one to think and act differently and perhaps experience peace or bliss -----------"

----During a meditation event, one gets training to be aware of processes? Where in the brain does this identity of habitual thought patterns occur? Could we engage in another activity to obtain the same results?

[Turan]

My understanding and fluctuating opinions of free will (that change as and when new facts emerge) are :- Who we are, or turn out to be - is formed in early years through genetics and environment. These factors produce the structure and connections that are our brains - us. From here choices and decisions arise - but there is no separate controlling entity involved such as a conscious self or mind.

Are such choices free in the light of there being no separate, immaterial chooser - or is the material, programmed brain - the whole body/brain organism the authentic me? It certainly chooses, but is it free? Perhaps not in the pedantic sense that we would want.

The self, mind, free will exist in that I can say "I am me", "I have free will", "I use my mind" and "I am conscious". But like a dog chasing its own tail so the foregoing concepts go around and around - as there is also apparently no "I" to own these things.

And meditation, perhaps its just being aware, just watching or observing thoughts, actions or even being aware of the watching. And who knows? where or how it occurs in the brain (although interesting) is in the realm of the brain sciences.

[Andrew]

Thanks Turan,

"The self, mind, free will exist in that I can say "I am me", "I have free will", "I use my mind" and "I am conscious."

---Yes, you can say, "I am me, I use my mind, etc." And, I have the freedom to choose and make choices. However, how do you have free will? How are you defining free will in the above statement?

[Turan]

I think the important thing here is that the free will inquiry should lay to rest the assumption that there exists a separate, non-physical entity (self, soul, mind, conscious subject and so on) that chooses and makes decisions.
This may generally be difficult as I understand that a characteristic of our brains is to believe - apparently to do with being part of the group and various cognitive biases. So there will still be magical and fundamentalist thinking for quite a while yet!

Personally, I take the view that there is no absolute free will - only a will that is determined by our particular brains. So how free is that? Not absolute I guess.

Interestingly, what may be the best we can do with our programmed brains is to train ourselves to be aware. At the minimum this could allow us to question the beliefs and stories that are fed to us and the assumptions we make.

[Pierrick]

Hello,

I think you are mistaken :) . I'm with Harris on that one. One has to have the experience he is referring to in order to understand his claim. But I'll try to explain the misunderstanding as best as I can.

The "blissful expanse of conscious peace" is not a content of consciousness. It is not something to be conscious of. It is not an object of consciousness.
Your objection sounds good: if it is not something he is aware of, then how can he claim that it was an experience of bliss and not an experience of supreme horror? How can he say that it is a positive experience and not a negative experience? How can it be a goal, something to aim for, if it is not distinct from bad experiences? It seems that one cannot claim that it is not an "object of consciousness", and also claim that it is the nirvana you're looking for.
Well... Your objection is based on a misunderstanding, I think. The experience he is referring to is not "peaceful" in the ordinary sense of the word, not "bliss" in the ordinary sense of the word. It might as well be called "a supreme sense of horror", if anything ! When he says "bliss", you are probably trying to simulate that feeling with empathy in order to understand what he is talking about, and what you come up with is a content of consciousness. Sam Harris is indicating something different : it is not an emotion, not a sensation, not a thought pattern... Objection: What else is there ? Why can he say that it is the best thing there is ? "Best" as opposed to what ?

Well...What Sam Harris is getting at, I think, is that, in one way or another, this experience is what you're looking for. When your ego is acting up it produces a distinction between "good" and "bad" based on what it wants. When this distinction, among other things, subside, you land somewhere where there is no "good" or "bad". The "guru" is going to name that "good" or "peace" because that is what you are, in fact, looking for, when you think you want a "thing". It is a "relief" which is nothing like ordinary relief. Again, it might as well be called "horror". But the meditation students will run away, not knowing that it is what they want when they say "i want to be happy (= pleasant feelings, sensations, thoughts)". No word can describe it, therefore: it is best to use the word which indicates its functional use. It is the end-goal, let's call it happiness then.

I think consciousness is not necessarily "being conscious of something". If it were, then "being conscious of something" would be impossible! The light of consciousness cannot be intrinsic to mental processes, otherwise there would be no light. I wish I was articulate enough to express how the intuition Sam Harris talks about indicates it clearly. Words fail me. Phenomenology is difficult :) !
Basically, the idea is that consciousness is fundamentally non-intentional, and that it is only that property of consciousness which allows intentionality to happen.

You write "Harris' attachment to "consciousness" being something distinct from what the brain does appears to be a holdover from those earlier Buddhist days." ! In fact, you are the one who claims that what the brain does is intrinsically conscious, "auto-luminous" the Buddhists would say. You are closer to Buddhists ideas than him. He studied Dzogchen, a Buddhist doctrine which is much more like Advaita-Vedanta.

Thanks for the article ;) ! Keep up the good work.