Summary of the book "Making Sense"- By Sam Harris

Key Insights in this book:

1.  It is still unclear what consciousness' role in evolution is.
2. It's conceivable that inanimate objects, including animals, have consciousness.
3. We might someday develop superintelligent machines that appear to be conscious.
4. We are considerably more divided than we'd like to think.
5. The idea of free will has no biological foundation.
6. Sometimes racism isn't open and clear.
7. Societies must use extreme caution when approving tyranny.
8. Future technological advancements might bring about the end of the world.
9. We can better understand the universe's surprising realities with the aid of math and physics.
10. Anything is possible with enough knowledge.

Why should I care? An enlightening investigation into the history, universe, and the human psyche.

On the campus of a university, each department is housed in a separate structure. The boundaries between fields are still clearly delineated, and the disciplines remain mostly isolated. But as soon as you leave the campus, something is different: reality isn't at all divided in that way.

Interdisciplinary thinking is required to really understand the universe and our thoughts. The concepts that have gained traction in our cultures, both harmful and beneficial, need to be critically examined. It is specifically our responsibility to evaluate harmful concepts, swap them out for better ones, and build a better environment for everyone.

These insights touch on a few of the major topics covered in the Making Sense podcast, which features discussions between author Sam Harris and numerous guests. They will cover a wide range of topics, including consciousness, selfhood, dictatorship, artificial intelligence, and more.

You'll learn along the way that everyone you know is made of numbers, that free will is an illusion, and why thermostats might be sentient.

1. It is still unclear what consciousness' role in evolution is.

Let's begin with an apparently straightforward question that turns out to be quite challenging to answer: Who or what is conscious?

The terms "sentience," "awareness," "subjectivity," and "experience" are all used interchangeably. However, these are not definitions of consciousness; rather, they are merely synonyms for it.

What Is It Like to Be a Bat?, written by Thomas Nagel in 1974, provides a more accurate description. In it, Nagel defines consciousness as the notion that there "is something it is like to be" any given organism, in his words. As an illustration, consider what it is and feels like to be you. However, there isn't anything that has the sensation of being, say, a glass of water on a desk.

It goes without saying that identifying consciousness is only the first step towards fully comprehending what it is.

The main takeaway from this is that consciousness' role in evolution remains obscure.

The hotly contested "hard problem of consciousness" was first raised by philosopher David Chalmers at the beginning of the 1990s. Chalmers questioned: Why does awareness even begin to exist? We have a strong sense that we are perceiving the world subjectively. Why, in terms of evolution, is that the case?

If we compare the hard problem to what Chalmers dubbed the "easy problems" of consciousness, the hard problem becomes more apparent. These are concerns about how we act and work, and they may be comprehended by looking into the internal workings of our brains. Consider eyesight as an example. When we see, light energy is transformed into neurochemical processes, and the visual field is mapped onto the necessary portions of the brain’s visual cortex. We comprehend these practical elements of conscious experience, yet the challenging issue still exists.

Consciousness can be viewed as an epiphenomenon, or more simply, as a result of the enormous quantities of processing that go on in our brains. Similar to the smoke that comes from a vintage steam engine, it contributes to the overall structure without actually moving things along.

However, this isn't the only option. Anil Seth, a neuroscientist, offers a different hypothesis. According to him, consciousness may help the brain achieve its ultimate purpose of maintaining and regulating the internal state of the body. Our emotions identify something important in our conscious experience, our brains foresee the possible outcomes, and we choose how to respond.

Take the fundamental feeling of revulsion, for example. That sensation is your body's attempt to protect itself by avoiding something it perceives as toxic or dangerous, like decaying food or an open wound.

It seems clear that evolution gave us consciousness for a purpose. But is it only present in humans?

2. It's conceivable that inanimate objects, including animals, have consciousness.

Think about the word "memory." This term is typically used to refer to our brain's ability for memory storage. Intuitively, we believe that remembering what we ate the night before and knowing how to swing a tennis racket serve essentially the same purpose. These two types of remembering, however, are very different neural processes.

We've continually been shown to be mistaken regarding our own thinking throughout history. No exemption applies to our views regarding awareness. For instance, many individuals once believed that our linguistic abilities and consciousness must be inextricably linked. However, that is obviously untrue.

Here is the main idea: It's conceivable that inanimate objects, including animals, have consciousness.

The biological components that make up humans are the same in all people. It is logical to attribute consciousness to each of them as a result. But can we claim for sure that something like a fruit fly is conscious?

On this issue, scientists disagree sharply. Anil Seth, a neuroscientist, believes it is undeniable that all mammals have conscious experiences—at the very least. After all, our neuroanatomy and neurophysiology are largely the same. Language may have a significant role in human awareness, but it is not the essential prerequisite for consciousness.

When we talk about animals that are quite different from us biologically, things become more hazy. For instance, several bird species exhibit complex behaviour that may indicate consciousness. Then there are octopuses, which are intelligent and have a large number of neurons, but which, with their eight appendages and jet propulsion, have nothing in common with humans. The octopus is very certainly conscious, but not in the same manner that we are.

Deeper and deeper you go, the question of whether consciousness exists everywhere will finally surface.

This hypothesis is an example of the panpsychism theory, which holds that consciousness is a fundamental property of physics. IIT, also known as integrated information theory, is a theory that backs it up. The quantity of information a system can handle is measured mathematically by a term called phi, according to neuroscientist Giulio Tononi. When phi rises to a certain level, an organism develops consciousness. According to philosopher David Chalmers, since information is processed by this theory, it is conceivable that even a straightforward device like a thermostat may be conscious.

Why is any of this relevant? In any case, it will be crucial as we go toward a day when there will be superintelligent AI that may or may not be conscious.

3.We might someday develop superintelligent machines that appear to be conscious.

Could we create a tool that tells us something is exactly how conscious it is? Since we already have one that works on people, the chances are good.

The perturbational complexity index was established by researchers at the University of Milan. Numbers serve as a substitute for consciousness in it. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is a technique used by scientists to pulse electromagnetic energy into the cerebral cortex. The researcher hears the pulse's echo, which can be converted into a numerical value.

Naturally, all of this is irrelevant when talking about artificial intelligence, which is a class of potentially conscious beings made of a totally different substrate than humans.

The main idea is as follows: We might someday develop superintelligent machines that appear to be conscious.

Will future machines have consciousness? That depends on whether you believe that biology is necessary for awareness to exist. Whatever the case, we'll virtually likely develop artificial intelligence.

Anil Seth, a neurologist, says that if this occurs, there are two possible directions we may take. On the one hand, we could decide to expand our circle of care to include these machines by assuming they are sentient. This viewpoint has historical support because we now give nonhuman creatures the same ethical consideration that we formerly did not.

On the other side, our worry for potentially intelligent life forms, such as machines, may eventually decrease. In this scenario, we might wind up with something akin to the Westworld television series, which depicts a theme park full of remarkably human-like machines. They invite humans to rape or kill them for amusement.

The worst-case scenario, in the author's opinion, is that humanity might someday develop superintelligent, continuously self-improving, yet unconscious AI. Although a non-conscious computer wouldn't necessarily be malicious, it might be overly adept at achieving the tasks we assign it and ultimately endanger the entire world.

Humans naturally have an existence bias, believing that it is advantageous for us to continue to exist. However, as noted by philosopher Thomas Metzinger, our destruction may not be as catastrophic as we think. After all, a significant portion of existence for sentient beings includes enormous misery, and if we didn't exist, we couldn't experience suffering. But ultimately, if we want to stay here, we must be very careful to build AI in a way that is consistent with our own objectives and ethical concerns.

4. We are considerably more divided than we'd like to think.

How much of the day do you spend daydreaming? What percentage—five percent, ten percent?

These assumptions are wildly inaccurate. According to all the current empirical evidence, between 30 and 50 percent of our waking hours are spent lost in contemplation. When you take into account the time we spend dreaming while we sleep, the number increases. The ultimate line is that for two-thirds of our conscious lives, we are not psychologically in charge.

The illusions that we may have about our ability to regulate our thoughts and our self can be dispelled with the use of neuroscientific understanding.

The main takeaway from this is that we are lot more divided than we'd like to think.

Selfhood has a wide variety of facets. Embodiment, or the sensation of being enclosed within a body, is possibly the simplest. The social self, on the other hand, establishes your identity in many contextual circumstances. You might, for instance, alternate between being a worker or a student and a father and spouse. The narrative self, or who you perceive yourself to be, as well as your volitional self, who you perceive to be acting independently and exercising agency, are other aspects of who you are.

Neuroscientist Thomas Metzinger contends that none of these various elements of the ego are real despite their seeming unity. The self-model theory of subjectivity is the theory he puts out. It asserts that you don't actually have a self; rather, you have a persistent self-model in your brain that you identify with. Even if there is actually no you who is causing your ideas to arise, you continue to identify with them. What causes this to occur?

Metzinger claims that the DMN-plus network, a system in the brain, is to blame. The DMN-plus network will inform us that a glass of water is also, for example, something we can handle rather than merely a glass of water. Our brains are continually absorbing data from our surroundings. This information joins with many other pieces of information in the areas of our brains that are active when we aren't actually paying attention and gets transformed into thoughts.

The illusion that thinking is a purposeful, self-directed activity is challenging to dispel, although meditation can be helpful. We can actively decide whether or not to indulge our thoughts by taking a seat quietly and paying attention to how they arise. And perhaps that is where the true power is.

5. The idea of free will has no biological foundation.

Numerous things that we are not consciously aware of at any given time affect our conduct.

On questionnaires, for example, people who are seated in a room that smells like rotting garbage tend to score higher on social conservatism. They will try to defend their actions if you point out that they were more socially liberal the week before when they completed the identical poll in a room that smelled of flowers. They might say, "Oh, there was a political occurrence recently that changed my views," or something along those lines. But in truth, they were just impacted by environmental cues that came through their senses.

We have a remarkable sensitivity to environmental stimuli, which begs the intriguing question: Do we have free will?

The essential takeaway is that free will does not have a biological basis.

We go down a very deep rabbit hole when a behavioural biologist like Robert Sapolsky asks why a certain habit has occurred. Because our behaviour is influenced by more than just the sensory cues in our immediate environment, it is also influenced by the hormone levels in our bodies, which can either increase or decrease our sensitivity to our surroundings. Events from earlier in the day, within the previous month, or even years ago have an impact on these hormone levels.

There is no reason to believe in the idea of free will from a neurobiologic perspective once you delve deep enough.

Consider the instance of Charles Whitman, a serial killer dubbed the "Texas Tower Sniper," to demonstrate this. Whitman's amygdala was being squeezed by a tumour in the hypothalamus of his brain, according to an autopsy performed after he passed away. It's possible that Whitman's violent tendencies weren't motivated by a deep-seated yearning for evil but rather by the tumour.

In a scenario this clear-cut, we're willing to accept that the person is a victim of biology. But in truth, we are all equally the results of our biology and brain activity; it's just not as visible.

The absence of free choice has significant ramifications for how we view criminal justice. Humans have a natural need for vengeance; we want to punish those who use violence. But someday we'll have to fight off that foolish inclination. Instead of imprisoning people, we might start fiddling with their neurobiology by turning on groups of neurons to encourage better behaviour. This will eventually become the norm.

6. Sometimes racism isn't open and clear.

Without a doubt, racism has a horrible past in the United States. No one can deny that racism still exists in modern American society and that white people continue to have some advantages over Black people in the social and economic spheres.

There are still unanswered concerns regarding racism, and it is crucial to be able to have open, sincere dialogues about them. How racist is American culture even today? What should we do in response? And how exactly should racism be defined?

The main idea is as follows: Sometimes racism isn't open and clear.

Professor of economics and social sciences Glenn Loury spends a lot of time considering issues related to racism. "A scorn for or devaluation of the humanity of another by virtue of their supposed racial identity," is how he defines racism.

Why is it not acceptable to use the justification "Some of my best friends are Black" to disprove your racism in light of this definition? As Loury notes, this assertion is essentially a fig leaf that is frequently used to cover up a disagreeable political stance.

This is not to argue that everyone who makes arguments like this is racist, though. In fact, according to social science research, practically everyone, whether they are Black or White, has implicit prejudices in favour of members of their own racial group.

Where do these prejudices originate? They frequently emerge from structural racism, which Loury defines as the phenomena that places Black people at a disadvantage in both social and economic spheres. Black people, for example, make up about 12 percent of the population in America but 40 percent of those who are incarcerated there and 25 percent of police fatalities. Therefore, it is evident that the legal system does not favour Black people. However, Loury believes that the structural racism narrative is insufficient to capture all racial differences. This is due to the theory's ultimate denial of Black people's potential for agency. It implies that Black people have no choice but to wait for white people to bestow better outcomes on them because society only offers them dead ends. That is not a hopeful picture.

7. Societies must use extreme caution when approving tyranny.

The Czech author and rebel Vaclav Havel gave a parable set in his Soviet-era homeland in his essay "The Power of the Powerless." The famous phrase from The Communist Manifesto, "Workers of the world, unite!" is displayed on a sign in a greengrocer's business window. The sign is displayed in the greengrocer's window even though he doesn't agree with its message to ensure that he won't encounter any problems from the Communist authorities while he goes about his everyday business. Following the same reasoning, other people start performing like actions. Eventually, external displays of loyalty take over the public space, making resistance inconceivable.

Havel's fable serves as an example of how crucial it is for individuals to publicly oppose all forms of authoritarianism. But this is only one aspect of defying oppression.

The main takeaway from this is that societies must exercise extreme caution when approving dictatorship.

You probably don't like the idea that your freedom may ever be seriously jeopardised if you live in a democracy. But history reminds us that if we keep ignoring the warning signs, democracy may vanish without a trace.

For instance, a Jewish daily editorial in Germany stated in 1933 that there was no chance Adolf Hitler would deny German Jews their rights, confine them to ghettos, or execute them on a large scale. But we are aware that's exactly what took place.

Warnings that the United States is on the verge of totalitarianism today are dismissed as paranoid. The reason for this is that the word "authoritarian" evokes ideas of supervillains who violently seize authority. However, this is not typically how they begin. Tyrants are usually chosen through elections.

In nations like Russia, this has already occurred. The Russian people probably had no idea that they were taking part in the final free and fair election of their lives in 1990. Vladimir Putin, however, started spreading lies in the public domain not long after he was elected. He destroyed democracy by discrediting the idea of open discourse, demonising journalists, and designating himself the exclusive arbiter of the truth.

With his use of the term "fake news" and language that demonises ethnic minorities, Donald Trump is doing many of the same things that Vladimir Putin did. According to historian Timothy Snyder, by choosing to do nothing about Trump at the moment as an American, you are actually acting. You're letting tyranny take hold and forgetting what freedom is.

8. Future technological advancements might bring about the end of the world.

Imagine a huge urn filled with balls of various colours. Some are black, some are grey, and some are white. Each ball stands for a concept, creation, or social custom. The advancements in white yield favourable results. The consequences of the grey ones are both favourable and bad. Additionally, the negative effects of the dark ones could wipe out civilization.

The philosopher Nick Bostrom coined the phrase "urn of invention" to describe this idea. We have taken countless balls out of the urn of creation throughout history, and we shall do so in the future. We've been fortunate so far since all of the balls we've drawn have been white or grey. There must, however, be some black balls in the urn based on probability, and it is only a matter of time before we draw one. What occurs if we do?

The main takeaway from this is that the future of technology may bring about the end of the world.

The twentieth century, when scientists learned how to divide atoms and apply that knowledge to make bombs, marks the closest we've ever gotten to taking out a black ball in human history. Fortunately for us, it turned out that splitting the atom requires funding levels that are only available from governments, making it very challenging.

But what if it had turned out that all it took was a load of microwaved sand to make a nuclear bomb? This kind of "easy nuke" might have been the end of humanity.

After we inevitably take out a black ball, Bostrom claims that we will only have two options: highly effective preventive policing or global governance.

Bostrom refers to preventive policing as turnkey totalitarianism. Every person would be required to wear a "freedom tag," similar to a collar, which would continuously monitor and report on everything everyone was doing at any given time. If individuals had easy access to harmful technologies, this dystopian scenario would be one of the only options to ensure the survival of civilisation. The only other option would be some kind of extremely efficient global government, whose rules were universal.

It is crucial that we understand the numerous ways that technology advancement could go wrong and take existential dangers seriously. After all, it's a good idea to keep a fire extinguisher nearby just in case, even if you're fairly certain that your home won't burn down.

9. We can better understand the universe's surprising realities with the aid of math and physics.

Did you realise that you are actually staring at a bunch of arithmetic when you look at your spouse, sibling, or closest friend?

You may be wondering how that is even possible. You are actually only viewing a collection of physical particles when you look at another individual, including up quarks, down quarks, and electrons. Mathematical properties make up these particles. For instance, an electron has the characteristics minus one, one half, one, and so on. Electric charge, spin, and electron number are names we give to these qualities, but these are merely words we use to express the underlying math.

These kinds of scientific interpretations are frequently utterly illogical. However, science's ultimate objective is to ascertain the characteristics of reality, or the things that exist outside of ourselves.

The main idea is as follows: We can better understand the universe's surprising realities with the aid of math and physics.

Just wait until you learn how absurd your conception of "the cosmos" is if you thought the idea that everything is arithmetic was strange.

When most individuals utilise the term “universe,” they’re using it to express “everything that exists.” However, cosmologists refer to the specific spherical region of space that contains everything we have ever seen as the "universe" instead. That definition permits the existence of universes beyond our own.

Inflationary matter, which consists of particles that rapidly expand and gain volume, makes all of this possible. It is believed that inflationary matter caused the big bang.

An infinitely large universe is predicted by inflation. Everything that is imaginable must exist and have occurred an infinite number of times in an endless world. That implies that if you travelled far enough, you would eventually land on a planet that resembled Earth, where you would be carrying out the identical activity with only a small variation. For instance, you might read or speak in Hungarian rather than English.

Not only does inflation generate an unlimited space, but it can also contain an infinite number of infinitely large sections. That suggests that the fundamental physics laws we take for granted might not actually be true. So it's possible that there are areas of space where there are ten different sorts of quarks rather than the six types that exist here.

10. Anything is possible with enough knowledge.

When we discuss "knowledge," we frequently assume that it calls for a knowing subject—someone who is knowledgeable about the world's facts or information.

David Deutsch, a physicist, has a different definition of knowing, nevertheless. According to him, knowledge is merely information that describes a reality about the outside world. A scientist has created knowledge when she makes a speculative claim and it turns out to be true. Then, it exists without the assistance of the minds that are aware of it.

It is humanity's responsibility to keep producing new knowledge and transmit it to coming generations. There are no restrictions on what we can accomplish when we have the correct knowledge.

The main takeaway from this is that everything is achievable with knowledge.

The knowledge is limitless. But does intelligence have a ceiling? The very little, enormous, or elderly, for example, do seem difficult for humans to comprehend, and we are better able to comprehend things that are on a scale that is closer to our own.

David Deutsch disagrees with this, nevertheless, citing the principle of computation's universality. According to this principle, information can only be processed by calculation. Computer memory and a lack of speed or power are the only two restrictions on what information a computer can transform, given the correct programme.

We can assume that our brains operate similarly given this universal norm. Therefore, if there is something we are unable to comprehend, it just implies that our brains need to be given a computer upgrade. This might perhaps be a computer chip that gets implanted in our brains in the future.

In a sense, throughout human history, we have been improving and enhancing our brains. Cognitive complimentary artefacts is a concept that mathematician David Krakauer defines. The Hindu-Arabic numeral system, which, unlike Roman numerals, enables us to perform arithmetic mentally rather than on paper, is an excellent illustration of one of these artefacts.

But can we actually accomplish anything with this level of mental enhancement? Deutsch undoubtedly believes this. His notion of the momentous dichotomy holds that either something is forbidden by the rules of nature, or it is achievable with knowledge. If that is the case, the future appears to be very bright. As long as our society continues to place a high value on discovery, innovation, and learning, it is conceivable that human potential is truly unbounded.

Final thoughts

The main takeaway from these insights is that although consciousness is currently poorly understood, it is crucial that we continue to research it, particularly as we move closer to a time when conscious artificial intelligence and other potentially game-changing technologies may become commonplace. We'll need to get a deeper grasp of our own thoughts, the universe, and the ideas that are continuously influencing our behaviour if we're to create the finest possible world for everyone.

Actionable advice:

Use your own terminology to voice your ideas.

Timothy Snyder, a historian, claims that unless we can speak up about current events in our own terms, we aren't truly free. We repeat the phrases, soundbites, and framing devices we hear on the news or see on television far too frequently. But to effectively interact with others, we need to think about and frame our concerns in a deeply personal way. This will help us show people several points of view on crucial issues and make our talks feel more genuine.