Sam Harris on free will

[luckyshot]

What other sorts of evidence are there?

We’ve had this debate before. Not doing it again. Look up the answers I posted in the previous thread that you were unable or unwilling to comprehend.

 

[MMAViewer]

That's a weird example. How do you feel like having a second cup of coffee by a random pop in your mind? I don't think that applies for everybody and every time. Wouldn't you drink a cup of coffee, because maybe you feel a bit tired and want a boost? Or maybe you're addicted and you're used to that pattern of drinking coffee multiple times a day. In both cases It doesn't randomly pop in your mind. And in any case, you can use your will to decide your actions and analyze which you mentioned in your post I think.

I don't know, I think this Sam Harris guy milks this shit too much and as a result contradicts himself as well. But I get it, that's his niche, he makes money from his "ïntellectual ideas". According to the posts I've seen in this topic - In his lectures he says some things, in his books he expresses them differently etc. That doesn't speak well for him.

If there is a biased against his writings or his speeches due to political affiliation difference that you just won't see past then disregard but if you are interested he is actually quite consistent well thought out and actually very intelligent. Can't agree with everyone on everything. Sam is no pundit or snak oil peddler. He has an informed perspective most times.

 

[kpt018]

Does he offer an epistemological defense of his materialism there?

He seems to have let his neuroscience trump his philosophy a long time ago... which is his prerogative, but I’ve never heard him offer a philosophically convincing reason for doing so.

He seems to use his philosophy credential largely as a license, rather than something he attempts to seriously draw thought from (on his podcast, at least).

I'm not sure, I read the book quite a while ago and only recall the main arguments at the moment.

Maybe I'm just not following your criticism here but why would he need to provide a philosophically convincing reason to rely on knowledge of neuroscience? It seems to me to be perfectly cogent to accept knowledge gathered via the scientific method if our understanding is well known. We know that folks who are unlucky enough to sustain brain damage have changes in thoughts, actions, loss of memory. It's really good evidence that what we think and do are directed by our brains (pretty uncontroversial).

Another example is people who experience depression and suicidal thoughts after a traumatic experience(s) (like war, death of a child, etc.). You would grant that these thoughts are not chosen or a result of our free will to be depressed right?

By design imo. Keep people in a state of irreconcilable cognitive dissonance, and they will accept any lifeline that seems logical. Make sure you don't skip a Sunday or a bible study. The spell might wear off!

Interesting, I think I do agree it was by design or got baked in at some point. I do think it's inherently a problem too, not just with religion. The idea that we are not in control of ourselves entirely is a very troubling thing for a lot of people. But for religious folks the idea completely tears apart their world view.

And I'm not sure this revelation is actually good. We may be better off believing we're the authors of all our thoughts and actions because it's easy to slip into nihilist views. If we're just bags of meat with a grey matter information processor between the ears, what's the point? I don't agree with that last question of course but people can easily tread down that path.

 

[ShadBo]

We’ve had this debate before. Not doing it again. Look up the answers I posted in the previous thread that you were unable or unwilling to comprehend.

Comprehension wasn't the issue, as far as I remember. You weren't able to lay out a mechanism by which we can evaluate the immaterial.

 

[trustno1]

It does randomly pop into your mind, though. We don't choose what thoughts arise. You can rationalize the thought once it does pop into your mind. So the thought pops up that you want a 2nd cup so you can think no, I already had 2 and that's enough or it will keep me awake at night. But the argument is none of those thoughts were actually selected, they just enter our consciousness.

Addiction is a perfect example of people taking action against their rationale. For example, people know smoking cigarettes is bad but they just can't kick the habit.

An example that clarifies it for me is attraction. When you see a beautiful woman there is no conscious thought about it. You simply have a reaction. Any thought can be described similarly, that our brains have responses to any stimuli.

BTW I find these arguments compelling but also find counterarguments from guys like Dennett compelling as well. I wouldn't argue to the death on this position but I find the idea that free will is an illusion aligns with my thinking on the issue and just makes a lot of sense. I also acknowledge why the idea is very hard to grapple with given how much people value free will and the extent we base so much of our society it.

In my opinion, It's not a random pop, It's a reaction to something. And you decide what to do with it - whether it's to ignore, to follow, or whatever else.
For addictions - this is not random as well, it's a pattern that you're used to. Doesn't mean you can't make a conscious decision to break the habit and give it a try.
Attraction - I see a beautiful woman and I want to talk to her, go out with her, make love with her. Yeah, of course, you get this reaction, because you want pleasure - chemical, psychological, whatever. Again, I see nothing random here. And you still can suppress the desire If you think you need that.

Anyway, I like your civil response. What does this Dennett guy say on the topic, I'm not familiar with him at all.

 

[jeffk]

It is pretty simple. You did not make your genetics. You did not make the environment you live in. What else is there that influences what you do?

You are a product of your genetics and environment and you did not create either.

 

[Overtures]

Nope, no one agrees with Sam Harris in the field of philosophy either. Daniel Dennet schooled him as did Chomsky.

Dennet did indeed "school" Harris on this issue. That being said, they almost didn't disagree. Dennet just introduced more vocabulary and shifted the importance away from a meaningless definition of free will.


Dennet is great.

 

[kpt018]

In my opinion, It's not a random pop, It's a reaction to something. And you decide what to do with it - whether it's to ignore, to follow, or whatever else.
For addictions - this is not random as well, it's a pattern that you're used to. Doesn't mean you can't make a conscious decision to break the habit and give it a try.
Attraction - I see a beautiful woman and I want to talk to her, go out with her, make love with her. Yeah, of course, you get this reaction, because you want pleasure - chemical, psychological, whatever. Again, I see nothing random here. And you still can suppress the desire If you think you need that.

Anyway, I like your civil response. What does this Dennett guy say on the topic, I'm not familiar with him at all.

Boy, what he has to say can fill 100 threads. He's a PhD in philosophy and this is one of the areas he spent a shit ton of time thinking and writing about. He basically argues that we do have free well. I'd urge you to listen to the Sam Harris podcast where he and Dennett debate the topic and do further reading on Dennett. I couldn't give it justice from memory and think it's worth your time if you're interested in this stuff.

It's heavily debated in philosophy too, not just these two guys obviously. It's been studied by ancient philosophers as well.

 

[jeffk]

I think a lot of the problem when talking about free will is that it means different things to different people.

 

[Rusk]

Sam Harris is an idiot and lacks self-awareness, so I do believe he lacks free will. I think he is an autist as well.

 

[Metusalemi]

Sam Harris is an idiot and lacks self-awareness, so I do believe he lacks free will. I think he is an autist as well.

Hi Ben Affleck!

Good to have you here.

 

[spamking]

Make sure you don't skip a Sunday or a bible study. The spell might wear off!

I grew up being told that . . . well, not about a spell wearing off.

 

[trustno1]

And I'm not sure this revelation is actually good. We may be better off believing we're the authors of all our thoughts and actions because it's easy to slip into nihilist views. If we're just bags of meat with a grey matter information processor between the ears, what's the point? I don't agree with that last question of course but people can easily tread down that path.

That's exactly one of my main points as well. Doesn't matter who's right and wrong. I hate these atheists that so easily say this shit and pat themselves on the backs that they're so rational and intelligent. I bet most of them come from a place of privilege and/or feel present in the moment, because everything is going smooth for now.

Personally, I've studied neurology disciplines at the university, because it's all connected to the profession I'm in. So none of these "intellectuals" impress me, because I know about all these cases with the brain trauma, neurological damage and all. Yet I still would like to believe that we have our separate soul/will, whatever you wanna call it, and you can give a fight no matter what the circumstances. Call me naive I don't care. You said it yourself, everything loses a point If you just think everything is a matter and don't explore higher metaphysical concepts - you're nothing, but a hedonistic parasite.

Even the professors that study these disciplines and give lectures can surprise you with their naive thoughts on other topics outside of their expertise. And it's normal. Otherwise, shit can mess you up.

 

[jeffk]

Suppose you have a soul, did you author it? Did you create it?

 

[trustno1]

Suppose you have a soul, did you author it? Did you create it?

Not sure where you're going with this or what answer you're expecting. But anyway - I really don't know.

 

[luckyshot]

It does randomly pop into your mind, though. We don't choose what thoughts arise. You can rationalize the thought once it does pop into your mind. So the thought pops up that you want a 2nd cup so you can think no, I already had 2 and that's enough or it will keep me awake at night. But the argument is none of those thoughts were actually selected, they just enter our consciousness.

Addiction is a perfect example of people taking action against their rationale. For example, people know smoking cigarettes is bad but they just can't kick the habit.

An example that clarifies it for me is attraction. When you see a beautiful woman there is no conscious thought about it. You simply have a reaction. Any thought can be described similarly, that our brains have responses to any stimuli.

BTW I find these arguments compelling but also find counterarguments from guys like Dennett compelling as well. I wouldn't argue to the death on this position but I find the idea that free will is an illusion aligns with my thinking on the issue and just makes a lot of sense. I also acknowledge why the idea is very hard to grapple with given how much people value free will and the extent we base so much of our society it.

I also find a lot of the anti-free will arguments compelling. As you say, people don’t choose the thoughts that pop into their minds, they don’t choose to be depressed or addicted... they certainly don’t choose which family, nation, or time period, to be born into, etc. Much less do we choose the laws of nature, forces of the universe or structures of consciousness itself!

But there is a gallous gap between saying that a LOT of our experience is beyond our free will and that we have NO free will. 99.99999% of our experience could lie outside or free will and we still HAVE free will.

And phenomenologically, doesn’t that make a lot more sense? Why and how do states of mind such as crippling indecision exist if we have no free will?

On a more pedestrian basis, it gets silly very quickly. If you walk into McDonalds are you telling me that you have absolutely no agency over whether you get a 12 piece McNugget or a McDouble with fries? And that there was no agency in choosing McDonalds over Buger King... or either over a salad??

I'm not sure, I read the book quite a while ago and only recall the main arguments at the moment.

Maybe I'm just not following your criticism here but why would he need to provide a philosophically convincing reason to rely on knowledge of neuroscience? It seems to me to be perfectly cogent to accept knowledge gathered via the scientific method if our understanding is well known. We know that folks who are unlucky enough to sustain brain damage have changes in thoughts, actions, loss of memory. It's really good evidence that what we think and do are directed by our brains (pretty uncontroversial).

Another example is people who experience depression and suicidal thoughts after a traumatic experience(s) (like war, death of a child, etc.). You would grant that these thoughts are not chosen or a result of our free will to be depressed right?

So, you are combining two points here. One is the free will thing, which I’ve already addressed (hopefully satisfactorily).

The other is the question of epistemology (Why do I need to provide a philosophical reason to accept the findings of neuroscience?)

The answer is you don’t need to provide a philosophical reason to accept the findings of neuroscience in the field of neuroscience.

However, you absolutely DO need to present a philosophical argument if you want to convince a non-biased observer that the findings of neuroscience should be privileged as THE basic epistemology.

You either take questions of epistemology and metaphysics seriously or you do not. Sam Harris (from what I’ve seen) really doesn’t. He simply swaps out philosophy for neuroscience, much the same way Dawkins simply swaps out philosophy for biology. And they both figure their expertise in their respective fields should be a convincing enough explanation as to why.

This is (in my opinion) the basic bait and switch of all the “new aetheists.” They offer scientific answers to philosophical questions while (largely) ignoring the very philosophical complexities that make this untenable.

Once again: scientific answer to scientific question, no issue. But if you want to convince neutral observers to consider the entire existential experience in toto PURELY through a materialist lens and to disregard all other possibilities, you’ve got a lot of explaining/convincing to do.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

There is scientific evidence that the brain makes decisions before they reach the level of consciousness.

If there's no "free will", of what purpose is consciousness?

 

[Fawlty]

This is (in my opinion) the basic bait and switch of all the “new aetheists.” They offer scientific answers to philosophical questions while (largely) ignoring the very philosophical complexities that make this untenable.

How do you suspect they would answer this charge?

 

[kpt018]

I also find a lot of the anti-free will arguments compelling. As you say, people don’t choose the thoughts that pop into their minds, they don’t choose to be depressed or addicted... they certainly don’t choose which family, nation, or time period, to be born into, etc. Much less do we choose the laws of nature, forces of the universe or structures of consciousness itself!

But there is a gallous gap between saying that a LOT of our experience is beyond our free will and that we have NO free will. 99.99999% of our experience could lie outside or free will and we still HAVE free will.

And phenomenologically, doesn’t that make a lot more sense? Why and how do states of mind such as crippling indecision exist if we have no free will?

On a more pedestrian basis, it gets silly very quickly. If you walk into McDonalds are you telling me that you have absolutely no agency over whether you get a 12 piece McNugget or a McDouble with fries? And that there was no agency in choosing McDonalds over Buger King... or either over a salad??


So, you are combining two points here. One is the free will thing, which I’ve already addressed (hopefully satisfactorily).

The other is the question of epistemology (Why do I need to provide a philosophical reason to accept the findings of neuroscience?)

The answer is you don’t need to provide a philosophical reason to accept the findings of neuroscience in the field of neuroscience.

However, you absolutely DO need to present a philosophical argument if you want to convince a non-biased observer that the findings of neuroscience should be privileged as THE basic epistemology.

You either take questions of epistemology and metaphysics seriously or you do not. Sam Harris (from what I’ve seen) really doesn’t. He simply swaps out philosophy for neuroscience, much the same way Dawkins simply swaps out philosophy for biology. And they both figure their expertise in their respective fields should be a convincing enough explanation as to why.

This is (in my opinion) the basic bait and switch of all the “new aetheists.” They offer scientific answers to philosophical questions while (largely) ignoring the very philosophical complexities that make this untenable.

Once again: scientific answer to scientific question, no issue. But if you want to convince neutral observers to consider the entire existential experience in toto PURELY through a materialist lens and to disregard all other possibilities, you’ve got a lot of explaining/convincing to do.

I'm tight on time and can't give a response that does your response justice, but I'd like to hear you expand on your point as to why the thinking needs to be separated between philosophy, science and other subjects. In sounds like you're saying philosophical questions can only have philosophical answers (or at least scientific answers must accompany philosophical answers) which could prevent us from applying findings from science. I tend to see all of our thinking as connected and have an issue with your stance, if I am summarizing it correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong).

For example we can discuss the philosophy of evil all day and night but if we found out a brain injury caused someone to be violent and it sufficiently explains his actions I don't think we need philosophy in that case to explain why he did the things he did.

My view is we use the best arguments and information we have and I don't assign top priority to philosophy. If science explains something better that is what we should operate with until a better explanation is available.

I know I didn't address everything you've said in there but I can't. It's a shame I'm so busy at work because I find this topic very interesting and I suspect you have a lot of good push back here.

 

[JonesBones]

This idea is particularly troublesome for religious folks btw, since the whole premise of going to heaven or hell is based on the idea that you choose your actions.

The same could be said for government. BF Skinner had been saying this for years. Humans do not have free will and do not deserve freedom or dignity. Skinner's system goes against nearly everything we value in our society. We are rats in a cage and should be treated as such.