Sam Harris on free will

[BKMMAFAN]

I think it's pretty clear he's right about free will. Whatever agency you think you have, it's not actually totally 'free' in the sense that you feel it is. Your thoughts and choices (your agency) arise out of the present state of the universe. Your thoughts and choices are caused by events over which you have no control. To actually have a 'free' will, you'd have to suspend the known laws of the universe. Even if the laws of physics are pulling the strings, beliefs/ethics/law still matter. One doesn't have to resort to nihilism when concluding (rightfully) there is no free will.

 

[luckyshot]

I think it's pretty clear he's right about free will. Whatever agency you think you have, it's not actually totally 'free' in the sense that you feel it is. Your thoughts and choices (your agency) arise out of the present state of the universe. Your thoughts and choices are caused by events over which you have no control. To actually have a 'free' will, you'd have to suspend the known laws of the universe. Even if the laws of physics are pulling the strings, beliefs/ethics/law still matter. One doesn't have to resort to nihilism when concluding (rightfully) there is no free will.

So someone has to have 100%, complete free will in order to “have” free will?

Someone can just as easily take the opposite tact and claim that as long as you have 0.001% freedom you “have” free will.

I don’t think ANY serious western thinker has ever claimed that we have COMPLETE free will.

Complete free will, the way you are defining it, is synonymous with omnipotence... in other words, a traditional characteristic of God, not man.

 

[JonesBones]

So someone has to have 100%, complete free will in order to “have” free will?

Someone can just as easily take the opposite tact and claim that as long as you have 0.001% freedom you “have” free will.

I don’t think ANY serious western thinker has ever claimed that we have COMPLETE free will.

Complete free will is synonymous with omnipotence... in other words, a traditional characteristic of God, not man.

"To do all that one is able to do, is to be a man; to do all that one would like to do, is to be a god." - Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[BKMMAFAN]

So someone has to have 100%, complete free will in order to “have” free will?

Someone can just as easily take the opposite tact and claim that as long as you have 0.001% freedom you “have” free will.

I don’t think ANY serious western thinker has ever claimed that we have COMPLETE free will.

Complete free will the way you are defining it is synonymous with omnipotence... in other words, a traditional characteristic of God, not man.

That's debatable, I suppose. But what Harris is arguing, and I agree with, is that 'you', as in what you feel is you and your agency, is actually 0% free. That what we all feel to be our agency is actually a byproduct of forces over which we have no control. That when you think you've 'made' a decision consciously and independently, you're actually just producing the product already arrived at by the mechanisms of your brain.

The only way I could see that not being true were it to be that somehow your agency is not a product of your brain (but it would still have to adhere to natural laws). The main problem with admitting this, to me, is that it seems to drive a lot of people towards nihilism. But I see no reason for that to be so. Conscious agency is a pretty damn good illusion if I may say so (actually, I have no choice!).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think it's pretty clear he's right about free will. Whatever agency you think you have, it's not actually totally 'free' in the sense that you feel it is. Your thoughts and choices (your agency) arise out of the present state of the universe. Your thoughts and choices are caused by events over which you have no control. To actually have a 'free' will, you'd have to suspend the known laws of the universe. Even if the laws of physics are pulling the strings, beliefs/ethics/law still matter. One doesn't have to resort to nihilism when concluding (rightfully) there is no free will.

I guess you can't help whatever you do next if I say go fuck yourself? Let's see what nature makes you do in response to reading this.

Spoiler

Go fuck yourself, automaton.

 

[luckyshot]

That's debatable, I suppose. But what Harris is arguing, and I agree with, is that 'you', as in what you feel is you and your agency, is actually 0% free. That what we all feel to be our agency is actually a byproduct of forces over which we have no control. That when you think you've 'made' a decision consciously and independently, you're actually just producing the product already arrived at by the mechanisms of your brain.

The only way I could see that not being true were it to be that somehow your agency is not a product of your brain (but it would still have to adhere to natural laws). The main problem with admitting this, to me, is that it seems to drive a lot of people towards nihilism. But I see no reason for that to be so. Conscious agency is a pretty damn good illusion if I may say so (actually, I have no choice!).

You really think that you are basically incapable of choosing #4 vs #6 on the value menu if you went to Wendy’s right now? That choice was predetermined since the Big Bang?

That’s where this argument gets so ridiculous, so removed from any actual use of terms that it is pragmatically and philosophically irrelevant.

(Also, I’d point out that in the course of two posts you’ve gone from holding that since we don’t have 100% omnipotence that we have “no free will” to claiming that we, in fact, have 0% free will. It sounds an awful lot like you’ve just accepted the conclusion.)

 

[BKMMAFAN]

You really think that you are basically incapable of choosing #4 vs #6 on the value menu if you went to Wendy’s right now? That choice was predetermined since the Big Bang?

That’s where this argument gets so ridiculous, so removed from any actual use of terms that it is pragmatically and philosophically irrelevant.

(Also, I’d point out that in the course of two posts you’ve gone from holding that since we don’t have 100% omnipotence that we have “no free will” to claiming that we, in fact, have 0% free will. It sounds an awful lot like you’ve just accepted the conclusion.)

That would be true only if the universe was deterministic. It seems to actually be indeterministic (I'm not a physicist, but this seems to be the opinion of most given the success of quantum mechanics). So, you could run the universe from the beginning of time and one time you'd choose 4 and another you'd choose 6; neither would be 'free' choices though for reasons stated earlier.

I'm not sure I agree with the last part of your post. What you were referring to omnipotence, I was referring to being able to make a truly 'free' choice. So, the brain does its computing and sends 'you' (your agency) the choice of Wendy's item 4 or 6 and then 'you' can choose. I think that is incorrect.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

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.

Arminians maybe, but they are only a portion of religious folks. Calvinists think God chooses who follows him. And I've heard Islam is deterministic like Calvinism.

 

[luckyshot]

That would be true only if the universe was deterministic. It seems to actually be indeterministic (I'm not a physicist, but this seems to be the opinion of most given the success of quantum mechanics). So, you could run the universe from the beginning of time and one time you'd choose 4 and another you'd choose 6; neither would be 'free' choices though for reasons stated earlier.

I'm not sure I agree with the last part of your post. What you were referring to omnipotence, I was referring to being able to make a truly 'free' choice. So, the brain does its computing and sends 'you' (your agency) the choice of Wendy's item 4 or 6 and then 'you' can choose. I think that is incorrect.

So you are subbing “chaos” for “free choice,” as if that’s somehow a less nebulous concept...


“Mr. Sciencism, I’m hungry. Should I choose 4 or 6 from the value menu?”

“Well, I don’t know. You might choose #4. You might choose #6. It just depends if this is a universe where you choose 4 or a universe where you choose 6.”

“Oh. Ok. Any way of predicting that?”

“Well, none so far as we know of. But there probably will be someday.”

“Oh. Why do you say that?”

“Well, that’s just the kind of universe this is.”

“But how do you know that’s the sort of universe this is if you don’t even know if it is the sort of universe where I’m going to pick 4 or 6 from the value menu?”

“Hmm... I’m not sure. But you definitely have no free choice. I know that.”

“How?”

“Atoms! Chemicals! Neurons!”

“So atoms, chemicals and neurons know if I am going to choose 4 or 6?”

“Well, they don’t exactly know either. They just make the choice.”

“Oh. So atoms, chemicals and neurons have free choice?”

“NO! There is no choice. Nothing chooses.”

“Oh. So how do I know if I am going to order 4 or 6?”

“Well, you just have to wait and see.”

“See what?”

“See what you choose.”

“Oh.”

 

[djacobox372]

This. Harris is technically correct but the implications of his correctness don't really apply to anything functional as we perceive our daily lives.

It's basically word salad on the Chopra level.

Mostly agree, except Sam has a valid idea, and Chopra is full of shit.

The idea of free-will is fascinating, the existence of such would strongly point to validity of religious teachings.

Humans either create existence through free will, or the universe is just a complicated linear simulation.

 

[deltapapha]

determinism is the greater absolver. she washes away all sin

 

[andnowweknow]

Mostly agree, except Sam has a valid idea, and Chopra is full of shit.

The idea of free-will is fascinating, the existence of such would strongly point to validity of religious teachings.

Humans either create existence through free will, or the universe is just a complicated linear simulation.

It's an interesting aside in the overall lexicon of scientific thoroughness, mot a whole lot more.

Harris using it as as a boon to atheism or some sort of blow to religious thought is silly. For better or worse using physical universe realities to define something inherently suggested to be "supernatural" is pointless.

His stance on this is just an extension of the idea that chaos is solvable. With enough known data points anything in the future or the past could be recreated to a t.

 

[Chomsky Honk]

You can’t break the laws of physics, so I don’t believe in free will

 

[Cuzcatlan]

Do you agree with this guy on free will?

This guy basically says we don't have free will and have no control of our actions whatsoever.

Well, a lot can be said here, but I'll just start with this - If this guy thinks that, why does he care to push his views on others, argue with religious people and others with differing political views, why does he write books and make cash from his lectures and whatever else. After all, according to his theory, everything mentioned is just a result that is out of his reach, it's all random. Meaning his thoughts hold no ground, its all an illusion and he's not responsible for them.

If he just meditated in the wasteland or killed himself he would make a better case - practice what you preach, motherfucker. Instead, this guy makes a fortune talking mumbo jumbo in a slow voice for hours and spewing his opinions on everything. If you think you don't have free will just shut the fuck up, It doesn't matter anyway.

I went too Utah's Natural History Museum last month. They had a display with students on the research they are doing on behavioral biology. Trying to identify the genes that dictate how we act. There is some legit research in this. Interesting and Scary at the same time.

 

[Necromantic]

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

That does not mean there is not free will. We have no model for consciousness. Now we do have older parts of the brain that act on auto because somethings if we wait for it to hit the frontal lobe and shit it would be too late. Think a ball flying at your face.

But you can sit and consciously think about things and change your mind and shit and etc.

I don't understand why people think you need God to have free will. It is also stupid to think that experiences in your life that you have deep thought in don't change how you behave and think.

Remember, Sam is an IDEOLOGUE.

You can’t break the laws of physics, so I don’t believe in free will

How is free will in opposition to physics exactly?

 

[BearGrounds]

Seems to me it's a persistent illusion - because we're not privy to the future, nor can we entirely see the strings.

"To me the universe is simply a marvelous mechanism, and the most complex forms of human life, as human beings, are nothing else but automatic engines, controlled by external influence. Through incessant observation I have so convinced myself of the truth of this that I cannot perform any act or even conceive a thought without locating at once the external stimulus that prompted it."

- Nikola Tesla

 

[jeffk]

Again a lot of the discussion about something like free will is based upon different ideas of what free will means.

When do humans first start having free will? Around what age?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

That would be true only if the universe was deterministic. It seems to actually be indeterministic (I'm not a physicist, but this seems to be the opinion of most given the success of quantum mechanics). So, you could run the universe from the beginning of time and one time you'd choose 4 and another you'd choose 6; neither would be 'free' choices though for reasons stated earlier.

I'm not sure I agree with the last part of your post. What you were referring to omnipotence, I was referring to being able to make a truly 'free' choice. So, the brain does its computing and sends 'you' (your agency) the choice of Wendy's item 4 or 6 and then 'you' can choose. I think that is incorrect.

It depends what your definition of 'free' is. Since the quantum world is probabilistic, no one can determine your future given your past history.

 

[Necromantic]

I think it's pretty clear he's right about free will. Whatever agency you think you have, it's not actually totally 'free' in the sense that you feel it is. Your thoughts and choices (your agency) arise out of the present state of the universe. Your thoughts and choices are caused by events over which you have no control. To actually have a 'free' will, you'd have to suspend the known laws of the universe. Even if the laws of physics are pulling the strings, beliefs/ethics/law still matter. One doesn't have to resort to nihilism when concluding (rightfully) there is no free will.

Again, this is stupid thinking. Shit happens to you and if it is deep enough you contemplate it. To think that you do not contemplate shit is ridiculous.

And why would it be obvious that there is no free will when we do not have a model for consciousness?

Also, yes we may have signals before doing something, but we don't know what else affects that coming out or what conscious thought puts back to be used later.

Again a lot of the discussion about something like free will is based upon different ideas of what free will means.

When do humans first start having free will? Around what age?

lol, we don't know how to define free will but hey at what age do you get this free will which we have not defined.
Lulz.

 

[IDL]

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

The implications of this are incompatible with how we organize society, though, so we ignore this largely (as we should).

I don't think it's all or nothing though. Obviously there is a lot that goes on subconsciously that affects thoughts, but does it completely negate free will or does it just influence it?

If it was completely negated, I don't see the point of consciousness.