bl4k Posted May 25, 2018 Posted May 25, 2018 I just wanted to share some YouTube comments I read which completely destroy the speech Sam Harris gave on the "illusion" of free will. I stumbled across this after watching Stefan's debate against the determinist in the video titled "DETERMINISM DEBUNKED". I feel that Stefan made some decent arguments but it left much to be desired, due to the way the caller was framing certain things. Stefan's video: Sam's video: Here are the YouTube comments I'm talking about: Quote Harris has failed to think this through. The gist of his argument/claim is that since our natural inclinations and tendencies are first decided before we do anything, this means we do not possess "free will"... in other words the overall idea could be phrased simply as, "A thing that is partially determined cannot be entirely free." Nobody will argue against such a simple claim, which is in itself a valid statement. What Harris has failed to realize is that this does not disprove free will. Many thinkers have already happened upon the idea, namely Schopenhauer, whom famously stated "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Just because we cannot change our natures does not mean that we do not possess free will. To demonstrate how ridiculous his claim is we can use a thought experiment: for Harris, any living thing that has natural inclinations (meaning liking or preferring certain things over other things) cannot be "free" for all of our decisions are based on these natures. Then, let us take a living thing and "remove" all of its inclinations... its race, its religion or non-religion, its history, its opinions, its physical features, etc. What is left but literally nothing? By existing as one thing we are always eliminating the possibility of existing as another. Existence = being partially pre-determined. Harris has defined "free will" in such a restrictive way that the only thing that can possess a non-determined free will would literally have to be non-existent. In other words, what would a person that has no inclinations do with free will? How can something express free will if it has no inclinations, if it has no will at all? It is precisely that a thing first exists, thus having certain predispositions, that it possesses a "will" of any kind, a "free" will to follow its own nature. What Harris has merely reiterated is the idea that we are the slaves of ourselves--which essentially makes us our own masters as well. We are doomed to do what we want to do, in other words, which is basically free will isn't it? Why would I wish to will outside of my own will? If I like vanilla ice cream more than strawberry why would having free will (in Harris' sense of it) mean being able to destroy who I am to like strawberry? The reason we do certain things and not others is precisely because our "wills" are free--not our ability to "choose what we will." Ps. I spoke about free will and other topics on my channel if you're interested. I am passionate about these sort of things and genuinely love to speak about them and learn from everyone. That is all. Quote I see what you did there to toy with free will, you asked a free will question that automatically reduces the free will of the one answering the question. If I ask a child "what do you want to be when you grow up?", I have now placed a glass barrier above them that limits their free will, as they now are forced to decide "what they will be", rather than allowing for spontaneous choice, curiosity, and expression within each moment. They have now become a slave to that question, as any answer to the question "what will I be?" will require them to narrow down their numerous options within the box that defines what they will be. It is the one asking the question who is now an authority, and has the free will, while the one who has answered is stuck and limited within the box. Proving that free will doesn't exist by tricking the listener into making a decision that limits their free will is sophistry, but it does not prove that free will does not exist, it just proves that it does not exist within the tiny box that you just constructed for them to reside within. Free will comes from the question and not the answer, which is why children are so spontaneous, which reflects their natural curiosity. Also, their was an argument that stated that since scientists can know the choice (answer) a person will make before they make it, then it must be logical that free will does not exist. Like before, this too is deceptive logic, as the person answering the question is in the answer, which naturally limits human behavior, rather than being in the question (and curiosity), which is expansive. Additionally, free will could exist beyond time, where the test just demonstrates the possibility that free will does not exist within time. If a human does indeed have a soul, then it is reasonable to deduce that this soul would not necessarily be governed by time in the same way their body is governed by time. Whereas free will may not reside within time or within the body, it could reside within the timeless soul. Lastly, the presenter uses a hasty generalization by purposefully ignoring very pertinent information when he spoke of our inability to know why we act, for example all of Carl Jung's research and how we can actually know "why we act" by doing shadow work. Shadow work allows for conscious choice to shine through in the material realm via conscious individuals. Carl Jung promoted the idea of individuating from out of the collective unconscious, which means to come out of the predictable algorithm created by both our subconscious and unconscious programming, which ties us into the collective (and thus controllable) mind. From our own experience with Jungian type shadow work, we can indeed understand our impulses and reasons why we make certain choices, and deprogram them so that we will again be curious, rather than limited by social engineering and traumatic childhood events. This speaker is a good presenter, getting people to laugh by using hasty generalizations and creating a straw man about what free will is, but just because he can destroy a straw man with good rhetoric, does not mean that he is presenting all of the knowledge available, using sound logic, or being impartial in his approach. The burden of proof is on the speaker to disprove free will, however he only destroyed the straw man of free will that looks nothing like what the actual argument of free will looks like. Quote Quote sam is missing the point. we may not always control our thoughts. but we choose how we feel about them and absolutely how we act upon them. I may have a thought going through my mind that I'm poor and I need to rob someone to eat food. however, I could choose ,express my freedom of will, to decide whether to dwell on this thought or not. and I can also choose ,express my freedom of will, on whether to act upon that thought or not. Billions of people have negative thoughts everyday, but not all accept and act upon them? how is this constraint possible if we have no choice? We do have a choice. People have more power then they give themselves credit for. Lets not support victim mentality, which is what this "illusion of free will" ideology is preaching Hope you enjoyed these as much as I have.
barn Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 Hi @bl4k Your sacrifice of neurons is much appreciated, saving us from loosing some brain cells ourselves. Thanks for the links too! Barnsley
ofd Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 The argument for determinism is simple. Determinism means that antecedent events together with the laws of nature necessitate future events. You can neither change previous events nor alter the laws of nature.
neeeel Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 The basic argument for determinism is clear. In order for free will to be true, there has to be something "outside" of the chain of causation, that chooses thoughts, feelings and actions. Unless you believe in a ghost in the machine, a soul, or similar, then there is no "thing" that examines thoughts, feelings and actions, and chooses between them. when you make a decision, for example, all the different thoughts, chains of thought, opinions and ideas, which appear to come from a "you", are ALSO determined, in the sense of there being no entity that chooses the next thought, they arise, and fade away, without any assistance from you.
RichardY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 @ofd So what do you mean by process? 5 hours ago, neeeel said: The basic argument for determinism is clear. In order for free will to be true, there has to be something "outside" of the chain of causation, that chooses thoughts, feelings and actions. Unless you believe in a ghost in the machine, a soul, or similar, then there is no "thing" that examines thoughts, feelings and actions, and chooses between them. when you make a decision, for example, all the different thoughts, chains of thought, opinions and ideas, which appear to come from a "you", are ALSO determined, in the sense of there being no entity that chooses the next thought, they arise, and fade away, without any assistance from you. Aristotle posited an indefinite cause, in metaphysics. i.e chance.
neeeel Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, RichardY said: @ofd So what do you mean by process? Aristotle posited an indefinite cause, in metaphysics. i.e chance. randomness/chance is not free will though
RichardY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, neeeel said: randomness/chance is not free will though I wouldn't say randomness, if you accept that there is only a finite amount of matter in the universe. In an infintie universe it would make no sense to say 1 marble for instance, if there were an infinite number of them. (heard that in a video somewhere) Personally I think more in degrees of freewill, largely dependent on a persons consciousness. A legal age adult for instance, has generally greater freewill than a child.
neeeel Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, RichardY said: I wouldn't say randomness, if you accept that there is only a finite amount of matter in the universe. In an infintie universe it would make no sense to say 1 marble for instance, if there were an infinite number of them. (heard that in a video somewhere) Personally I think more in degrees of freewill, largely dependent on a persons consciousness. A legal age adult for instance, has generally greater freewill than a child. I think that stefs definition of free will make sense in a way, that free will is the amount of knowledge you have. But consciousness isnt free will, consciousness doesnt actually do anything.
RichardY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 43 minutes ago, neeeel said: I think that stefs definition of free will make sense in a way, that free will is the amount of knowledge you have. But consciousness isnt free will, consciousness doesnt actually do anything. I haven't actually heard Stefan use that definition of Freewill. I have heard him say freewill is the ability to compare and presumably strive for an "Ideal" standard. Which I would say is an extroveted way of looking at freewill. If freewill is the amount of knowledge you have, then knowledge still presupposes a subject to have freewill. I could have knowledge about various historical battles, but that doesn't increase my freewill. As for consciousness not doing anything, I think it is the only thing with potential to do a great deal for good or evil. An animal can still function with a degree of awareness, instinct and intelligence. But it does not need consciousness, providing it copies other animals implicitly. Without consciousness how would have World War one been possible, with barded wire, machine guns etc,
neeeel Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, RichardY said: I haven't actually heard Stefan use that definition of Freewill. I have heard him say freewill is the ability to compare and presumably strive for an "Ideal" standard. Which I would say is an extroveted way of looking at freewill. If freewill is the amount of knowledge you have, then knowledge still presupposes a subject to have freewill. I could have knowledge about various historical battles, but that doesn't increase my freewill. As for consciousness not doing anything, I think it is the only thing with potential to do a great deal for good or evil. An animal can still function with a degree of awareness, instinct and intelligence. But it does not need consciousness, providing in copies other animals implicitly. Without consciousness how would have World War one been possible, with barded wire, machine guns etc, yes, I think it was more the way you put it, that you could compare to an ideal standard, which does involve knowledge, but is more than that Consciousness doesnt strive, it doesnt do, consciousness is not what selects the thoughts feelings or actions. You are basically replacing the ghost in the machine/soul with consciousness.
RichardY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 12 minutes ago, neeeel said: yes, I think it was more the way you put it, that you could compare to an ideal standard, which does involve knowledge, but is more than that Consciousness doesnt strive, it doesnt do, consciousness is not what selects the thoughts feelings or actions. You are basically replacing the ghost in the machine/soul with consciousness. A more introverted way might be turning the perception inward, somehow. Perhaps through meditation, baptism; something to do with the individuation process if you believe people are unconsciously influenced. But it does allow for knowing. Giving the subject perception of absolute time. In what is perhaps a relativistic albeit limited universe. Allowing for planning and the sacrifice of some of the body, for the greater whole. Bit like how animals may fear fire, but a human can overcome that fear & damage to escape death, for now.
Jsbrads Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 The accumulation of knowledge doesn’t force choices on the person. In physics we choose a theory that best describes the evidence. Free will is the best theory to describe the choices people make. Determinism is a bad description for how different people make not only different decisions, but change their decision patterns based on reflecting upon their best actions and changing desires.
Recommended Posts