There is no such thing as free will

[Zack Tacorin Dos]

I love this topic. I didn't watch this particular vid, but I've listened to and watched enough Sam Harris to have a good idea of his take on this. (That being said, please correct me if any of my assumptions about Sam's position in this vid are wrong.)

I don't think Sam's point has anything to do with assumptions of legal responsibility. If we view the wetware in our head in combination with the input it receives from the millions of sensory receptors in our body as our "self," then definitely that self, that being, makes decisions, and I think society reasonably sees that self as proximally responsible for its choices. Even if we could prove that we are all effectively robots (i.e. specific input into a specific wetware configuration results in a determined outcome), assuming we value stability, peace, and other societal factors promoting the dignity of humans, don't we have to hold each human being responsible for their choices as they affect others?

I think Sam is looking at this from the perspective of ultimate causes, or at least from the causes that lead up to the being and then result in the being making certain choices. (I don't think Sam typically does a good job of laying out his background assumptions on this, and I think I'm understanding why as I try to do just that.) Put another way, if you believe in a deterministic universe, one where each event was caused (determined) by preceding events, then any given human being became who they are (wetware and all) because of events that preceded them. Again, if you believe in determinism, then who they are (wetware and all) determines each and every choice they make in any given situation. Yes, "they" made the choice, but in a completely deterministic world, that was determined before they were. They chose, but could not have chosen otherwise.

It's tempting to appeal to the possibility of random events to argue against this. Quantum mechanics seems a reasonable way to think of a mechanism for this (even though, as I understand it anyway, we cannot say that any quantum events are truly random--that there may be causal relationships underlying these events that we don't understand). Regardless, let's assume there are random events that are not caused by anything; they just happen one way or some other, and the way they happen is not determined by anything. If an event that leads a human's decision on something is truly random like this--not caused or determined by anything--that does not argue for free will. In fact, I think it argues the opposite, that at least in some cases where a random event led to a choice, the being in question had nothing to do with it, that there was no will responsible for the choice. For example, a particular neurotransmitter molecule causes another neuron to fire leading to decision A, or the molecule fails to cause the neuron to fire leading to decision B. But whether or not the molecule caused the neuron to fire or not was a random event, not under the control of the being in question.

Maybe a more succinct way to say this is whether every minute detail is determined, or there is some level of random events taking place, the choices I make are ultimately (as opposed to proximally) outside of my control--either determined by a chain of events starting before I ever was, and/or the result of some random event(s). Or as Hagoth said, "I wasn't going to reply but for some reason I couldn't stop myself."

[rockslider]

Zack,

I think you got Sam down ok. In that video he only went so far as to tie it to a better morality. The prison video was send to me by my son when I shared the link with him.

Sam gave an example that struck me. He asked, "think of a city". In my mind there is a bit of a pause then about 4 cities come to mind and I pick one. Munich was the one out of the list that came to mind. I consciously picked Munich for the second, uncontrolled thought that came to mind "Marienplatz square". Years back I vividly remember coming up the escalators from the subway and that views of that square blowing me away.

I really have no choice of the initial list, nor the final choice based on previous experience.

[profit_seizer]

What is it about Sam Harris that you dislike?

His philosophical positions sit on some pretty badly shifting sands and tend toward a weird sort of pseudo-philosophical Islamophobia. His definition of free will is weird and I don't like it. Basically, most of the criticisms leveled here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyF ... losophers/

(Except "he denigrates philosophy", which I'm 100% fine with.)

Note: I'm not going to get in a fight over whether Sam Harris is good or bad. I think he's bad, I'm not going to be convinced that he's good, and I'm super not interested in a debate on the topic. We can still be friends.

[Palerider]

But if anything the Norway video makes an excellent case for free will.

It struck me that with ones negative; born with issues, cause/effect and ones established world view of a long time - say 30 years, just might not take an equal amount of positive cause/effect, newly established world view to offset the negative.

Perhaps 5 years in a Norway prison could easily reset one's choices.

In other words, I think you are wrong about the excellent case for free will, as its all about that reset and is actually an excellent case of just the opposite.

So if I understand the above correctly, in short you're just talking about reprogramming an individual so that they have no choice but to make good decisions?

I think I have to go with Alas on this one. But good luck with that...

[rockslider]

His philosophical positions sit on some pretty badly shifting sands and tend toward a weird sort of pseudo-philosophical Islamophobia.

I suppose you feel the same about Christopher Hitchens?

[profit_seizer]

Yeah, not a huge fan of The Hitch. I just don't think that believing that religion is a sham (which I do) naturally leads to a basis to uniquely discriminate against members of religions, and especially not one religion over others.

[rockslider]

Yeah, not a huge fan of The Hitch.

Different strokes for different folks ... first time I watched a Hitch debate I was super impressed, Sam a notch or two below Hitch but still enjoy most of his stuff.


Is there a link where I can read your story profit_seizer?

[Zack Tacorin Dos]

Yeah, not a huge fan of The Hitch. I just don't think that believing that religion is a sham (which I do) naturally leads to a basis to uniquely discriminate against members of religions, and especially not one religion over others.

I'm not a Hitch expert, and the little I've watched and read I've enjoyed from what I remember. But, I'd probably have to take issue with discriminating based on religious belief for things like housing, most jobs, etc., so if you could point me to something where he promotes or condones such discrimination, I'd appreciate it. I want to make sure I understand what I would consider problems in his positions.

Thanks,
Zack

[Zack Tacorin Dos]

Sam gave an example that struck me. He asked, "think of a city". In my mind there is a bit of a pause then about 4 cities come to mind and I pick one. Munich was the one out of the list that came to mind. I consciously picked Munich for the second, uncontrolled thought that came to mind "Marienplatz square". Years back I vividly remember coming up the escalators from the subway and that views of that square blowing me away.

This type of example of Sam's is part of what I think he sets up badly. Maybe it's because I misunderstand what he's trying to say, but to me it seems he's saying something like, because we do not consciously decide (on the city in your example), we are not willing the decision. To me, that's the same as defining a person as something that does not include their subconscious. If the decision came from my subconscious thinking, the way I define "me," it still came from me (proximally of course--I think "me" came from a long chain of events I didn't control).

[profit_seizer]

Hitchens claiming that "islamophobia" isn't a real thing is enough to turn me all the way off to him, but claiming that the death toll in Fallujah was "too low" was beyond the pale: https://mronline.org/2005/11/26/the-gen ... -hitchens/ I mean, if wishing death on a people isn't discrimination, I'm not sure what is.

I got out of the church in part because of its conservatism, and I see that same conservatism without the god part in the New Atheist movement. In other words, it's not for me.

Note: this is my last word on Hitch, Harris, or even Dawkins. I'm not here to pick fights.

[rockslider]

Note: this is my last word on Hitch, Harris, or even Dawkins. I'm not here to pick fights.

I did not sense, nor feel any fight? Discussion has been good so far, no?

[Red Ryder]

We don't moderate around here anyway so continue your pleasant discussions.

Fascinating thread I just haven't had time to read through or think about all of it.

Glad to see zack back and posting.

[rockslider]

To me, that's the same as defining a person as something that does not include their subconscious. If the decision came from my subconscious thinking, the way I define "me," it still came from me (proximally of course--I think "me" came from a long chain of events I didn't control).

I debated posting one of Sam's talks on Consciousness instead of the free will. They do appear to be closely related. Perhaps I'll try a new thread on the topic.

[profit_seizer]

Note: this is my last word on Hitch, Harris, or even Dawkins. I'm not here to pick fights.

I did not sense, nor feel any fight? Discussion has been good so far, no?

You're right, sorry for implying that it would go that way. You've all been very gracious.

Sent from my HTC U11 life using Tapatalk

[Zack Tacorin Dos]

Note: this is my last word on Hitch, Harris, or even Dawkins. I'm not here to pick fights.

I did not sense, nor feel any fight? Discussion has been good so far, no?

You're right, sorry for implying that it would go that way. You've all been very gracious.

Sent from my HTC U11 life using Tapatalk

Profit Seizer,

Sorry if my posts may have come across as antagonistic. It can be hard to determine whether written comments are about setting a trap or for sincere inquiry. I think I understand your concern.

I read through some of that article you linked to, and I have to agree that I take issue with Hitch's apparent glee in killing the enemy; if accurate, I found Hitch's take on this disturbing. Common, but disturbing. It's an understatement to say that war is horrible, and it's not just because our guys get maimed and killed. A huge part of it is that we (generally at least) dehumanize our opponents (as our guys maim and kill them). From the article it would seem that Hitch has done just that.

Thanks for sharing!
Zack

[profit_seizer]

Oh no you're totally fine. I was doing a thing that I always do where I anticipate a conflict and get WAAAY too defensive without a good reason. I'm sorry, y'all have been great.

Sent from my HTC U11 life using Tapatalk

[Zack Tacorin Dos]

Glad to see zack back and posting.

Thanks bro! I think I'm here because I'm sad and angry from recent revelations of how the Church, formerly known as Mormon, too often treats perps and victims. I feel like something further has broken in me as a result of their lack of concern for human dignity. I didn't think there was anything left to break in my relationship with the Church.

You all are always such a great support when this happens. You help me take the anger and sorrow and do something more positive than I otherwise would have.

Thanks to you all,
Zack