1= Someone that does NOT believe in free will conceptually, still ''feels'' as if he or she is free, it is inevitable. This is the first 'level' of illusion.
2= Someone actually believing in the concept of free will, but the concept free will is an illusion. This is the second 'level' of illusion.
The feeling of free will is an inevitable illusion, but someone also have an illusory concept of free will. Hence, the illusion of free will is itself an illusion. (could maybe be that 1=2 and 2=1).
Does anybody have any idea what Sam meant when he said, 'the illusion of free will is itself an illusion'? For some reason I can't wrap my head around that.
@requiemdexter Hmm, well I'm not too sure but I think he might be emphasizing that the lack of free will is in everything. At the end of this talk you are either going to believe that free will is an illusion or not. I think he's talking to those of us that agree with him because even if you agree with him, you arent really agreeing with him. Agreeing would mean that there is the possibility of disagreeing. We had no choice either way.lol, shits crazy
@requiemdexter My interpretation of that statement is that when we become aware of the causes of our thoughts,and how thoughts seem to spring out of nowhere(of course it's the brain)we realise that we are not actively thinking the thoughts.When we become aware that we are not thinking the thoughts,the illusion of 'authorship' melts away.When that happens,what was formerly hidden becomes transparent.One can see the illusion as illusory,like knowing how a magic trick works.
(1) An illusion occurs when your experience delivers a distorted view of reality.
(2) Free will would be an illusion if our experience told us we had free will, while we really did not.
(3) It goes one step further: our experience tells us that our experience tells us we have free will. So (2) is an illusion. If you pay closer attention to what it feels like to be yourself in the world, you realize you don't even have the illusion of free will.
The idea of a perfectly free will is the fundamental nature of most faiths because it puts all the responsibility on the individuals and none on environment (health, culture, society, teachings, upbringing, etc) The end result is that we are not responsible unless we're the ones pulling the trigger because that's their free will.
Such thinking let's individuals and groups get away with decisions that affect many others in very negative ways and cause them to do wrong. But hey, it's not us.
@mattyisagod I don't think you can say "in other words" here, since you used 90% the same wording. I do see your point, though: it's called the ILLUSION of free will, so it says right in the name that it's an illusion. Why does Harris say it again? It's like saying "the youtube website is itself a website." There's no new information in the description.
More generally, I 100% agree with all of the arguments presented in these three videos.
@Adamantium9001 Yeah, it's the only thing I'm unclear about in the whole of the Moral Landscape.
I thought maybe he means "free will is an illusion. Awareness of the absence of free will (~you aren't the author of your thoughts) by noticing the spontaneous nature of thinking is ALSO an illusion" but I don't see where thats going.
All gods are externalizations of internal fears, feelings, or whatever, and are therefore a form of second-hand notation for "the person who created" the god in question. badblueman, you've just found another rationalization for Satanic doctrine, and are far from proving anything. Nevertheless, it seems that you're on the right track to me. cheers.
The free will thing is settled then. The religious way is to say we are souls who have free will; the secular way is to say we are egos who have choices. I guess going this far we can also equate the religious concept of an omniscient God with the secular concept of self-awareness. Both seem to have a "collapsing the probability wave function" effect on the notions of "choice/free will", meaning that they both give you comfort of being awesome for knowing but also sentence you to a paradox.
Lol, we need to slow down our posting. I see I've already missed a couple of yours...
Look, it's very easy to get carried away with things. We can realize instances where punishment might be inferior to rehab, and then go overboard and decide all forms of punishment are unjust. If I choose to steal something because I think it is easier than working for it, punishment is just. It was my choice. My genes didn't make me do it, I was just too lazy to work for it.
Lol, we need to slow down our posting. I see I've already missed a couple of yours...
Look, it's very easy to get carried away with things. We can realize instances where punishment might be inferior to rehab, and then go overboard and decide all forms of punishment are unjust. If I choose to steal something because I think it is easier than working for it, punishment is just. It was my choice. My genes didn't make me do it, I was just too lazy to work for it.
I have no problem with making rational changes to the judicial system. When we find there are injustices within it caused by irrationality brought in by an antiquated system of morals based solely on religious dogma, let's fix it. We can do this without making a claim that we have no choice in our decisions because everything is based on chemical reactions in some deterministic context.
Think about it. Why is the word free so important in free will? Why do people like to bring up free will with moral judgments? It's to really hammer it home, to emphasize the idea of "you chose X, when you should/could've chosen Y"!
What does it all come down to at the end? The ego. It's for people with ego's to please or torture, praise or condemn other ego's. The religious word for ego is soul. What's the one property souls have? Free will. QED?
What is the most important thing in any moral judgment we make? Responsibility. You are guilty of that which you choose (=free will). As such free will is only necessary in moral debates where morality is based on justice. Elsewhere it's useless. So you see, this sort of restates my original point. Free will is a useless assertion. It's a "buzzword" to appeal to our emotions, so we can glee at suffering criminals or cheer our happy heroes.
@badblueman Nailing down context is important to understanding the meaning of free will, and I'm glad you have tried to do so. I suspect much of the disagreements on this notion can be attributed to a shift in context that occurs when we go from defining free will as choice to then trying to objectify it. But why are you asserting it is useless in discussions of justice and morality? If you agree we have choice (=free will), then isn't it essential to our notion of justice and morality?
@theduderabides I see I misstated the question. You claimed free will (as defined by choice) is only necessary in moral debates based on justice. Then you asserted elsewhere it is useless. Even if your second statement is true, why does that mean free will is a useless assertion - given it is essential in the context of a moral justice?
@theduderabides This is very progressive, beyond even myself. I certainly don't claim to be immune to feelings of revenge. Sometimes, watching some classic example of human cruelty, I must admit to fantasies of grabbing some "evildoer" by the neck and squeezing while making sure he gets the point of how bad he is as he dies.
While I don't deny it, I also, thinking about all these topics, cannot see an intelligent "Star Trek" future without an evolution in our mentality.
@theduderabides Yes it is essential to our notion of justice. Our western Abrahamic morality but also our instinctive, animalistic emotions. We are born with the ability to feel jealousy, revenge, justice after all!
But if I may allow myself to go out on a hippie, oriental, visionary limb...maybe one day morality won't be based on judgment of people, but judgment of action itself. There is a way to impersonally view reality and differentiate between good and bad events.
The fundies won't say outright "you can fly", but what they imply is something similar. I believe this Christian/Muslim fundie notion of free will is ultimately the reason people like me and Sam fight against the use the word of "free".
With God in the mix, the free will debate we just had changes-God is omnipotent.
Free will is a valid game we humans can play right now, but only because nobody knows the reasons why we do what we do. God (or future human tech.) break the rules irreversibly.
Are you saying because we are compelled to make choices, this somehow shows we don't have free will? Or are you claiming that since there are consequences to our choices and we are bound live by those consequences, this disproves free will? Or are you saying something else entirely? The first two statements only serve to limit free will. Unlimited free will is not a claim anyone makes. I accept I cannot will myself to fly, for example.
@theduderabides I'm possibly making it seem like there is more to what I think than I've already said. I keep being pushed into a sort of a rut, juggling between agreeing on the notion of a kind of "free will" existing (as experienced) and making it clear that freedom is a complete misnomer/fantasy.
In an attempt to concentrate my thoughts:
Do we have free will? Yes.
Does this free will actually mean something objectively? No.
P.S. Unlimited freedom is claimed by the religious.
I wouldn't have a problem calling the state we as individuals find ourselves in, subjectively and socially, free will. To call choice making by intelligent, mature, arguably sane people free isn't too wrong.
Nonetheless, if we admit the type of freedom isn't really, "really" free, then, at least in my opinion, we are intellectually and morally bound to work out the details on how to justify our judicial systems. By his I mean, do we concentrate on retribution or rehabilitation?
If you never chose to like your favourite color, your sexuality, your parents, your emotions and passions... then "me" is simply a word we use to name the set of phenomena that each of us directly, intimately perceive. But so what? So what if I perceive myself as "me"; what exactly is it in this unique perspective called "self-awareness", which philosophically speaking of course, gives me responsibility for my own situation? It doesn't. That is why I see us having "unfree will".
@badblueman I understand your argument. I think it's kind of like saying, we don't choose the hand we're dealt, so how can we be considered responsible for how we play it? But that doesn't really make sense does it? There is a certain amount of skill to the game of life, just as in poker. Sure, there are things about ourselves we can't choose, but that in no way means there aren't plenty of things we can. Enter free will.
@theduderabides It doesn't seem to make sense because we have a vested interest to continue living a responsible life. Still, in and of itself it makes sense; no matter what, you can't escape the fact that your responsibility, self-awareness is part of the subjective reality you find yourself in. You can't say "I won't make choices anymore" and sit in the corner. That's the fruit in Genesis. The gift and curse of knowledge: It's great but you also realize you're trapped.
I mean, how much does one have to scratch the surface of the brain before it becomes a lobotomy, before you admit that scratching the brain changes the subjective and objective truth. "Bill may have had a brain eating tumor, but that doesn't excuse his newfound pedophilia"...well no, if you're serious about the notion of "excuse" then excuse is exactly what neurology gives him. What could you possibly call "free" here? What are we free off? Nothing. i.e. there is no free will. Just will.
What's so weird to me is how Sam, you and others can have such a strong viewpoint on this issue after centuries of scholars have debated it from so many angles without coming to a consensus. How, after neuroscience has barely scratched the surface of the brain, anyone can believe we know enough about consciousness to believe the big question of free will is somehow closed is really beyond me.
@theduderabides That's a surprising question, but, no offense, not because it's good, but because it contradicts the exchange we just had.
What makes you think free will, as in "my soul has free will and therefore it's guilty of everything", can be proven with neuroscience? What exactly would prove to you that man is a first cause, an agent in this seemingly deterministic reality?
You have to understand that free will is a projection and idea. Not something you can measure.
@badblueman At no point was I advocating the "ghost in the machine" concept. Sam's entire premise that "free will" doesn't exist is based on a handful of brain studies which seem to show our unconscious mind plays a bigger role in decision making than we intuitively feel. But what do they really prove? Without the relatively young branch of neuroscience he has nothing to add to the centuries long debate of determinism and free will. Yet he and you assume the problem has been solved.
@badblueman So what if our unconscious mind plays a large role in our decision making? Is my unconscious mind not me? How does this disprove free will? And besides, how many real choices do we make while asleep (little, if any consciousness). Most if not all our choices are made while awake - this would imply consciousness plays some role in our choices. How exactly, I'm not sure. I'm arguing we don't know enough about our brain processes to make the claims you are.
@theduderabides Well that is the perfect question "Is my unconscious mind not me?" So is it? Where does the rest of the universe end and "you" begin. That is the whole point of denying free will outright. If there is no "me" that chose to like blue, to like sushi, to like girls over boys, to like dogs over cats...then what really is the reason for the concept "me" to exist. And with "me" comes "my choice" and "my free will".
I hope I'm giving some insight into my point of view.
Now I think you are falling back into confusing your idea of free will with mine.
Again, you can distill down the classic concept of free will and then claim it does not exist, but that is little more than an exercise which may produce paradoxical results as previously discussed. I'm all for looking at things from different angles which may certainly help us refine our morals in the way you described. But I think you have overstepped your bounds by redefining free will into non existence.
@theduderabides Well then we do disagree. I don't really accept the idea of "yours" or "mine" concepts considering the stuff I'm talking about.
It is a fact that your brain defines you and what you consider your "free will". If knowledge informs our morals, our perception of responsibility and what we strive for in man's behaviour, it should change. Is it hard to think about? Perhaps. But I'd rather you deal with paradoxes if it means an intelligent and more peaceful future.
Agreed. It is probably true that our thoughts are not at all in conflict, we are just speaking of different things. This then leads us down long roads of consequences which are not even necessary. I've always thought it would be really ironic if the Enlightenment era reasoning which brought us our western society based on rights of the individual, free will, etc. were then torn down by this very same movement.
@theduderabides That is a bit pessimistic. I hope for the opposite from such ideas. To understand and then internalize these concepts would mean a rethinking in "our" moral and justice systems. Is it really rational to blame criminals if we know the "unfree" causes? I can be as vengeful as the next guy, but is it something to strive towards or eventually rebuke entirely? Do we concentrate on juicy torture techniques for pedophiles, or do we find a "cure"? You get the point.
Look, nobody is saying that you or us can't choose what we want to do, what we're saying:
"Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills." (Schopenhauer)
That's it.
We're conscious of thoughts / we're conscious of desire and we can choose to do things based on said desires. BUT! Just because choice exists, doesn't mean it's free i.e. based on free will. Free of what? Of nothing! Our actions and desires are not free of anything! They are constrained by universal forces!
@badblueman except we do have influence on our desires and wills. Are our thoughts and actions rooted in our desires and wills? Yes. But our desires and wills are also based on how we chose to think about the world. We constantly reason, plan, construct new ideas, change our views - learn... some of us more than others. I was born into a Christian, church going family, but I reasoned out it was mostly BS. That experience influenced my thoughts, but I had freedom to decide for myself.
@theduderabides We "can" influence our will. I can decide that for the next 50 years to think nothing else but "Hitler is great". Can that change my will? Maybe. But I'm not going to do it.
Why? Because I can't will myself to will to change my will. You will always come back to this point, the hidden feeling that makes you do things, i.e. the will. You can't change it. It can change, but not because you're free to do it. If it happens it will only be proof how unfree you are.
@theduderabides Did your soul jump out of the universe to rewire your brain? No.
You say you "reasoned" out of the BS. What does that mean? It means that your "true" will was never Christian, but your will was that of reasoning. If you reasoned yourself out, it happened because your will made you do it, not because you willed yourself out. There is no "free ego", there is only ego. That's Harris' and co. point. You can identify your ego as free if you wish, but it really isn't.
@badblueman What you and Sam are doing is defining the term free-will in a way that makes it nonsensical. You claim any influence we have upon our desires is meaningless because that urge must have come from somewhere which was not free to us to decide. This is a self-defined paradox, much like saying I can never pass a turtle (see: tortoise-Achilles). If you want to say every urge was preceded by other urges, we can follow this trend into infinity and create this paradox.
@theduderabides Look. You are assuming (not trying to start a fight here, so take this lightly :D) that me and Sam are retarded a bit. Both I and Sam understand the fact that we make choices and live our lives according to what we define as "our will". In that respect, of course we have "free will".
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the obvious objective , unfree reality. You're making it seem as we're trying to splice subjective + objective.
@theduderabides There is no paradox here. The only people who see paradoxes here are the ones who are hellbent on defining themselves as "free". The notion of free comes from situation where somebody has a knife to your throat: "Give me the money or die". As such your action is "legally" unfree, as in, you didn't give the guy a gift, but he took the freedom of choice away from you.
This is the paradox inducing definition of free and it is not directly debated here.
@badblueman Then do we agree it depends on how we define the term? Because the more you distill the notion of free will down, the more it appears not to exist. But somewhere along the line we are likely distorting the original definition. I don't think being confused by the tortoise-achilles paradox is retarded, it's pretty mind blowing! We observe the fact that we can pass the tortoise and accept it is not simply an illusion. Perhaps in a similar fashion, free will is also not an illusion.
@theduderabides Certainly. Is free will really an illusion? Well I don't know. In my opinion after that there comes a question "what really do you mean by free will". Do you mean "free will" as a concept... do you mean "free" will as in that there is some choice or "freedom" in our will...do you mean "free will" as choice?... If we are the universe, is free will the same as what happens? etc. You get the idea. As Sam often says, we hit philosophical bedrock.
@Tartersauce101 ur right, but i think the point his trying to convey is our thoughts and intentions usually spawn from nothing or something, sometimes without consiously knowing it.
What im trying to say is if these thoughts and intentions suddenly appear in our minds, it isnt freewill becasue we do not controll what comes to mind........"the illusion of free will is in itself an illusion"
@Tartersauce101 How do you 'consider' something?Consideration is brain activity,and you don't control what the brain does.If you think you do control your brain,I'd be interested in hearing how you perform such a feat.
"Consideration is a brain activity, and you don't control what the brain does"
You know, if you were in the same room with me, speaking those words, I'd slap you neatly across your face. Of course it wouldn't be helped, we can't control what we do right?
Please, give me a break. You should be ashamed of yourself, how the hell is it you've made it so many years, each day dictating your own actions, and somehow fail to realize it? That is an impressive feat of denial.
@Tartersauce101 Being 'conscious of' something(intentionality) is a brain state.If I spoke about determinism in your presence,those words would be the impetus for you to slap me.In short:I'd be the proximate cause for your behavior,but you'd (falsely) think of yourself as a free agent.If you think I ought to feel shame,then so should many other people,including Einstein,Voltaire,Hawking,Russell,Darwin,Freud and countless others who've seen through the illusion of free will.
Ooh, but you know what? I wouldn't really slap you just to prove a point. But I would want too. Thats right, I would want too, but I would make a conscious decision not too.
And please don't start with the hero worship of scientists - they are very very fallible, and very often wrong - they work with THEORY after all.
Treating figures in such a way makes you know better than the religious with their holy texts and saints that cannot be questioned.
@Tartersauce101 I take it that you're a religious person and your religion demands free will?There are many religions that reject 'free will'.Martin Luther was a determinist,there are many Hindu,Buddhist and Muslim traditions that are deterministic.And other Christian sects(like Calvinism)advocate determinism.Why are you defending free will so vigorously?It's a serious question.
Nope. Not religious at all. Not anti-religious either.
As far as MLK, Hinduism, Buddhism and Muslim 'traditions' being determistic, I have no idea where you are getting that from. I've studdied a bit of Eastern philosophy and never got that impression at all. But if you'd like to prove it feel free, I'm not an expert.
I defend free will because I know we have it. Its obvious to me, just like its obvious the Universe was no accident and has purpose. Its self evident.
@Tartersauce101 Martin Luther of the reformation-not M.L.K.I'm not going to try and prove what I've written but if you google 'determinism' in religions you'll see what I mean.
I don't understand how you think free will is self evident.How do you choose to choose?That's what puzzles me.If it's not the brain that's choosing then there must be some incorporeal substance that chooses.If you watch your thoughts,you'll see that 'you' are not thinking them-they're just happening.
@henryporter101 I understand him; I've seen this idea before.
He does not seem distinguish between choice and free will. So to him, every choice that is made is thus also free. I see it as a valid philosophy, since it has its own axioms, but it's incorrect. Scientifically, I mean, and it's frighteningly ignorant considering we've know of brainwashing, indoctrination and all other types of determinism for a long time. What will we do with such ideas when "neural" tech advances?
You just said it. "If its not the brain that's choosing then there must be some incorporeal substance that chooses."
Yah. I guess so. Far fetched? Supernatural? Our brains like everything else MUST operate at the most fundamental levels of the universe - just break down the chemical and electrical signals further and further till you get to the bottom.
Matter is energy, we are matter. Therefore we are energy, and consciousness is real, not a figment of imagination.
@Tartersauce101 I think I know what you mean.You are asking me what is the thing that observes the thoughts.One part of my brain observes other parts of my brain-everyone does this all the time.We don't 'see' the computer screen,we see a representation of it that our brain produces.Similarly with thoughts,one part of the brain can observe another.The part of the brain that interprets information is different from the information.So,you(interpreter)can watch thoughts(observe info)
@Tartersauce101 Sorry for confronting you on the next video as well, but:
"Thoughts and intentions arise in the mind..." "...Yes and you have the...CHOICE to act..."
No you don't. It only seems like that to you because you've apparently never stepped outside your paradigm. You can't blame a Hitler-Jugend for CHOOSING to kill a Jew. He was programmed so. Just like everybody else on the planet, only not as obviously. You can't freely choose things, you can only choose unfreely.
@Tartersauce101 Exactly! That's my point to henryporter101. Not that I take some right to pseudo psychoanalyse you, but my point was that you equate choice and freedom.
Here is where me, henryporter and you split.
Me and henry acknowledge the influences that shape our thoughts, INCLUDING the thought process called "choice making". You seem to have a philosophy where choice-making should be automatically considered "free willed".
Same for me on the Carl Sagan-esque point of view.
@IgnosticAnarchist I don't know what you just watched that was contradictory. Obviously you seem not to be taking everything in ... or perhaps were were watching completely different videos.
The fact that free will is so "enveloping" as a notion is a testament to the immense complexity of biology - that's of course if it were to be true that consciousness is merely the highest of our evolved senses - but also our simplicity, unable to comprehend this.
@wcuff1209 Just because we apply value to something doesn't make it false.A commonly made locket from the 1950's might not have much value to us, but lets say someone received a locket from someone special. Just because that person applied value to it, that does not make the value false. There are very logical reasons we apply value to money, it isn't a blanket of illusion of value, the value is real.
@wcuff1209 Of course with power there is corruption. There is a lot of power in holding a piece of paper than can get you pretty much anything, but this is still nothing compared to the wars and conflict there would be if people were getting shot because they didn't have the right product for product trade. Money is the most logical option.
@wcuff1209 Money is simply a good form of exchange, nothing more nothing less. Lets say I have apples and need pairs, and you have pairs but need bananas. You would have no reason to trade with me, because I have apples you need bananas, there would be conflict because I could be pushed to steal from you if you do not trade with me. Now lets assume there is something anybody will takes (money) this gets rid of that type of conflict, because it doesn't matter if you don't want apples, there is $.
@wcuff1209 Lets say we lived an a science fiction world similar to Jacque Freco's fantasy land known as the Resource Based Economy. This would not get rid of our genes which form bonds with members of the opposite sex, so if that member of the opposite sex finds a new mate, you will still be negatively effected and can cause abuse. Tribal exclusion can be an simple as people wearing a different color than you (gang war fare). These will always remain, even without money..I assure you.
@wcuff1209 I assure you it is not about money, not by a long shot. Saying so is a logical fallacy and irrational to the fullest extent.
Lets assume money didn't exist, how would that prevent crimes of passion from taking place? Whether you are broke, rich, or money doesn't exist, the primate instincts we have hardwired into us will cause negative emotion based on feelings of exclusion. If money didn't exist, there would still be sub-groups of people singling others out.Your argument is baseless
Freewill is what you do have the power to sway.. I can even influence many "uncontrollable" aspects of myself by the information I expose myself to, my surrounding, the people I interact with, the activities I partake in, etc. Its a personal exploration between the nature of your awareness and the choices you make, but it is not there at any one point, but more like being in tune. Its more like, I am now doing or have done that which I chose to do because of my nature and awareness.
@10sodot Thank you for your prompt reply. You Tube keeps removing the same post. Its there for a short time after I repost it, then gone. Very strange.
@2yung4grey None that I know of. I guess your referring to my strange missing post that kept getting deleted. I tried 3 times. But this wasn't the only time I had this problem. I think its a bug in the software. Another bug I noticed, is sometimes if I reply to someone, then delete my response, the post I was responding to also gets deleted.
Freewill is what you do have the power to sway. I can even influence many "uncontrollable" aspects of myself by the information I expose myself to, my surrounding, the people I interact with, the activities I partake in, etc. Its a personal exploration between the nature of your awareness and the choices you make, but it is not there at any one point, but more like being in tune. Its more like, I am now doing or have done that which I chose to do because of my nature and awareness
Freewill is what you do have the power to sway. I can even influence many "uncontrollable" aspects of myself by the information I expose myself to, my surrounding, the people I interact with, the activities I partake in, etc. Its a personal exploration between the nature of your awareness and the choices you make, but it is not there at any one point, but more like being in tune. Its more like, I am now doing or have done that which I chose to do because of my nature and awareness.
Freewill is what you do have the power to sway. I can even influence many "uncontrollable" aspects of myself by the information I expose myself to, my surrounding, the people I interact with, the activities I partake in, etc. Its a personal exploration between the nature of your awareness and the choices you make, but it is not there at any one point, but more like being in tune. Its more like, I am now doing or have done that which I chose to do because of my nature and awareness.
Awareness is what it is, not the physiology that triggers it, although the physiology is fundamental to it being there. The relationship to morality and free will should be a very personal one. Responsibility can give rise to and offer for maintenance of real human values/valuables. Morality should also have a strong deterministic basis. We can obviously help those people who have been down and out their entire lives and not just store them somewhere, for example.
Understanding that free will is an illusion, why have we not taken responsibility to stand and do whats best for all by implementing an Equal Money System, as clearly, money is the prime factor behind abuse in all cases. This would virtually solve all of the problems within our reality which stem from false perception and inequality.
@NIETZSCHEAN14 if you subscribe to Nietzsche's notion of Will to Power, would you not increase the potential for gain by choosing the human race as the group you identify with instead of limiting your allies to whites? You seem more intent on using the ideology to justify your racial prejudice than making an honest assessment of what would be conducive to progress. Eugenic motivations are unrealistic and therefore counterproductive. You needn't have morality to accept this truth.
@022ES. What do you mean by "human race"? Do you not believe there are different races of men? Is it wrong for Blacks to want what is best for Blacks, and want to be with Blacks and produce more Blacks? Do you think it would be better to end racial diversity by having all the races mix? I value the diversity of Nature! Is it wrong for tigers to desire to be with tigers and produce more tigers and not mixed-type big cats? Also, discriminating is not prejudging! You do not understand.
@NIETZSCHEAN14 A fair question. I don't think its wrong to distinguish between races, I just don't think its useful. Whites and blacks are both members of the human species. Tigers however are not a race of the big cat species, they are their own species. They're able to reproduce with other big cats of the same genus but the offspring are rarely fertile.So to answer your question, yes tigers should desire to reproduce more tigers, and humans should desire to reproduce more humans
@NIETZSCHEAN14 I recommend to watch: Towards an empathic society. (RSA Channel) The world is constantly evolving. Mexicans are a mixed breed, So is Perú and other latin american countries. What happened in Mexico may happen to the world. You can't control humans. Your son may easily wind up marrying a chinese girl, if he has the chance! Or would you stop him for the sake of your race?
@martinbeco. What has any of that got to do with what I said? I am only concerned with what I have control of. I have NO concern for that which is out of my control. In this sense, I am a Stoic.
Mercyless correction (by medication and programs) instead of retribution can be as harsh and deterring as severe punishment. Plus it yields better results, if tailor made.
"Author" or not, if we're talking about someone who has killed, and done so because they wanted it at the surface of their consciousness, then that mind still deserves to go through what they've inflicted, and retribution is OUR impulse against that mind, of which we may be an author or not.
I mean, where does the impulse come from? From the brain. The brain is the author. And if we equate "personality" and "intention" with "parts of the brain that are responsible for these phenomena", then, well, the person is the author.
This doesn't really fundamentally change the nature of responsibility and retribution - it's more like adding (roughly) the same number to both sides of an equation.
Daniel Wegner proposes that conscious Free Will is an illusion in that our conscious choices and decision do not initiate our actions. The initiation occurs at the unconscious level and only just prior to the action do we become consciously aware of an intention to act, hence the illusion. Benjamin Libet's work suggests that even closer to the unconsciously initiated action there exists a Veto window during which we can consciously curtail the action. This has been called Free Won't.
@DickusCopernicus yea but the purpose the conscious part of our minds is to enhance our survival by giving more depth to our thoughts and increase our ability to learn and use new information, hence regardless of whether or not it immediately initiates action it has long term results and can change our behavior patterns with regards to something. The concept of free will to me just meant the ability to choose which we all do with regards to our environment, I would think the illusion part of it
@DickusCopernicus comes from the tendency of people to feel unjustifiably proud of their judgement especially with regards to someone elses most likely due to our ability to think in abstract terms and images that are responsible for art, which naturally evokes strong emotions and creates the feeling of transcending reality. I would assume to over divulge oneself in these images that glorify our existence is what is meant by the illusion of free will
i'd like to take a stab at it even though i might be wrong. oh well.
i think what he means is that "free will" is an illusion. and if it is an illusion, the idea or thought of free will is an illusion as well since "free will" is an illusion, in our minds.
it's like a person dreaming, but in the dream the person knows he's/she's dreaming.
the person is still dreaming even though the person acknowledges the dream.
O.o This IS that video. The short version of his argument is this: determinism seems apparent on the surface, but beneath the surface quantum mechanics are at work. Determinism without quantum fluctuations is the illusion. That quantum fluctuations still dictate what we believe to be conscious choices is where the actual illusion of free will is to be found. We cannot predict with 100% accuracy human behavior; but human behavior is 100% pre-determined. That help?
@CaptainSmallFoot except that since no one truly understands quantum mechanics and since no one truly understands the universe, a word defined by us --->predetermined has no bearing
@CaptainSmallFoot all we can can ahem extrapolate is that genetics shape how someones brain will most likely respond to the environment, however predetermined is not the correct word to describe our understanding the of the universe and quantam mechanics, and in this case the brain, simply because something that is predetermined is set in stone, and given the brains complex layout and considering quantam mechanics we certainly cannot always predict the outcome
@nevermoonawolf I don't particularly like the word predetermined simply because it entails a determination, which I disagree with, but that's a whole other conversation. Harris addresses quantum fluctuations, and why it doesn't save free will in this video set. No, we cannot always predict the outcome--particularly over very long periods of time. No human being has ever lived long enough for quantum fluctuation to significantly altar a possible outcome on large scale.
@CaptainSmallFoot Sry I hadnt seen this one..quantum fluctuation occurs all the time and in the most complex thing such as the brain no one REally knows the what well "choose" for instance given then knowledge that whatever we choose isnt really chosen by "us" no one knows how many loops and pathways the connections r gonna take before reaching a "decision" and perhaps the far reaching effects of that knowledge on a day to day basis depending on the individual if that makes any sense.
@CaptainSmallFoot for example Im bipolar so I have the conscious knowledge of this, ive been through a lot of shit usually as a result of the same "pathology" that I could never seem to get a grasp on, the more it happens the more it effects me on a multiple levels including conscious, the unpredictability of my situation is not something that can be fathomed obv not even by me, but yet I have this knowledge you see how its complicated maybe sort of
@CaptainSmallFoot and I never said anything about saving free will honestly no joke I never even knew what that meant, though ive understood its psychological origins, so literally when I watched this video I was like what is he trying to prove its common sense, I guess ultimately the definition of free will he is trying to refute is that everything that happens in the brain has physiological determination not spiritual, which again is common sense--> watch the vid on the right. steven pinker
Anybody interested in Harris should check out Tony Parsons' non duality stuff. Grappling with the idea of morality is symptomatic of the presumption that there is any autonomous entity to begin with. The brain in its vast complexity simulates individuality.
I don't really get this. Love Harris' other lectures but this one baffles me. What about Dexter? (silly example, I know) He has an urge to kill but chooses to do good in the world with it. I don't see why external or internal influences take away the ability to exercise our will.
But what if someone is born without compassion? Is that their fault in anyway?
"I don't see why external or internal influences take away the ability to exercise our will." What does that mean? External and internal influences are all that exist. Our "will" is the result of the interaction between the two forces; it is not something separate.
@LeonDeLaMole In Dexters case his decision to do good is conditioned on his previous external sensory inputs. All of his principles of morality attained through a lifetime of experience vs his urge to kill. One sum of agents will be greater than the other thus leading to his illusion of him choosing to do one or the other. It's just a lot of math and we humans most often cannot see the forrest for the trees.
@10sodot are you 100% comfortable with saying there is no free will if it is beneficial and evolution as helped us to survive as something gone wrong as it is making me super scared and nervous and making want to commit suicide as i am now sooo uncomfortable.
@10sodot I already did and Richard Dawkins too. If this guy says there is zero free will then how can they tell us about evolution and expect us to choose/believe in it in a rational way to educate ourselfs from 'religion' which is was is corupting our mind. This is total contradiction as they are saying we cannot change our minds anyway as it his predetermined. You yourself try to explain this to me and tell me they are not contradicting/wasting there own time.
it is a demonstrable fact that ppl sometimes come to conclusions on the basis of logical evaluation of evidence. Harris' position is that the process of logical evaluation one sort of physical, deterministic process occuring in the brain, while for example, processes of concluding that the Bible is true because that's what Sunday school taught you, is another sort of deterministic physical process. he concludes that external information, like arguments influence these sorts of events
No, you are not understanding. Did you not watch the first 2 parts? Harris explains why that type of thinking is illogical. I say that rather than reiterating in my own words because he said better than I can.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
is he just trying to make excuses for murderers has he got an urge to murder kill and rape and he is trying to convince us it wont be his fault because to me he looks like a real nut case.
So a nut is a person who tries to make sure that what he does is correct.
You must be a republican.
He is not talking about not punishing people that are dangerous to others, but whether condemation is relevant.. Imprisonment should be relevant, that is have a purpuse beond revenge.
If we dont know why a person acted as he did, we have no way of assing guilt or punishment
Should you be punished for being a moron or for being brainwashed or a psycopat.. to me it makes a big difference
your the one making an excuse to punish people who disgust you, you dont care about their reasons and their motivations.
95% of pedophiles were abused as children
you will mourn the child that is a victim right now,and you will hate that same person when he grows up and does the thing that was done to him, you will not ask if that person was ever molested, you simply will not care.
"and you will hate that same person when he grows up and does the thing that was done to him"
Yes, because then they're harming someone, as opposed to being harmed.
Sympathizing with the victim and condemning the perpetrator, what's so difficult about that?
If someone's wife is murderered and he goes on to murder someone else's wife, yes, the sympathy will turn to hate - hate he'll now deserve as much as the previous killer's.
"Sympathizing with the victim and condemning the perpetrator, what's so difficult about that?"
its the same person!!! how do you do that at the same time? You dont, you treat the same person in 2 different ways, how about sympathize with the perpetrator and condemn his actions?
"hate he'll now deserve as much as the previous killer's."
how do you deserve something if you were conditioned to do it by outside events and genes?
1) AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN TIME, you moron. There may be DECADES between the abuse and the deed.
Just as you don't punish a mugger before he's attacked someone on the street.... you know... only after the crime. Even though it's the same person °_°_°_°_°_°_°
2) But in our parallel universe, being abused isn't an excuse for taking it out on innocents, and being a victim doesn't FORCE one to commit crimes.
If it does, say, by causing blackouts, or disconnecting the person from reality..
"But in our parallel universe, being abused isn't an excuse for taking it out on innocents"
who says its an excuse, you make up excuses to punish people...
what if its a valid reason
"and being a victim doesn't FORCE one to commit crimes."
nobody say nothing about forcing someone to commit crime but it certainly does influence their behavior in wanting to do such a thing, maybe it desensitizes them or something.
"if I say that someone who rapes and kills a child deserves punishment, I make up excuses"
what if that person is actually mentally ill?
would you excuse him from punishment then?
""I've just raped a woman; I had a valid reason to do so, I was abused as a child""
if someone raped a women, it probably is going to be because he suffered some kind of abuse or humiliation from lets say another women, this does not make the rape right!!! but does it make sense to punish this person?
Then maybe you should make a distinction between "reason" and "cause". And if you go with "reason", then it's certainly an INvalid reason, as, you know, it's not justified.
You also should make a distinction between mental illness, delusion and plain old douchebaggery.
If you think the world is controlled by goblin illuminati and you have a chance of disrupting their machinations by raping their alien queen messenger, then one could say you can't be "blamed" in the traditional sense
"Then maybe you should make a distinction between "reason" and "cause""
agreed, but an Invalid reason is still a cause
"elusion and plain old douchebaggery."
douche is a code word for " i dont know why this man is behaving like it does" or " he does bad things for no reason", it means nothing and it shows lack of understanding of person you judge.
If you have some sort of mental disorder that disables your identification skills, and prevents you from realizing that one woman isn't the same woman as the one that abused you, then too.
However, it's entirely possible to have the mental capacity to tell one person from another and still have the desire to hurt women because one abused you - in that case, yes, you deserve punishment and have no excuses.
Wanting to kill someone isn't an excuse for doing it.
"and still have the desire to hurt women because one abused you "
so because you dont see causes there arent any?
i can name a few, you identify all women the same like in war you identify all men of one nations as the same and you treat them the same even though they are not guilty of anything.
its a bad reason/cause to hurt someone, but its a cause that we can understand.
Saying "but I really wanted it badly" doesn't reduce your guilt or responsibility.
Understanding that you can't blame an entire gender on the crimes of one person, but not giving a shit either way, is your little problem, and if you actually take it as far as harming someone, it'll BECOME your problem.
I'm not going to be easier on a racially motivated murder just because the killer had racist friends who told him that black people suck - that may have "conditioned" them to...
does a man control what he is going to "want" or desire? Why would he be punished for that?
if someone hurts you and you want to retaliate is that a good enough reason? is that justified? Maybe to you but to someone who does not know nothing about you he will only see you as being the agressor for no reason/cause.
society does not make room for some kinds of people and then it blames them for becoming criminals, its well known that poverty stimulates criminal behavior.
"If you had been subjected to an elaborate brainwashing indoctrination "
how do you differentiate between brainwashed people and racist people? What is your standard ? For me racist is brainwashed....
"just because the killer had racist friends who told him that black people suck "
yeah , and just because someone told me some some dude sucked i went and killed him , i mean really...
do you really think people do stuff like murder on such trivial reasons/causes?
"But you seem not to grasp the difference."
your the one not grasping !!! That you understand motivations of some people and you justify them, but you dont understand motivation of other and you punish them...!!!!
... adopt this view, but it doesn't excuse them in any way.
If you had been subjected to an elaborate brainwashing indoctrination in some secluded dungeon, that would be another thing. But you seem not to grasp the difference.
your and societies problem is that you find a person guily untill proven innocent because you would treat mentally ill people the same as the "guilty" ones if you DO NOT KNOW they are mentally ill
you lack of understanding of causes and reasons makes you think perpetrators did not have any reasons or did stuff like murder for trivial reasons....
answer this question
are drug addicts guilty for their addiction? can they get rid of it by themselfs by will power?
"your and societies problem is that you find a person guily untill proven innocent because you would treat mentally ill people the same as the "guilty" ones if you DO NOT KNOW they are mentally ill"
No idea where you pulled that from. It should've been obvious that I EXCLUDE mentally ill people from any of that, and yea, mental sanity should and is examined in court.
The rest of your comment is too incoherent to respond to.
Basically, there is a difference between stupid...
1= Someone that does NOT believe in free will conceptually, still ''feels'' as if he or she is free, it is inevitable. This is the first 'level' of illusion.
2= Someone actually believing in the concept of free will, but the concept free will is an illusion. This is the second 'level' of illusion.
The feeling of free will is an inevitable illusion, but someone also have an illusory concept of free will. Hence, the illusion of free will is itself an illusion. (could maybe be that 1=2 and 2=1).
Arydude 6 days ago
Does anybody have any idea what Sam meant when he said, 'the illusion of free will is itself an illusion'? For some reason I can't wrap my head around that.
requiemdexter 2 weeks ago
@requiemdexter Hmm, well I'm not too sure but I think he might be emphasizing that the lack of free will is in everything. At the end of this talk you are either going to believe that free will is an illusion or not. I think he's talking to those of us that agree with him because even if you agree with him, you arent really agreeing with him. Agreeing would mean that there is the possibility of disagreeing. We had no choice either way.lol, shits crazy
SaintsOfImpurity 2 weeks ago
@requiemdexter My interpretation of that statement is that when we become aware of the causes of our thoughts,and how thoughts seem to spring out of nowhere(of course it's the brain)we realise that we are not actively thinking the thoughts.When we become aware that we are not thinking the thoughts,the illusion of 'authorship' melts away.When that happens,what was formerly hidden becomes transparent.One can see the illusion as illusory,like knowing how a magic trick works.
henryporter101 1 week ago
@requiemdexter Here's what I think it means:
(1) An illusion occurs when your experience delivers a distorted view of reality.
(2) Free will would be an illusion if our experience told us we had free will, while we really did not.
(3) It goes one step further: our experience tells us that our experience tells us we have free will. So (2) is an illusion. If you pay closer attention to what it feels like to be yourself in the world, you realize you don't even have the illusion of free will.
marquisdelaplace 2 days ago
@requiemdexter (cont) you think you have the false experience of free will, while really you don't even have the false experience of free will.
marquisdelaplace 2 days ago
Why is there a giant purple pigs head in outer space?
lewisner 2 weeks ago
The idea of a perfectly free will is the fundamental nature of most faiths because it puts all the responsibility on the individuals and none on environment (health, culture, society, teachings, upbringing, etc) The end result is that we are not responsible unless we're the ones pulling the trigger because that's their free will.
Such thinking let's individuals and groups get away with decisions that affect many others in very negative ways and cause them to do wrong. But hey, it's not us.
aquiace 1 month ago
"The illusion of free will is itself an illusion "
So... in other words... the illusion of free will is an illusion? free will is an illusion?
i think this is another one of those tricks of language.
mattyisagod 1 month ago
@mattyisagod I don't think you can say "in other words" here, since you used 90% the same wording. I do see your point, though: it's called the ILLUSION of free will, so it says right in the name that it's an illusion. Why does Harris say it again? It's like saying "the youtube website is itself a website." There's no new information in the description.
More generally, I 100% agree with all of the arguments presented in these three videos.
Adamantium9001 1 month ago
@Adamantium9001 Yeah, it's the only thing I'm unclear about in the whole of the Moral Landscape.
I thought maybe he means "free will is an illusion. Awareness of the absence of free will (~you aren't the author of your thoughts) by noticing the spontaneous nature of thinking is ALSO an illusion" but I don't see where thats going.
This issue DEFINITELY needs addressing by Sam.
mattyisagod 1 month ago
All gods are externalizations of internal fears, feelings, or whatever, and are therefore a form of second-hand notation for "the person who created" the god in question. badblueman, you've just found another rationalization for Satanic doctrine, and are far from proving anything. Nevertheless, it seems that you're on the right track to me. cheers.
coryskawaffle 1 month ago
that angers me and you should be be punished - God.
theduderabides 1 month ago
Did I just prove that we are God? Dayum! That's some quantum shit right there. I've been watching too many Alan Watts videos; or not enough...
badblueman 1 month ago
The free will thing is settled then. The religious way is to say we are souls who have free will; the secular way is to say we are egos who have choices. I guess going this far we can also equate the religious concept of an omniscient God with the secular concept of self-awareness. Both seem to have a "collapsing the probability wave function" effect on the notions of "choice/free will", meaning that they both give you comfort of being awesome for knowing but also sentence you to a paradox.
badblueman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lol, we need to slow down our posting. I see I've already missed a couple of yours...
Look, it's very easy to get carried away with things. We can realize instances where punishment might be inferior to rehab, and then go overboard and decide all forms of punishment are unjust. If I choose to steal something because I think it is easier than working for it, punishment is just. It was my choice. My genes didn't make me do it, I was just too lazy to work for it.
theduderabides 1 month ago
Lol, we need to slow down our posting. I see I've already missed a couple of yours...
Look, it's very easy to get carried away with things. We can realize instances where punishment might be inferior to rehab, and then go overboard and decide all forms of punishment are unjust. If I choose to steal something because I think it is easier than working for it, punishment is just. It was my choice. My genes didn't make me do it, I was just too lazy to work for it.
theduderabides 1 month ago
I have no problem with making rational changes to the judicial system. When we find there are injustices within it caused by irrationality brought in by an antiquated system of morals based solely on religious dogma, let's fix it. We can do this without making a claim that we have no choice in our decisions because everything is based on chemical reactions in some deterministic context.
theduderabides 1 month ago
That last comment is the key to how I see it.
Think about it. Why is the word free so important in free will? Why do people like to bring up free will with moral judgments? It's to really hammer it home, to emphasize the idea of "you chose X, when you should/could've chosen Y"!
What does it all come down to at the end? The ego. It's for people with ego's to please or torture, praise or condemn other ego's. The religious word for ego is soul. What's the one property souls have? Free will. QED?
badblueman 1 month ago
To me, free will is literally choice making.
What is the most important thing in any moral judgment we make? Responsibility. You are guilty of that which you choose (=free will). As such free will is only necessary in moral debates where morality is based on justice. Elsewhere it's useless. So you see, this sort of restates my original point. Free will is a useless assertion. It's a "buzzword" to appeal to our emotions, so we can glee at suffering criminals or cheer our happy heroes.
badblueman 1 month ago
@badblueman Nailing down context is important to understanding the meaning of free will, and I'm glad you have tried to do so. I suspect much of the disagreements on this notion can be attributed to a shift in context that occurs when we go from defining free will as choice to then trying to objectify it. But why are you asserting it is useless in discussions of justice and morality? If you agree we have choice (=free will), then isn't it essential to our notion of justice and morality?
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides I see I misstated the question. You claimed free will (as defined by choice) is only necessary in moral debates based on justice. Then you asserted elsewhere it is useless. Even if your second statement is true, why does that mean free will is a useless assertion - given it is essential in the context of a moral justice?
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides This is very progressive, beyond even myself. I certainly don't claim to be immune to feelings of revenge. Sometimes, watching some classic example of human cruelty, I must admit to fantasies of grabbing some "evildoer" by the neck and squeezing while making sure he gets the point of how bad he is as he dies.
While I don't deny it, I also, thinking about all these topics, cannot see an intelligent "Star Trek" future without an evolution in our mentality.
badblueman 1 month ago
@theduderabides Yes it is essential to our notion of justice. Our western Abrahamic morality but also our instinctive, animalistic emotions. We are born with the ability to feel jealousy, revenge, justice after all!
But if I may allow myself to go out on a hippie, oriental, visionary limb...maybe one day morality won't be based on judgment of people, but judgment of action itself. There is a way to impersonally view reality and differentiate between good and bad events.
badblueman 1 month ago
The fundies won't say outright "you can fly", but what they imply is something similar. I believe this Christian/Muslim fundie notion of free will is ultimately the reason people like me and Sam fight against the use the word of "free".
With God in the mix, the free will debate we just had changes-God is omnipotent.
Free will is a valid game we humans can play right now, but only because nobody knows the reasons why we do what we do. God (or future human tech.) break the rules irreversibly.
badblueman 1 month ago
Are you saying because we are compelled to make choices, this somehow shows we don't have free will? Or are you claiming that since there are consequences to our choices and we are bound live by those consequences, this disproves free will? Or are you saying something else entirely? The first two statements only serve to limit free will. Unlimited free will is not a claim anyone makes. I accept I cannot will myself to fly, for example.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides I'm possibly making it seem like there is more to what I think than I've already said. I keep being pushed into a sort of a rut, juggling between agreeing on the notion of a kind of "free will" existing (as experienced) and making it clear that freedom is a complete misnomer/fantasy.
In an attempt to concentrate my thoughts:
Do we have free will? Yes.
Does this free will actually mean something objectively? No.
P.S. Unlimited freedom is claimed by the religious.
badblueman 1 month ago
I wouldn't have a problem calling the state we as individuals find ourselves in, subjectively and socially, free will. To call choice making by intelligent, mature, arguably sane people free isn't too wrong.
Nonetheless, if we admit the type of freedom isn't really, "really" free, then, at least in my opinion, we are intellectually and morally bound to work out the details on how to justify our judicial systems. By his I mean, do we concentrate on retribution or rehabilitation?
badblueman 1 month ago
If you never chose to like your favourite color, your sexuality, your parents, your emotions and passions... then "me" is simply a word we use to name the set of phenomena that each of us directly, intimately perceive. But so what? So what if I perceive myself as "me"; what exactly is it in this unique perspective called "self-awareness", which philosophically speaking of course, gives me responsibility for my own situation? It doesn't. That is why I see us having "unfree will".
badblueman 1 month ago
@badblueman I understand your argument. I think it's kind of like saying, we don't choose the hand we're dealt, so how can we be considered responsible for how we play it? But that doesn't really make sense does it? There is a certain amount of skill to the game of life, just as in poker. Sure, there are things about ourselves we can't choose, but that in no way means there aren't plenty of things we can. Enter free will.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides It doesn't seem to make sense because we have a vested interest to continue living a responsible life. Still, in and of itself it makes sense; no matter what, you can't escape the fact that your responsibility, self-awareness is part of the subjective reality you find yourself in. You can't say "I won't make choices anymore" and sit in the corner. That's the fruit in Genesis. The gift and curse of knowledge: It's great but you also realize you're trapped.
badblueman 1 month ago
I mean, how much does one have to scratch the surface of the brain before it becomes a lobotomy, before you admit that scratching the brain changes the subjective and objective truth. "Bill may have had a brain eating tumor, but that doesn't excuse his newfound pedophilia"...well no, if you're serious about the notion of "excuse" then excuse is exactly what neurology gives him. What could you possibly call "free" here? What are we free off? Nothing. i.e. there is no free will. Just will.
badblueman 1 month ago
What's so weird to me is how Sam, you and others can have such a strong viewpoint on this issue after centuries of scholars have debated it from so many angles without coming to a consensus. How, after neuroscience has barely scratched the surface of the brain, anyone can believe we know enough about consciousness to believe the big question of free will is somehow closed is really beyond me.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides That's a surprising question, but, no offense, not because it's good, but because it contradicts the exchange we just had.
What makes you think free will, as in "my soul has free will and therefore it's guilty of everything", can be proven with neuroscience? What exactly would prove to you that man is a first cause, an agent in this seemingly deterministic reality?
You have to understand that free will is a projection and idea. Not something you can measure.
badblueman 1 month ago
@badblueman At no point was I advocating the "ghost in the machine" concept. Sam's entire premise that "free will" doesn't exist is based on a handful of brain studies which seem to show our unconscious mind plays a bigger role in decision making than we intuitively feel. But what do they really prove? Without the relatively young branch of neuroscience he has nothing to add to the centuries long debate of determinism and free will. Yet he and you assume the problem has been solved.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@badblueman So what if our unconscious mind plays a large role in our decision making? Is my unconscious mind not me? How does this disprove free will? And besides, how many real choices do we make while asleep (little, if any consciousness). Most if not all our choices are made while awake - this would imply consciousness plays some role in our choices. How exactly, I'm not sure. I'm arguing we don't know enough about our brain processes to make the claims you are.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides Well that is the perfect question "Is my unconscious mind not me?" So is it? Where does the rest of the universe end and "you" begin. That is the whole point of denying free will outright. If there is no "me" that chose to like blue, to like sushi, to like girls over boys, to like dogs over cats...then what really is the reason for the concept "me" to exist. And with "me" comes "my choice" and "my free will".
I hope I'm giving some insight into my point of view.
badblueman 1 month ago
Now I think you are falling back into confusing your idea of free will with mine.
Again, you can distill down the classic concept of free will and then claim it does not exist, but that is little more than an exercise which may produce paradoxical results as previously discussed. I'm all for looking at things from different angles which may certainly help us refine our morals in the way you described. But I think you have overstepped your bounds by redefining free will into non existence.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides Well then we do disagree. I don't really accept the idea of "yours" or "mine" concepts considering the stuff I'm talking about.
It is a fact that your brain defines you and what you consider your "free will". If knowledge informs our morals, our perception of responsibility and what we strive for in man's behaviour, it should change. Is it hard to think about? Perhaps. But I'd rather you deal with paradoxes if it means an intelligent and more peaceful future.
badblueman 1 month ago
Agreed. It is probably true that our thoughts are not at all in conflict, we are just speaking of different things. This then leads us down long roads of consequences which are not even necessary. I've always thought it would be really ironic if the Enlightenment era reasoning which brought us our western society based on rights of the individual, free will, etc. were then torn down by this very same movement.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides That is a bit pessimistic. I hope for the opposite from such ideas. To understand and then internalize these concepts would mean a rethinking in "our" moral and justice systems. Is it really rational to blame criminals if we know the "unfree" causes? I can be as vengeful as the next guy, but is it something to strive towards or eventually rebuke entirely? Do we concentrate on juicy torture techniques for pedophiles, or do we find a "cure"? You get the point.
badblueman 1 month ago
wow, this caused me to become agape. Honestly, it really makes me thing about retributive justice. Good job, Harris. I commend you!
AlexLKelly 1 month ago
"the illusion of free will is itself an illusion" BRAINFUCKED. for lack of a more sophisticated word..could someone explain please?
Muusicca 1 month ago
Look, nobody is saying that you or us can't choose what we want to do, what we're saying:
"Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills." (Schopenhauer)
That's it.
We're conscious of thoughts / we're conscious of desire and we can choose to do things based on said desires. BUT! Just because choice exists, doesn't mean it's free i.e. based on free will. Free of what? Of nothing! Our actions and desires are not free of anything! They are constrained by universal forces!
badblueman 1 month ago
@badblueman except we do have influence on our desires and wills. Are our thoughts and actions rooted in our desires and wills? Yes. But our desires and wills are also based on how we chose to think about the world. We constantly reason, plan, construct new ideas, change our views - learn... some of us more than others. I was born into a Christian, church going family, but I reasoned out it was mostly BS. That experience influenced my thoughts, but I had freedom to decide for myself.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides We "can" influence our will. I can decide that for the next 50 years to think nothing else but "Hitler is great". Can that change my will? Maybe. But I'm not going to do it.
Why? Because I can't will myself to will to change my will. You will always come back to this point, the hidden feeling that makes you do things, i.e. the will. You can't change it. It can change, but not because you're free to do it. If it happens it will only be proof how unfree you are.
badblueman 1 month ago
@theduderabides Did your soul jump out of the universe to rewire your brain? No.
You say you "reasoned" out of the BS. What does that mean? It means that your "true" will was never Christian, but your will was that of reasoning. If you reasoned yourself out, it happened because your will made you do it, not because you willed yourself out. There is no "free ego", there is only ego. That's Harris' and co. point. You can identify your ego as free if you wish, but it really isn't.
badblueman 1 month ago
@badblueman What you and Sam are doing is defining the term free-will in a way that makes it nonsensical. You claim any influence we have upon our desires is meaningless because that urge must have come from somewhere which was not free to us to decide. This is a self-defined paradox, much like saying I can never pass a turtle (see: tortoise-Achilles). If you want to say every urge was preceded by other urges, we can follow this trend into infinity and create this paradox.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides Look. You are assuming (not trying to start a fight here, so take this lightly :D) that me and Sam are retarded a bit. Both I and Sam understand the fact that we make choices and live our lives according to what we define as "our will". In that respect, of course we have "free will".
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the obvious objective , unfree reality. You're making it seem as we're trying to splice subjective + objective.
badblueman 1 month ago
@theduderabides There is no paradox here. The only people who see paradoxes here are the ones who are hellbent on defining themselves as "free". The notion of free comes from situation where somebody has a knife to your throat: "Give me the money or die". As such your action is "legally" unfree, as in, you didn't give the guy a gift, but he took the freedom of choice away from you.
This is the paradox inducing definition of free and it is not directly debated here.
badblueman 1 month ago
@badblueman Then do we agree it depends on how we define the term? Because the more you distill the notion of free will down, the more it appears not to exist. But somewhere along the line we are likely distorting the original definition. I don't think being confused by the tortoise-achilles paradox is retarded, it's pretty mind blowing! We observe the fact that we can pass the tortoise and accept it is not simply an illusion. Perhaps in a similar fashion, free will is also not an illusion.
theduderabides 1 month ago
@theduderabides Certainly. Is free will really an illusion? Well I don't know. In my opinion after that there comes a question "what really do you mean by free will". Do you mean "free will" as a concept... do you mean "free" will as in that there is some choice or "freedom" in our will...do you mean "free will" as choice?... If we are the universe, is free will the same as what happens? etc. You get the idea. As Sam often says, we hit philosophical bedrock.
badblueman 1 month ago
"Thoughts and intentions simply arise in the mind...what else could they do?"
Yes, and you have the FREE WILL of CHOICE to act on those thoughts and intentions!
You can act, you can not act, you can consider, and re-consider those 'thoughts and intentions that arise in the mind'.
That's the whole damn point.
Tartersauce101 2 months ago
@Tartersauce101 ur right, but i think the point his trying to convey is our thoughts and intentions usually spawn from nothing or something, sometimes without consiously knowing it.
What im trying to say is if these thoughts and intentions suddenly appear in our minds, it isnt freewill becasue we do not controll what comes to mind........"the illusion of free will is in itself an illusion"
2yung4grey 2 months ago
@Tartersauce101 How do you 'consider' something?Consideration is brain activity,and you don't control what the brain does.If you think you do control your brain,I'd be interested in hearing how you perform such a feat.
henryporter101 1 month ago
@henryporter101
"Consideration is a brain activity, and you don't control what the brain does"
You know, if you were in the same room with me, speaking those words, I'd slap you neatly across your face. Of course it wouldn't be helped, we can't control what we do right?
Please, give me a break. You should be ashamed of yourself, how the hell is it you've made it so many years, each day dictating your own actions, and somehow fail to realize it? That is an impressive feat of denial.
Tartersauce101 1 month ago
@Tartersauce101 Being 'conscious of' something(intentionality) is a brain state.If I spoke about determinism in your presence,those words would be the impetus for you to slap me.In short:I'd be the proximate cause for your behavior,but you'd (falsely) think of yourself as a free agent.If you think I ought to feel shame,then so should many other people,including Einstein,Voltaire,Hawking,Russell,Darwin,Freud and countless others who've seen through the illusion of free will.
henryporter101 1 month ago
@henryporter101
Ooh, but you know what? I wouldn't really slap you just to prove a point. But I would want too. Thats right, I would want too, but I would make a conscious decision not too.
And please don't start with the hero worship of scientists - they are very very fallible, and very often wrong - they work with THEORY after all.
Treating figures in such a way makes you know better than the religious with their holy texts and saints that cannot be questioned.
Tartersauce101 1 month ago
@Tartersauce101 I take it that you're a religious person and your religion demands free will?There are many religions that reject 'free will'.Martin Luther was a determinist,there are many Hindu,Buddhist and Muslim traditions that are deterministic.And other Christian sects(like Calvinism)advocate determinism.Why are you defending free will so vigorously?It's a serious question.
henryporter101 1 month ago
@henryporter101
Nope. Not religious at all. Not anti-religious either.
As far as MLK, Hinduism, Buddhism and Muslim 'traditions' being determistic, I have no idea where you are getting that from. I've studdied a bit of Eastern philosophy and never got that impression at all. But if you'd like to prove it feel free, I'm not an expert.
I defend free will because I know we have it. Its obvious to me, just like its obvious the Universe was no accident and has purpose. Its self evident.
Tartersauce101 1 month ago
@Tartersauce101 Martin Luther of the reformation-not M.L.K.I'm not going to try and prove what I've written but if you google 'determinism' in religions you'll see what I mean.
I don't understand how you think free will is self evident.How do you choose to choose?That's what puzzles me.If it's not the brain that's choosing then there must be some incorporeal substance that chooses.If you watch your thoughts,you'll see that 'you' are not thinking them-they're just happening.
henryporter101 1 month ago
@henryporter101 I understand him; I've seen this idea before.
He does not seem distinguish between choice and free will. So to him, every choice that is made is thus also free. I see it as a valid philosophy, since it has its own axioms, but it's incorrect. Scientifically, I mean, and it's frighteningly ignorant considering we've know of brainwashing, indoctrination and all other types of determinism for a long time. What will we do with such ideas when "neural" tech advances?
badblueman 1 month ago
@henryporter101
You just said it. "If its not the brain that's choosing then there must be some incorporeal substance that chooses."
Yah. I guess so. Far fetched? Supernatural? Our brains like everything else MUST operate at the most fundamental levels of the universe - just break down the chemical and electrical signals further and further till you get to the bottom.
Matter is energy, we are matter. Therefore we are energy, and consciousness is real, not a figment of imagination.
Tartersauce101 1 month ago
@henryporter101
Also, from your same comment - "If YOU watch YOUR thoughts, YOU'LL see that 'YOU' are not thinking them-they're just happening."
C'mon man, this is getting ridiculous, you are operating under the very premise that you are arguing against: because its the truth!
WHO are you talking too when you suggest that: "If you watch your thoughts..." ??
Who watches who's thoughts? Are you accusing me of being schizophrenic, or suggesting I have a soul - 'incorporeal substance' inside?
Tartersauce101 1 month ago
@Tartersauce101 I think I know what you mean.You are asking me what is the thing that observes the thoughts.One part of my brain observes other parts of my brain-everyone does this all the time.We don't 'see' the computer screen,we see a representation of it that our brain produces.Similarly with thoughts,one part of the brain can observe another.The part of the brain that interprets information is different from the information.So,you(interpreter)can watch thoughts(observe info)
henryporter101 1 month ago
@Tartersauce101 Sorry for confronting you on the next video as well, but:
"Thoughts and intentions arise in the mind..." "...Yes and you have the...CHOICE to act..."
No you don't. It only seems like that to you because you've apparently never stepped outside your paradigm. You can't blame a Hitler-Jugend for CHOOSING to kill a Jew. He was programmed so. Just like everybody else on the planet, only not as obviously. You can't freely choose things, you can only choose unfreely.
badblueman 1 month ago
@badblueman
You know, reading your replies makes me so happy that I disagree with you.
I am self aware. And I am aware of the universe...and am a part of the universe. Therefore the universe is aware of itself through me.
Does that have anything to do with free will? Not really. Kinda cool though.
But I can't argue with you, when all you have is "No you don't" without a drop of reasoning or evidence to support it. Just 'no' because you said so?
Also you can't 'choose unfreely' -contradictory
Tartersauce101 1 month ago
@Tartersauce101 Exactly! That's my point to henryporter101. Not that I take some right to pseudo psychoanalyse you, but my point was that you equate choice and freedom.
Here is where me, henryporter and you split.
Me and henry acknowledge the influences that shape our thoughts, INCLUDING the thought process called "choice making". You seem to have a philosophy where choice-making should be automatically considered "free willed".
Same for me on the Carl Sagan-esque point of view.
badblueman 1 month ago
@IgnosticAnarchist I don't know what you just watched that was contradictory. Obviously you seem not to be taking everything in ... or perhaps were were watching completely different videos.
The fact that free will is so "enveloping" as a notion is a testament to the immense complexity of biology - that's of course if it were to be true that consciousness is merely the highest of our evolved senses - but also our simplicity, unable to comprehend this.
Hoganply 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wcuff1209 Just because we apply value to something doesn't make it false.A commonly made locket from the 1950's might not have much value to us, but lets say someone received a locket from someone special. Just because that person applied value to it, that does not make the value false. There are very logical reasons we apply value to money, it isn't a blanket of illusion of value, the value is real.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@wcuff1209 Of course with power there is corruption. There is a lot of power in holding a piece of paper than can get you pretty much anything, but this is still nothing compared to the wars and conflict there would be if people were getting shot because they didn't have the right product for product trade. Money is the most logical option.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@wcuff1209 Money is simply a good form of exchange, nothing more nothing less. Lets say I have apples and need pairs, and you have pairs but need bananas. You would have no reason to trade with me, because I have apples you need bananas, there would be conflict because I could be pushed to steal from you if you do not trade with me. Now lets assume there is something anybody will takes (money) this gets rid of that type of conflict, because it doesn't matter if you don't want apples, there is $.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wcuff1209 Lets say we lived an a science fiction world similar to Jacque Freco's fantasy land known as the Resource Based Economy. This would not get rid of our genes which form bonds with members of the opposite sex, so if that member of the opposite sex finds a new mate, you will still be negatively effected and can cause abuse. Tribal exclusion can be an simple as people wearing a different color than you (gang war fare). These will always remain, even without money..I assure you.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wcuff1209 I assure you it is not about money, not by a long shot. Saying so is a logical fallacy and irrational to the fullest extent.
Lets assume money didn't exist, how would that prevent crimes of passion from taking place? Whether you are broke, rich, or money doesn't exist, the primate instincts we have hardwired into us will cause negative emotion based on feelings of exclusion. If money didn't exist, there would still be sub-groups of people singling others out.Your argument is baseless
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 2 months ago
The illusion of free will is an illusion?
ticklebug 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Freewill is what you do have the power to sway.. I can even influence many "uncontrollable" aspects of myself by the information I expose myself to, my surrounding, the people I interact with, the activities I partake in, etc. Its a personal exploration between the nature of your awareness and the choices you make, but it is not there at any one point, but more like being in tune. Its more like, I am now doing or have done that which I chose to do because of my nature and awareness.
3314adam 2 months ago
@10sodot Thank you for your prompt reply. You Tube keeps removing the same post. Its there for a short time after I repost it, then gone. Very strange.
3314adam 2 months ago
@3314adam have u been violating youtube rules???
2yung4grey 2 months ago
@2yung4grey None that I know of. I guess your referring to my strange missing post that kept getting deleted. I tried 3 times. But this wasn't the only time I had this problem. I think its a bug in the software. Another bug I noticed, is sometimes if I reply to someone, then delete my response, the post I was responding to also gets deleted.
3314adam 2 months ago
@10sodot I am trying to understand what is going on. I keep posting a comment, and it keeps disappearing. Did I say something that you object to?
3314adam 2 months ago
Comment removed
3314adam 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Freewill is what you do have the power to sway. I can even influence many "uncontrollable" aspects of myself by the information I expose myself to, my surrounding, the people I interact with, the activities I partake in, etc. Its a personal exploration between the nature of your awareness and the choices you make, but it is not there at any one point, but more like being in tune. Its more like, I am now doing or have done that which I chose to do because of my nature and awareness
3314adam 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Freewill is what you do have the power to sway. I can even influence many "uncontrollable" aspects of myself by the information I expose myself to, my surrounding, the people I interact with, the activities I partake in, etc. Its a personal exploration between the nature of your awareness and the choices you make, but it is not there at any one point, but more like being in tune. Its more like, I am now doing or have done that which I chose to do because of my nature and awareness.
3314adam 2 months ago
China's "Great Leap Forward" is a prime example of how NOT to apply the concept of will on a population.
3314adam 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Freewill is what you do have the power to sway. I can even influence many "uncontrollable" aspects of myself by the information I expose myself to, my surrounding, the people I interact with, the activities I partake in, etc. Its a personal exploration between the nature of your awareness and the choices you make, but it is not there at any one point, but more like being in tune. Its more like, I am now doing or have done that which I chose to do because of my nature and awareness.
3314adam 2 months ago
Awareness is what it is, not the physiology that triggers it, although the physiology is fundamental to it being there. The relationship to morality and free will should be a very personal one. Responsibility can give rise to and offer for maintenance of real human values/valuables. Morality should also have a strong deterministic basis. We can obviously help those people who have been down and out their entire lives and not just store them somewhere, for example.
3314adam 2 months ago
Comment removed
3314adam 2 months ago
Understanding that free will is an illusion, why have we not taken responsibility to stand and do whats best for all by implementing an Equal Money System, as clearly, money is the prime factor behind abuse in all cases. This would virtually solve all of the problems within our reality which stem from false perception and inequality.
wcuff1209 2 months ago
@wcuff1209 "money is the prime factor behind abuse in all cases"
Not true.
Jealousy regarding the opposite sex will cause violence and abuse regardless of currency.
Being singled out by a group who does not see you as one of their own can cause abuse regardless of currency.
I could go on, I just wanted to show you the flaws in your comment.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
A conspiracy by millions to put it over on the world? It's never too late for you to get help.
b991228 2 months ago
"The Holocaust" (lol). Give it a rest. The Germans did not gas any Jews, but I would be happy if they had gassed them all. Go to CODOHCOM.
NIETZSCHEAN14 2 months ago
@NIETZSCHEAN14 if you subscribe to Nietzsche's notion of Will to Power, would you not increase the potential for gain by choosing the human race as the group you identify with instead of limiting your allies to whites? You seem more intent on using the ideology to justify your racial prejudice than making an honest assessment of what would be conducive to progress. Eugenic motivations are unrealistic and therefore counterproductive. You needn't have morality to accept this truth.
022ES 2 months ago
@022ES. What do you mean by "human race"? Do you not believe there are different races of men? Is it wrong for Blacks to want what is best for Blacks, and want to be with Blacks and produce more Blacks? Do you think it would be better to end racial diversity by having all the races mix? I value the diversity of Nature! Is it wrong for tigers to desire to be with tigers and produce more tigers and not mixed-type big cats? Also, discriminating is not prejudging! You do not understand.
NIETZSCHEAN14 2 months ago
@NIETZSCHEAN14 A fair question. I don't think its wrong to distinguish between races, I just don't think its useful. Whites and blacks are both members of the human species. Tigers however are not a race of the big cat species, they are their own species. They're able to reproduce with other big cats of the same genus but the offspring are rarely fertile.So to answer your question, yes tigers should desire to reproduce more tigers, and humans should desire to reproduce more humans
022ES 2 months ago
@NIETZSCHEAN14 I recommend to watch: Towards an empathic society. (RSA Channel) The world is constantly evolving. Mexicans are a mixed breed, So is Perú and other latin american countries. What happened in Mexico may happen to the world. You can't control humans. Your son may easily wind up marrying a chinese girl, if he has the chance! Or would you stop him for the sake of your race?
martinbeco 2 months ago
@martinbeco. What has any of that got to do with what I said? I am only concerned with what I have control of. I have NO concern for that which is out of my control. In this sense, I am a Stoic.
NIETZSCHEAN14 2 months ago
There is no good. There is no evil. There is only Will to Power.
NIETZSCHEAN14 2 months ago
Mind motherfucking blown.
Prolui 2 months ago
Mercyless correction (by medication and programs) instead of retribution can be as harsh and deterring as severe punishment. Plus it yields better results, if tailor made.
Torrriate 2 months ago
6:11 I STRONGLY disagree.
"Author" or not, if we're talking about someone who has killed, and done so because they wanted it at the surface of their consciousness, then that mind still deserves to go through what they've inflicted, and retribution is OUR impulse against that mind, of which we may be an author or not.
twooffour 3 months ago
@twooffour
I mean, where does the impulse come from? From the brain. The brain is the author. And if we equate "personality" and "intention" with "parts of the brain that are responsible for these phenomena", then, well, the person is the author.
This doesn't really fundamentally change the nature of responsibility and retribution - it's more like adding (roughly) the same number to both sides of an equation.
twooffour 3 months ago
Daniel Wegner proposes that conscious Free Will is an illusion in that our conscious choices and decision do not initiate our actions. The initiation occurs at the unconscious level and only just prior to the action do we become consciously aware of an intention to act, hence the illusion. Benjamin Libet's work suggests that even closer to the unconsciously initiated action there exists a Veto window during which we can consciously curtail the action. This has been called Free Won't.
DickusCopernicus 4 months ago
@DickusCopernicus yea but the purpose the conscious part of our minds is to enhance our survival by giving more depth to our thoughts and increase our ability to learn and use new information, hence regardless of whether or not it immediately initiates action it has long term results and can change our behavior patterns with regards to something. The concept of free will to me just meant the ability to choose which we all do with regards to our environment, I would think the illusion part of it
nevermoonawolf 3 months ago
@DickusCopernicus comes from the tendency of people to feel unjustifiably proud of their judgement especially with regards to someone elses most likely due to our ability to think in abstract terms and images that are responsible for art, which naturally evokes strong emotions and creates the feeling of transcending reality. I would assume to over divulge oneself in these images that glorify our existence is what is meant by the illusion of free will
nevermoonawolf 3 months ago
the whole thing makes sense, then he says "the illusion of free will is itself an illusion" huh? can anyone explain what they think he means by this?
oayia 4 months ago
@oayia
i'd like to take a stab at it even though i might be wrong. oh well.
i think what he means is that "free will" is an illusion. and if it is an illusion, the idea or thought of free will is an illusion as well since "free will" is an illusion, in our minds.
it's like a person dreaming, but in the dream the person knows he's/she's dreaming.
the person is still dreaming even though the person acknowledges the dream.
sk8bow 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
that is it - my mind is now completely f**d up - thanks a bloody million Harris !!
AIMANALI 4 months ago
Comment removed
AIMANALI 4 months ago
phew, for a minute there, i lost myself.
Tris67 4 months ago
Comment removed
Tris67 4 months ago
@hempartist420
O.o This IS that video. The short version of his argument is this: determinism seems apparent on the surface, but beneath the surface quantum mechanics are at work. Determinism without quantum fluctuations is the illusion. That quantum fluctuations still dictate what we believe to be conscious choices is where the actual illusion of free will is to be found. We cannot predict with 100% accuracy human behavior; but human behavior is 100% pre-determined. That help?
CaptainSmallFoot 4 months ago
@CaptainSmallFoot except that since no one truly understands quantum mechanics and since no one truly understands the universe, a word defined by us --->predetermined has no bearing
nevermoonawolf 3 months ago
@nevermoonawolf Nonsense. We don't need a complete understanding of a thing to extrapolate certain consequences of what we DO know about it.
CaptainSmallFoot 3 months ago
Comment removed
nevermoonawolf 3 months ago
@CaptainSmallFoot all we can can ahem extrapolate is that genetics shape how someones brain will most likely respond to the environment, however predetermined is not the correct word to describe our understanding the of the universe and quantam mechanics, and in this case the brain, simply because something that is predetermined is set in stone, and given the brains complex layout and considering quantam mechanics we certainly cannot always predict the outcome
nevermoonawolf 3 months ago
@nevermoonawolf I don't particularly like the word predetermined simply because it entails a determination, which I disagree with, but that's a whole other conversation. Harris addresses quantum fluctuations, and why it doesn't save free will in this video set. No, we cannot always predict the outcome--particularly over very long periods of time. No human being has ever lived long enough for quantum fluctuation to significantly altar a possible outcome on large scale.
CaptainSmallFoot 3 months ago
@CaptainSmallFoot Sry I hadnt seen this one..quantum fluctuation occurs all the time and in the most complex thing such as the brain no one REally knows the what well "choose" for instance given then knowledge that whatever we choose isnt really chosen by "us" no one knows how many loops and pathways the connections r gonna take before reaching a "decision" and perhaps the far reaching effects of that knowledge on a day to day basis depending on the individual if that makes any sense.
nevermoonawolf 3 months ago
@CaptainSmallFoot for example Im bipolar so I have the conscious knowledge of this, ive been through a lot of shit usually as a result of the same "pathology" that I could never seem to get a grasp on, the more it happens the more it effects me on a multiple levels including conscious, the unpredictability of my situation is not something that can be fathomed obv not even by me, but yet I have this knowledge you see how its complicated maybe sort of
nevermoonawolf 3 months ago
@CaptainSmallFoot and I never said anything about saving free will honestly no joke I never even knew what that meant, though ive understood its psychological origins, so literally when I watched this video I was like what is he trying to prove its common sense, I guess ultimately the definition of free will he is trying to refute is that everything that happens in the brain has physiological determination not spiritual, which again is common sense--> watch the vid on the right. steven pinker
nevermoonawolf 3 months ago
@CaptainSmallFoot more so over a longer period of time...there is a video to my right from a more learned man that supports my viewpoint
nevermoonawolf 3 months ago
@nevermoonawolf Not sure which video, nevermore. There are a lot of them to the right. =P
CaptainSmallFoot 3 months ago
@hempartist420
He didn't say that, but he essentially implies it.
mellamosean 4 months ago
Anybody interested in Harris should check out Tony Parsons' non duality stuff. Grappling with the idea of morality is symptomatic of the presumption that there is any autonomous entity to begin with. The brain in its vast complexity simulates individuality.
talkinghead22 5 months ago
I love his finish!
Jaybond63 5 months ago
I don't really get this. Love Harris' other lectures but this one baffles me. What about Dexter? (silly example, I know) He has an urge to kill but chooses to do good in the world with it. I don't see why external or internal influences take away the ability to exercise our will.
LeonDeLaMole 5 months ago
@LeonDeLaMole
But what if someone is born without compassion? Is that their fault in anyway?
"I don't see why external or internal influences take away the ability to exercise our will." What does that mean? External and internal influences are all that exist. Our "will" is the result of the interaction between the two forces; it is not something separate.
mellamosean 4 months ago
@LeonDeLaMole In Dexters case his decision to do good is conditioned on his previous external sensory inputs. All of his principles of morality attained through a lifetime of experience vs his urge to kill. One sum of agents will be greater than the other thus leading to his illusion of him choosing to do one or the other. It's just a lot of math and we humans most often cannot see the forrest for the trees.
Usernamenottaken2k 4 months ago
@10sodot maybe its because they talk about it in such big words that I am not familar with. Why not put it into layman terms ?
koda215 5 months ago
@koda215
That is what Sam and Richard do in the talk I mentioned, check it out
10sodot 5 months ago
@10sodot are you 100% comfortable with saying there is no free will if it is beneficial and evolution as helped us to survive as something gone wrong as it is making me super scared and nervous and making want to commit suicide as i am now sooo uncomfortable.
koda215 5 months ago
@koda215
That is what Sam and Richard do in the talk I mentioned, check it out
10sodot 5 months ago
@10sodot I already did and Richard Dawkins too. If this guy says there is zero free will then how can they tell us about evolution and expect us to choose/believe in it in a rational way to educate ourselfs from 'religion' which is was is corupting our mind. This is total contradiction as they are saying we cannot change our minds anyway as it his predetermined. You yourself try to explain this to me and tell me they are not contradicting/wasting there own time.
koda215 5 months ago
@koda215
it is a demonstrable fact that ppl sometimes come to conclusions on the basis of logical evaluation of evidence. Harris' position is that the process of logical evaluation one sort of physical, deterministic process occuring in the brain, while for example, processes of concluding that the Bible is true because that's what Sunday school taught you, is another sort of deterministic physical process. he concludes that external information, like arguments influence these sorts of events
Daniel0112358 5 months ago
@koda215
No, you are not understanding. Did you not watch the first 2 parts? Harris explains why that type of thinking is illogical. I say that rather than reiterating in my own words because he said better than I can.
mellamosean 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
is he just trying to make excuses for murderers has he got an urge to murder kill and rape and he is trying to convince us it wont be his fault because to me he looks like a real nut case.
koda215 5 months ago
@koda215
So a nut is a person who tries to make sure that what he does is correct.
You must be a republican.
He is not talking about not punishing people that are dangerous to others, but whether condemation is relevant.. Imprisonment should be relevant, that is have a purpuse beond revenge.
If we dont know why a person acted as he did, we have no way of assing guilt or punishment
Should you be punished for being a moron or for being brainwashed or a psycopat.. to me it makes a big difference
dinomand 4 months ago
@koda215 I do not blame you for your lack of comprehension and failure to recognize the speaker's intent.
CaptainSmallFoot 4 months ago
@koda215
your the one making an excuse to punish people who disgust you, you dont care about their reasons and their motivations.
95% of pedophiles were abused as children
you will mourn the child that is a victim right now,and you will hate that same person when he grows up and does the thing that was done to him, you will not ask if that person was ever molested, you simply will not care.
niinja2 4 months ago
@niinja2
"and you will hate that same person when he grows up and does the thing that was done to him"
Yes, because then they're harming someone, as opposed to being harmed.
Sympathizing with the victim and condemning the perpetrator, what's so difficult about that?
If someone's wife is murderered and he goes on to murder someone else's wife, yes, the sympathy will turn to hate - hate he'll now deserve as much as the previous killer's.
twooffour 3 months ago
@twooffour
"Sympathizing with the victim and condemning the perpetrator, what's so difficult about that?"
its the same person!!! how do you do that at the same time? You dont, you treat the same person in 2 different ways, how about sympathize with the perpetrator and condemn his actions?
"hate he'll now deserve as much as the previous killer's."
how do you deserve something if you were conditioned to do it by outside events and genes?
niinja2 3 months ago
@niinja2
1) AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN TIME, you moron. There may be DECADES between the abuse and the deed.
Just as you don't punish a mugger before he's attacked someone on the street.... you know... only after the crime. Even though it's the same person °_°_°_°_°_°_°
2) But in our parallel universe, being abused isn't an excuse for taking it out on innocents, and being a victim doesn't FORCE one to commit crimes.
If it does, say, by causing blackouts, or disconnecting the person from reality..
twooffour 3 months ago
@twooffour
"But in our parallel universe, being abused isn't an excuse for taking it out on innocents"
who says its an excuse, you make up excuses to punish people...
what if its a valid reason
"and being a victim doesn't FORCE one to commit crimes."
nobody say nothing about forcing someone to commit crime but it certainly does influence their behavior in wanting to do such a thing, maybe it desensitizes them or something.
niinja2 3 months ago
@niinja2
"who says its an excuse, you make up excuses to punish people..."
Ah, wait, so... if I say that someone who rapes and kills a child deserves punishment, I make up excuses... to punish people.... yea, wait what?
"what if its a valid reason"
Valid reason? Yea, "I've just raped a woman; I had a valid reason to do so, I was abused as a child"
You're a fucking MORON, and you talk like a troll. I'm not going to answer you any further.
twooffour 3 months ago
@twooffour
"if I say that someone who rapes and kills a child deserves punishment, I make up excuses"
what if that person is actually mentally ill?
would you excuse him from punishment then?
""I've just raped a woman; I had a valid reason to do so, I was abused as a child""
if someone raped a women, it probably is going to be because he suffered some kind of abuse or humiliation from lets say another women, this does not make the rape right!!! but does it make sense to punish this person?
niinja2 3 months ago
@niinja2
Then maybe you should make a distinction between "reason" and "cause". And if you go with "reason", then it's certainly an INvalid reason, as, you know, it's not justified.
You also should make a distinction between mental illness, delusion and plain old douchebaggery.
If you think the world is controlled by goblin illuminati and you have a chance of disrupting their machinations by raping their alien queen messenger, then one could say you can't be "blamed" in the traditional sense
twooffour 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twooffour
"Then maybe you should make a distinction between "reason" and "cause""
agreed, but an Invalid reason is still a cause
"elusion and plain old douchebaggery."
douche is a code word for " i dont know why this man is behaving like it does" or " he does bad things for no reason", it means nothing and it shows lack of understanding of person you judge.
niinja2 3 months ago
@niinja2
If you have some sort of mental disorder that disables your identification skills, and prevents you from realizing that one woman isn't the same woman as the one that abused you, then too.
However, it's entirely possible to have the mental capacity to tell one person from another and still have the desire to hurt women because one abused you - in that case, yes, you deserve punishment and have no excuses.
Wanting to kill someone isn't an excuse for doing it.
twooffour 3 months ago
@twooffour
"you deserve punishment and have no excuses."
you mean you have no causes?
"and still have the desire to hurt women because one abused you "
so because you dont see causes there arent any?
i can name a few, you identify all women the same like in war you identify all men of one nations as the same and you treat them the same even though they are not guilty of anything.
its a bad reason/cause to hurt someone, but its a cause that we can understand.
niinja2 3 months ago
@niinja2
Saying "but I really wanted it badly" doesn't reduce your guilt or responsibility.
Understanding that you can't blame an entire gender on the crimes of one person, but not giving a shit either way, is your little problem, and if you actually take it as far as harming someone, it'll BECOME your problem.
I'm not going to be easier on a racially motivated murder just because the killer had racist friends who told him that black people suck - that may have "conditioned" them to...
twooffour 3 months ago
@twooffour
"Saying "but I really wanted it badly""
does a man control what he is going to "want" or desire? Why would he be punished for that?
if someone hurts you and you want to retaliate is that a good enough reason? is that justified? Maybe to you but to someone who does not know nothing about you he will only see you as being the agressor for no reason/cause.
niinja2 3 months ago
@twooffour
"is your little problem"
the point is its SOCIETIES PROBLEM
society does not make room for some kinds of people and then it blames them for becoming criminals, its well known that poverty stimulates criminal behavior.
"If you had been subjected to an elaborate brainwashing indoctrination "
how do you differentiate between brainwashed people and racist people? What is your standard ? For me racist is brainwashed....
niinja2 3 months ago
@twooffour
"just because the killer had racist friends who told him that black people suck "
yeah , and just because someone told me some some dude sucked i went and killed him , i mean really...
do you really think people do stuff like murder on such trivial reasons/causes?
"But you seem not to grasp the difference."
your the one not grasping !!! That you understand motivations of some people and you justify them, but you dont understand motivation of other and you punish them...!!!!
niinja2 3 months ago
@niinja2
... adopt this view, but it doesn't excuse them in any way.
If you had been subjected to an elaborate brainwashing indoctrination in some secluded dungeon, that would be another thing. But you seem not to grasp the difference.
twooffour 3 months ago
@twooffour
your and societies problem is that you find a person guily untill proven innocent because you would treat mentally ill people the same as the "guilty" ones if you DO NOT KNOW they are mentally ill
you lack of understanding of causes and reasons makes you think perpetrators did not have any reasons or did stuff like murder for trivial reasons....
answer this question
are drug addicts guilty for their addiction? can they get rid of it by themselfs by will power?
niinja2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2
"your and societies problem is that you find a person guily untill proven innocent because you would treat mentally ill people the same as the "guilty" ones if you DO NOT KNOW they are mentally ill"
No idea where you pulled that from. It should've been obvious that I EXCLUDE mentally ill people from any of that, and yea, mental sanity should and is examined in court.
The rest of your comment is too incoherent to respond to.
Basically, there is a difference between stupid...
twooffour 3 months ago