*blocks your free will's path*

free ill is not real but sam harriss is a fucking hack and argues dishonestly, constantly shifting the frame via metaphors

>argues dishonestly, constantly shifting the frame via metaphors

Give an example. Oh, what's that? You don't ''feel'' like finding an example suddenly? Ha. Yeah, that's what we thought.

>when your arguments are so laughable there's usually no attempt to counter them seriously even in a place such as this, everyone just makes fun of them through memes
ftfy

are you one of The Brights, by any chance? :^)

during his peterson podcasts he keeps using broad induction claims to try and invalidate the fact that deduction identifies errors in induction

harris constantly constantly commits berksonian error discussing stats. I've seen him commit it MORE than he doesnt commit it

He doesn't say much that is original, but I find him to be perfectly reasonable and I agree with most of what he says. Veeky Forums just hates anyone popular.

IT'S TIME TO BATTLE!
I CHOOSE YOU,.......

pareto dist nearly guarantee anyone popular is not very good. sometimes good people are popular but it is rare because of lcd dynamics

...René Descartes!
use Cogito Ergo Sum!

describe said errors to me, im not the baiting “harris acolyte” so humor me. im bored with nothing to do at mommy and daddy’s for the holiday.

it is extremely painful (for him)

>nature is like a machine
>therefore, nature is a machine
kek

is that PURE PHOENICIAN BLOOD I hear speaking?

berksonian sampling error

you sample only a corner of the distribution (compressed therefore little deviation) and then declare the variable has no predictive ability

he is too smart to be doing this mistakenly. he is doing it deliberately

go to any talk of his, if he talks to someone bout something related to sampling or math, he does this. it makes me feel like punchign him repeatedly

e.g. he thinks genetic machinery deprives you of choice via genetic mechanism determining your range of functionality, but genetic machinery doesnt set your intelligence (range of functionality). uh....

he honestly needs to be hanged

Does the experience of free will really not count? Everyone experiences making decisions. I don't see why anyone would think that's fake unless you adhere to strict materialist presuppositions and force an explanation onto the phenomena.

you feel consiousness, not freedom. big difference

quintessential backpfeifengesicht

*is your oughts*

But what about my deciding which option to choose? Does he just deny that the "I" chooses? That doesn't fit with what my experience. I experience a decision being contemplated and chosen, like just recently at the store.

But which God are you talking about?

Heh, nothing personal kid.

harris is a dishonest nigger. but the honestly made case against your case is that your choices are inherently limited to your intelligence, your patience, your capacity to adapt, and your discounting of time. these are all measurable vectors, and they ll have strict limits.

the option you "choose" is going to be a reasonably predictable vector of a negotiation of the above factors.

e.g. if you define your utility function as " get food, feed female, reproduce" there is going to be an optimal method of doing so. you are TRYING to do the optimal method, your "choice" never has other options, the only option to you, is the one that seems best.

you only have one choice, (limited by your options and goal) andyou make that choice 100% of the time. You choose, but it is not free. it can be defined and predicted.

youtube.com/watch?v=2HFS5kJF9gA

e.g. the utility function can be changed by electrodes in the brain. the mouse calculates nd chooses, but not freely

Free will doesn't even make sense as a concept. Assuming humans are born of the universe, doesn't it follow that we're completely governed by its laws? Where is there any room for freedom?

chinese and japanese attribute this to our language

free choice doesnt have a translation in chinese/japanese. you can say "to do something free of constraint" and this is the translation given for translations, but the concept is naturally nonsensical

it is like the term racism. the translation in cn/jp is "clan distinguishment" or "recognition of difference" so if a european starts crying that racism is privilege and poer, the chinks look at them (correctly) like they're fucking insane.

the idea of freedom of choice or ill has, baked into it, a hidden definition that is nonsensical. kind of like al ghasali baking into the definition of cloth burning the lack of causality.

the very idea itself destroys logic

But what about things done out of spite? What utility is there in that? You can also choose certain things over others, even when there is evidence that the other option is better, because of some feeling that you have, some sentimentality or something.

No wonder the Buddhist and Taoist texts I've read have made so much sense.

So you don't experience choice?

No, thoughts just arise out of the impenetrable subconscious.

spite is a utility function to punish social cheaters or to destroy competitors in mating markets

havent you even read basic psych?

to be clear, buddhism and taoism have their terms that have hidden meanings baked in. the dao itself is such a term, but the dao has been largely discarded as a relic of 1k year old mental trickery, the fruit, if any, is taken GIVEN the fact it is a verbal trick in the first place

euros never figured out that our philosophy of mind is filled to the brim full of these verbal sleight of hands. so like the arabs our discourse is full of fucking nonsense and arguing over the definitions of imaginary things and rying to pin our enemy ith one of the "evil" definitions so he can be beheaded/fired

>take a vague, undefinable concept such as "free will"
>define it for yourself using willy-nilly criteria that fits your agenda
>write over 9000 books
>build a career catering to edgy atheists and alt-right kids
whoa...

>Hey I told you it's past your bedtime kid!

Almost sounds like he is unhappy with the idea that he will never do anything 'original'.

just the illusion of it
When you flip a coin it can be seen as random, or treated as such, only because you're ignorant to the inputs (force of the flip, wind resistance, distribution of weight) but with complete knowledge of conditions then the outcome is predictable with certainty (non-random)
likewise, the human neuron with it's synapses governed by the same fundamental laws as every other object, could have their individual action potential triggers predicted if one were to know the prior conditions

but we can't predict these things because we have generally incomplete knowledge, and the gathering of the knowledge for each prediction is a real hassle lemme tell ya

I hope he dies soon

first of all a coin flip is a lot different than free will in general

second you build in the assumption that free will is encapsulated within "complete knowledge"

what if within hitherto (in) complete knowledge is not something merely unknown but rather "unknowable"

that is what we call free will

in other words, you've only succeeded in begging the question of free will

Wrong

harris? could be. I never psychoanalysed him. he could be a sociopath obsessed by status. but he is so fucking dishonest about even basic math (that is not hard math for a phd) that it makes my blood boil

youtube.com/watch?v=ENtlW-LEqu8

I don't see how anyone can trust him after this. He made this mistake after writing a Letter to a Christian nation, a book that he presumably did research for.

What about things done in spite to loved ones? Your explanations don't cover the phenomena or the experience of it completely.

With materialist presuppositions I suppose you could get there, but I don't believe that the material world is solely what is.

>thinly veiled pol psyops
not falling for it

>determinism
>year of our lord and on his birthday 2017
quantum physics says hello

loved ones sometimes cheat in social systems. are you young? none of the things I'm saying are controversial unless you are a ascientific indian pagan that prays to vishnu nd disbelieves in the concrete universe

you are not sufficiently read. of course my 300 character post doesnt cover every single thing. read a book if you're curious. don't be ridiculous

but its true. if you have a substantive objection, voice it.

I'm just saying that the purely economic/society control explanation explains away more than it seems to explain certain human phenomena. I am young and not well read, but the claims I hear in threads give me some questions to ask, and so I ask.

you might start reading about evopsych

>but its true. if you have a substantive objection, voice it.
Only that I doubt it's true, anyone can claim to be an expert and then suggest this backs their political views. You're not exactly convincing when you haven't even mastered capital letters, you know?

you claim that terms cannot have embedded/biased meanings?

you claim that free volition is not one of those biased/fuck up terms?

you deny the fact that chinese claim this?

fucking IDENTIFY your argument you retard (they're all true)

I contend your translation is false.

he's a jew so he lies.

自由意志 in both jp/cn

the grammar of jp/cn lacks declensions or similar tenses of engish. every compound term, such as the above is taken, grammatically as "a done as b"

sample sentence for "free ill decision"
自由意志的選擇
translates directly as "a choice of from only self" or "decision lscking restriction"

naturally lacks coherence. no decision doesnt involve outside factors.

the idea that the Chinese don’t believe in free will is fucking preposterous. if you read their lit its obvious that its not absent from their psyche. please stop posting you’re going to run out of stims and coffee soon idiot

>slit experiment/shrodinger's cat meme
if there's infinite universes there's still not one where you're not retarded

they don't. are you chinese? (you arent)

they believe in choice. choice is not the doctrine of free ill

yes it is, they believe you can influence causality with your will. that’s the basis for daoist alchemy and good and evil

>citing alchemy to try and convince people chinese elieve in a philosophy
no. chinese believe you are born evil. they believe the sins of your parents and blood taint you.

this is not even REMOTELY fucking contested.

if you are born evil, you don't have free ill.

they FUCKING BELIEVE PEOPLE are BORN EVIL you nigger

if you don't think they believe people are born evil, ask them to let their daughter marry a nigger

You actually can't argue with that point because it's objectively true. All forms of gun control are predicated on the obvious lie that the reason you care about guns is because they kill people.

The actual reason is, objectively, that you despise human independence and want to limit it. Thankfully you cannot, because if you try, I will shoot your children in front of you, and make you dig their graves. Then I will bury you, still screaming and crying, next to their corpses.
Don't worry, Sam Harris will be flailing right there next to you, because he is a Jew, who argues like a Jew.

...

lying exposed

>entire capitalized words
>"nigger" unironically
First of all, you're underage, second, go back to r/eddit

Free will cannot be proven or disproven at this time.

>he thinks chinks think original sin is a thing
lmao, why are you even bothering?

>quantum woo
shut up.

>materialist grasping
completely exposed

i didn't say anything about materialism, pseud. anyone appealing to "muh quantum" to resolve the free will debate has no business participating.

>be evil
>don't have free will
u wut m8?

I mean, you can be destructive without free will, but evil entails intent.

living in a future state with "complete knowledge" sufficient to completely displace "free will" as a useful concept, is really just another way to say "when we get to heaven the scales will be lifted" and there will be no more evil. a condition of humanity is free will thus meaningful choice between good/evil. it is true that when we get to heaven and knowledge is perfected such a choice is dissolved. in that sense this idea of knowledge sufficient to obviate ethics is just the description of heaven from the point of view of the man who worships the intellect

>punch Sam Harris in the face
>he can't sue me because doing so would be akin to admitting the existence of a personal will

Ishiggidity diggity do

>muh everyday/short-term decisions aren't real choices
>implying this is what anyone mean with free will

...

You sound confused and dishonest yourself, Sam Harris has little philosophical understanding but I don't think it's possible to sincerely accuse him of dishonesty or any other form of active faggotry.

Guy takes morality way too seriously, homo.

It's over, Sam! I have the high ground.

Is the idea of free will not existing the most retarded shit going right now? I just can't think of anything more retarded besides those African tribes that make little boys suck dick.

The idea is ages old and still discussed among philosophers.
You sound like a clueless brainlet monkey.

Imagine a ball sitting at the apex of a frictionless dome whose equation is specified as a function of radial distance from the apex point. This rest-state is our initial condition for the system; what should its future behavior be? Clearly one solution is for the ball to remain at rest at the apex indefinitely.

However, this is not the only solution under standard Newtonian laws. The ball may also start into motion sliding down the dome—at any moment in time, and in any radial direction. This example displays “uncaused motion” without any violation of Newton's laws, including the First Law. And it does not, unlike some supertask examples, require an infinity of particles. (Newtonian Mechanics)

The shape of the dome is given by specifying h, how far the dome surface lies below this highest point, as a function of the radial coordinate in the surface, r. For simplicity of the mathematics, we shall set h = (2/3g)r3/2. (Many other profiles, though not all, exhibit analogous acausality.)

point-like unit mass slides frictionlessly over the surface under the action of gravity. The gravitational force can only accelerate the mass along the surface. At any point, the magnitude of the gravitational force tangential to the surface is F = d(gh)/dr = r1/2 and is directed radially outward. There is no tangential force at r = 0. That is, on the surface the mass experiences a net outward directed force field of magnitude r1/2. Newton's second law, F = ma, applied to the mass on the surface, sets the radial acceleration d2r/dt2 equal to the magnitude of the force field:

(1) d2r/dt2 = r1/2

If the mass is initially located at rest at the apex r = 0, then there is one obvious solution of Newton's second law for all times t:

(2) r(t) = 0

owever, there is another large class of unexpected solutions. For any radial direction:

(3) r(t) = (1/144) (t-T)4 for t greater than or equal to T
= 0 for t less than or equal to T

where T is an arbitrarily chosen, positive constant. One readily confirms that the motion of (3) solves Newton's second law (1). See Note 6

If we describe the solutions of (3) in words, we see they amount to a violation of the natural expectation that some cause must set the mass in motion. Equation (3) describes a point mass sitting at rest at the apex of the dome, whereupon at an arbitrary time t=T it spontaneously moves off in some arbitrary radial direction.

he literally never comes from a statistical argument ithout making berksonian sampling error

fucking listen to his "not all (group) are like that" arguments. that is berksonian error.

or any time he says "you deduce that but I have a method taken from LIMITED data on a phenomenon that there is data for but NO causal mechanism that is understood"

he does this EVERY time to play to only slightly above averagem orons

chinese believe people are born having evil intent. are you retarded?

ITT : brainlets thinking they understand the question of free will

3 ideas of free will

1) Compatibilism or some meeker forms of it, what Mele calls ''modest free will''

2) Incompatibilism (or free will with deep openness)

3) Basically 2), but with something like a soul being a necessary component.

Literally ZERO scientific evidence has disproven 1). The libet experiment and his lackeys from the future (Fried + others 2011) (Soon + others 2008) are seductive, but offer no concrete evidence for free will not being a thing given that they did not achieve 100% accuracy and that the actions perform do not corresponds to the sort of actions where we consider our will to play a part. Also a bunch of other stuff I won't bother typing.

Evo psych is about as magical as a soul is and social experiments like the bystander effect offer concrete evidence but no hard determinism (since subjects do in fact display different behavior).

As for 2), it's up in the air. Quantum mechanics may or may not demonstrate that the Universe isn't entirely deterministic, but I know nothing about the field, so it's conjecture on my part.

As for 3), believing in the existence of a soul or somesuch thing might be a bit of a leap of faith, and demonstrating the possibility of one a hard task, but it's probably not impossible.

I don't think he does that, could you link me to one concrete example?
Usually he talks to literal scientists about stuff when he brings up any kind of empirical evidence, and the scientists usually agree or even bring it up themselves.

To be honest I'm confused about what you're saying, I read your post twice now but I can't figure it out.
I also googled Berksonian sampling error but that doesn't seem to mean anything.

you're the brainlet

they can literally put a helmet on your head and predict your choice before you realise your choice

subatomic mechanics are deterministic but the mechanics of causation are different

fucking reading a michio kaku book doesnt clue you in fag

You have no idea what you are talking about and you will receive no serious responses, I know you know you're bullshitting as if you even understand what this is about.
Insecure idiot.

I assure you berksonian sampling error means something. try googling berksonian bias or parado

I'm not going to go through 3 hours of his lying ass to find one "gotcha"

but I'll direct you to his peterson debate. harris denies, repeatedly, the ability to understand via deduction

regarding the math type of mistakes you can look at any statement of his regarding genetic intelligence

any "not all ______ are like that" is literally a precisely defined statistical sampling error called berksonian sampling error

>Berksonian bias presents a potential problem in hospital-based studies when comparing the frequency of two conditions that require or lead to hospitalization (e.g. tuberculosis and lung cancer), due to the fact that persons with both conditions are more likely to be hospitalized than those with only one.

I don't know what you're saying, how would Sam Harris deny that deduction leads to understanding? Why would he even do that, and in which sense would he make use of "Berksonian sampling error" to arrive at this conclusion?

"not all ____ are like that" is just what everyone already knows about inductive arguments.

>they can literally put a helmet on your head and predict your choice before you realise your choice

Yea, these are the experiments I mentionned.

The experiment you mention (there are a few) is probably the Libet one. Libet recorded electric signals in the brain via EEG. He asked subjects to flex a muscle spontaneously (when they felt like it) but not to think consciously about when to do it. When a decision is taken, we can normally see electric signals in the brain about 200 ms before the action actually happens. This is normal, and not something that threatens free will, since this is just the delay for you to actually perform the action once you've decided it. Other experiments, like the ''touch a button once you hear the sound'' ones confirms this. When the subject had decided to take his action, they used a Libet clock to determine precisely, in the brain, when the electric activity which scientists think correspond to a decision being taken happened in the brain.
It was of about 200ish ms, like usual.

However, Libet found out that he could see electric activity in the brain which seemed to happen before the decision of flexing that muscle took place (in the brain), not 200 ms but 550 ms before the decision took place in the mind. By this he concluded that the decision was made unconsciously in the mind and free will couldn't exist since it requires conscious decisions.

look at the pic I posted again.

correlation for 2 variables falls to NOTHING if you only sample the areas they're highly correlated. look at the upper right corner and imagine only sampling that area. the lack of a negative vector causes the math to display 0 coefficient of causation

he does this EVERY single time he says "the data doesnt support a connection"

he does this to other neurologists (using data like I posted) to deny genetic intelligence, he does this to economists, he does this to peterson

he then replaces valid data ith literal errors in math

he claims inductive supremacy even in fields that there is not a CLUE ho to BEGIN sampling (he does this regarding medical a lot)

Hmhh, I've never seen him do this and I've listened to him a lot. And he strongly believes in genetic intelligence, hasn't he hosted Douglas Murray on his podcast multiple times?

are you telling me freedom is real but it is unconscious?

you people get dumber by the day

if he believes in genetic intelligence, he'd believe in racial differences

I think he does. I was suspicious that you were butthurt because he wouldn't come out as a flat-out race realist, makes me become even more suspicious of your claims.

Anyway, he doesn't deny racial differences, I remember that he even claimed that there might be a genetic basis for the Jews' tendency to hoard money.

I think he isn’t in his field of expertise and it’s basically a laymans claim. There is a very strong consensus in quantum physics that the experimental data gathered supports the hypothesis of the existence of possible future conditions with event probability unequal one.

he certainly broadcasts his contempt for deportation much more loudly than his contempt for racial murder rates

you never "noticed" his stats errors because apparently you need mongolian vr cartoon masturbators to teach it to you

listen more closely

>it's another absolute brainlet who has no understanding of what he speaks of instrumentalizing """""quantum physics""""" for his own belief-system

R E T A R D
KILL YOURSELF
FAGGOT