Stop believing in free will

You'd better define your axioms a little more clearly before making such a bold demand, my boy

Not. A. Scientist.

>science
>relevant

He actually is a psychologist. But I can't take a psychologist serious who uses discredited or outdated theories and just so evolutionary psychobabble.
On the other hand I have a little sympathy for the guy. He seems to genuinely want some meaning in life and created that with his unique kind of ideology that he created

stop being the most jewish looking and sounding person existence. also stop being a manlet.

>cueball rolls into the pool table

pottery

Make me.

I used to have some respect for Sam but anyone with half a brain will conclude he is lost in his rationalistic determinism

Of course if you already agree with him that there is no such thing as free will and that we are all just robots and we cant possibly have any inkling of control in our experience then yeah he is a god

But after you grow out of your atheistic rationalist phase, commonly known as the Fedora Tipping of Youth, (quite common in the West), you dont know what to think. If God doesnt assign us our morality, who or what does? Insert Sam Harris: we do!!! But heres the catch: we have absolutely no control over our decisions. But we still must be punished for being out of control.

Lmao. He reminds me of Einstein, convinced that God doesnt play dice. Sam doesnt understand quantum much in the same way Einstein didnt, or didnt want to, because it disrupts their deterministic universe so completely

After all, who would want to accept that the Universe and thus our lives are completely out of our control? (Protip: it aint a genius). Quantum proves that the Universe is undetermined. Sure, some details are determined. But the key is that the universe as a whole is undetermined.

Much like Einstein, Sam will die for his silly beliefs (ironic considering his avid hate for religion). He so badly wants the universe to be deterministic, that he cant possibly see how it isnt.

Also JP isnt much better but at least he fights the SJW's

Stop believing in 'will' - free or not.

At best quantum mechanics makes our will probabilistic. That still means that thought does not exist independently of physical process determined by external stimuli. This does not make us robots, but rather just like every other animal on earth.

This is the third appearance of Joseph on Sam's podcast. This time, they go much further in their discussion of the nature of awakening.
In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris and Joseph Goldstein answer questions about the practice of mindfulness. They discuss negative emotions, the importance of ethics, the concept of enlightenment, and other topics.
samharris.org/podcast/item/why-meditate

Previous exchange between Sam and Joseph:
samharris.org/podcast/item/the-path-and-the-goal
samharris.org/podcast/item/questions-along-the-way-further-reflections-on-the-practice-of-meditation-w

This.

>hurrr causality means no free will
This is your brain on STEM

Reminder that hard determinism violates Bell's theorem

I think Harris' examples of the 'movie choice' and the murderer with the tumor are decently convincing. The endless regressive stream of causes seems to make sense to me. Could someone lay out a concise argument for free will existing? Genuinely interested as many of the arguments I've seen for its existence tend to be more opaque and wishy-washy than the ones against it.

The only way thought would be exempt from determinism would be if it weren't physical. But we know that it is physical.

There's the argument from quantum mechanics, which states that due to the apparent, as of this time, non-deterministic nature of sub-atomic particles the nature of reality is similarly non-deterministic. However, as I already stated, quantum mechanics is, if anything, probabilistic, which still means that will is not free, as it is still subject to external causes, rather than having the propensity to act independently.

What about the pilot wave theory?

Not believing in free will allows you to stop viewing incarceration as a form of punishment rather than a form of containment.

Ok, sure. Would this line of thinking then argue that only the sub-atomic particles were the things that were free? And thus, their effects (essentially everything) were also 'free' but only insofar as they were dependent on a base level of freedom?

Physical causality does not remove free will because causality has no agency.
Consider an example:
You have three fishes. Fish A lives in an infinite ocean, and can swim in any direction at point. Lets assume this fish is free. Fish B lives in an aquarium, and can swim in any direction, however it's movement is limited by artificial barrier of a tank. Fish C lives in a tube, and can only move in one direction.
Point is, claiming that both fish B and C are equaly unfree is obviously absurd, and within the framework of the argument it's impossible to determine whether our universe is best represented by a tank (set-up) or a tube (design)

In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering above? At least it is true, that man has no control, even over his own will.

I'm not sure having a probability to be somewhere (or multiple positions) at a given moment means that it's determined. Similarly, being acted upon by external forces does not necessitate determinism. You can have a probability to do something and be acted on externally while not being determined to be in a certain position. Hence, probability.

Not sure you can cite probability as evidence for physical determinism

That satisfies bell theorem but it's also hard for me to get behind pilot wave theory; isn't it just an advocation for super determinism without any real evidence?

> If God doesnt assign us our morality, who or what does? Insert Sam Harris: we do!!! But heres the catch: we have absolutely no control over our decisions. But we still must be punished for being out of control.

Not a good representation of his positions.

Morality: We should care about the well-being of living creatures and center our morality on maximizing that. "We do" might as well be science does, if we can scientifically measure it in the future. Our whims don't decide, which "we do" implies.

>But heres the catch: we have absolutely no control over our decisions. But we still must be punished for being out of control.
Yeah, and the problem is what? We shouldn't have to suffer due to letting people who want others to suffer roam free, there's no problem or contradiction here. He isn't for punishment either, rather containing them/limiting their potential for harm. If there was a pill that'd turn them "good", then we'd give them that and not just make them suffer for the fuck of it.

In the Judeo-Christian context, no. We have free-will, God simply knows what we will choose. No, this does not mean that it's determined. It simply means that God can see the entire timeline.

Sub-atomic particles are the basis of everything, so it would mean everything is deterministic from them.
The argument is about the freedom of our thoughts and actions. If our thoughts and actions are effects of external stimuli then they are not independent and, therefore, not free. The three goldfish, subject to the same physiology, are equally unfree as their experience is entirely shaped by external stimuli outside of their control.
Only the sub-atomic is probabilistic.

Yes, so if the foundation for physical causation is probabilistic, how is the whole immune to probability concerns?

I said from, as in after and nont including.

Reminder that all musing on free will is pointless until we agree on a definition of the Self, something Materialism is deathly afraid of.

Sam Harris eats doody.

That's not how capital letters work!

If by self you mean the individual, then you're simply referring to the biological structure of homo sapiens. The brain controls everything you know of someone, their personality and the like, and the brain is entirely physical.

Sorry.

sam harris eats Doody.

Better?

...

Define "the self", then.

The non-physical manifestation of the Will.

So you're defining a nonsense term in such a way that it proves your point? This is continental philosophy, I suppose.

Erm perhaps I'm misunderstanding but didn't you assert that, because the sub-atomic is probabilistic, it doesn't have the potential to act independently? If the sub-atomic isn't determined, how can physical reactions that are rooted in the sub-atomic be determined?

A vantage point on the chain of Platonic refraction of the Eschaton.

>but didn't you assert that, because the sub-atomic is probabilistic, it doesn't have the potential to act independently?
No, that was about human will, not the sub-atomic. Though probabilistic and freely are totally different. The sub-atomic is probabilistic in that we can determine its actions and reactions within a number of possibilities. But this is not deterministic in the sense of the laws of physics that apply to us.
To everything outside of the sub-atomic we have no issue with determinism, as the laws of physics which we have observed apply to us.

I'd ask you to simplify this, as we do in the sciences, but we both know it is total rubbish.

Form of Good = Eschaton

>science

How do you know anything exists beyond the material?

Exactly!

That's not an appropriate statement for the situation. You're claiming its existence and you have no reason to actually believe it exists.

>The argument is about the freedom of our thoughts and actions. If our thoughts and actions are effects of external stimuli then they are not independent and, therefore, not free. The three goldfish, subject to the same physiology, are equally unfree as their experience is entirely shaped by external stimuli outside of their control.
You're not supposed to take metaphors literally, baka
The problem with your (and, well, Harris's) defition of free will is that you have a very strange, edgy idea of freedom which only exists if you can essentially ignore the universe around you, step outside of it, and make your decision. In other words, by your defition only God can be free. That's retarded. Freedom is the abilily to execute the will according to your own agency, you become unfree the moment some other, external agency takes precedence over your own. My example with fishes was meant to indicate that closed systems can be both designed with agency, like a tube, or without, like an aquarium. You and Harris both claim that the fish is only free if it can jump out of the water and play a guitar at will, which is stupid because fishes don't work like that.

Okay so my question from that may be a basic one (I'm no physicist):

What effect does the probabilistic nature of the sub-atomic have on perceivable, physical reality? For instance, if there are two possibilities for something happening at the sub-atomic level (E.g. A or B) and A happens instead of B, how does that change reality, however minute the effect may be?

I realize reality is a vague term. By that, I suppose I mean what we traditionally conceive as being observable, physical causation. What would happen if B happened instead of A? Would it matter?

>tfw watching Anglo-Saxon STEMtards attempt philosophy

Free will doesn't mean freedom to execute the will, it refers to freedom to determine the will. If your thoughts and, therefore will, are the product of the execution of the effect due to an external cause on the brain, how is your will free at all?
There is no need for any god or gods to explain anything within the universe, by the way.

Hmm, this seems like a step in the right direction for me as far as an argument for free will.

What would you say to someone who agreed with you but said that the 'will' was simply caused by all the preceding causes and their effects? Would it simply be that we need to not expect such perfection out of a notion of free will (as Harris does, like you said, God and all)?

What about his argument about if you could freeze the universe at this exact moment we would realize that the next action or thought (etc) was dependant upon the state of the universe at this moment?

I hope I'm not coming off rude or antagonistic...I'm just trying to feel my way through this whole line of thinking.

It doesn't change reality, it means that from B causality will determine what comes forth as all things outside of the sub-atomic they will form the chain of causality acting and reacting in accordance with the observable laws of physics. Now remember, these are occurring constantly at speeds faster than you can imagine in an unquantifiable number of ways throughout the expanding universe.

You have a strange sense of worship for a certain kind of philosophy that can be described as mental masturbation. You achieve nothing and have no better an understanding of the world around you by playing word games.

It seems we operate under entirely different notions of free wil pham, I'm starting to feel like Peterson.
>What would you say to someone who agreed with you but said that the 'will' was simply caused by all the preceding causes and their effects? Would it simply be that we need to not expect such perfection out of a notion of free will (as Harris does, like you said, God and all)?
Sounds reasonable, though I'm not sure why should it even matter what caused the will

>What about his argument about if you could freeze the universe at this exact moment we would realize that the next action or thought (etc) was dependant upon the state of the universe at this moment?
And what if we couldn't? Would that prove/disprove free will? Why? Honestly, Harris keeps bringing this shit up all the time and I'm still not sure what he's getting at.

Guy, this question is its own answer. You've poked a hole in the net.

>But after you grow out of your atheistic rationalist phase, commonly known as the Fedora Tipping of Youth

Sounds like you just grew into the phase of being embarrassed by your former self and tried to distance yourself from it by any means, be they intellectually honest or not

(quite common in the West)

Sorry, meant to reply to:

>And what if we couldn't? Would that prove/disprove free will? Why? Honestly, Harris keeps bringing this shit up all the time and I'm still not sure what he's getting at.

I think the line of reasoning is that if we had control of all the variables it would be possible to determine the outcome. If we could see all of the causes in a certain frozen state we would be able to accurately predict the next action. This would then follow in looking at every variable in the frozen state and realize they are in their current state because of an endless stream of causes. If everything could essentially be 'traced-back' in this way then where is the will or freedom of any sort?

Thread should have ended here tbqh

>Stop believing in free will.
no wonder this guy thinks AI can exist

You're thinking of free action, not free will. The term is predicated upon the will itself being free, not the execution of it being free.

Yes it does, nouns were capitalized in English up until a few hundred years ago. It's still done in German.
False, there is no brain.
Science is pure simplicity, yes. So simple a child could do it and mindlessly accept it.
>needing a reason to believe
Back to leddo, first-year spergo.
>world around you
Doesn't exist. Le science rulez is a defining form of mental masturbation.

Freedom is in the concept of freedom. Decisions a human intellect does aren't made on the observations of all particles and their states.
But even I were to humor such definition of freedom, infinite regression argument is self-defeating, if we start tracing causes all the way back, eventually we'll arrive at the microsecond before Big Bang, where laws of physics did not apply. What stops me from claiming that in this cosmic soup of possibilities bore my special snowflake soul?

>me everything around me is a me lie! Or should I say Lie, as the Germans do! I am the supreme intellectual because I reject everything that a materialist might say!

>laws of physics.
Don't exist. You're seeing order where there is none.
t. reddit

I don't use nonsense capitalization because I'm not a hellenophile obsessed with a romanticized image of a past civilization.

See, the argument for free will breaks down here. If freedom exists in the concept of "Freedom" then what would stop you from just placing "God" in there as well, or instead? If we're giving importance to the ineffable then why not God, or anything? I'm not sure, maybe I'm being thick here.

I think there's a decent number of responses to your infinite regression response, one of them being that many would simply agree with it; that yes, your soul or self or the grass outside my window was determined back then...or at least once the laws of physics were in place. I'd like to think through your argument a bit more though and will have a more detailed response in a bit.

Data is the most Subjective mode of Information there is. Gathering, organizing, presenting, interpreting, all at the mercy of the Human. There's more consensus on a random Pollock.

>laws of physics exist
Stop making presumptions.

The pseuds have arrived.

I think you mean 'assumption' but yeah, i sort of agree with you...we're just pretending they exist for the ease of argument.

I mean even STEMlords are waking up to the idea that Scientism is a tool of Politics.

And for ease of use, because it obviously works.

Yes, you are absolutely a pseud.
A presumption is a more earnestly-held assumption. Or an assumption with some sort of justification.

E.g.,
I assume you are a male of about 21 since that is the approximate average last time I checked Veeky Forums board stats.

I presume you are a mechanicalist, because everything you post is from that perspective. Then again, I'm not actually reading.
No it doesn't, you just presume it works because you also assume a second weak epistemology (pragmatism).

You're on the internet, you do realise? A product of that epistemology.

So? Why does that matter? How does something's seeming existence mean it exists?

This is potentially an interesting discussion but let's please not continue it, it'll derail the whole thread.

>A presumption is a more earnestly-held assumption. Or an assumption with some sort of justification.
>E.g.,
>I assume you are a male of about 21 since that is the approximate average last time I checked Veeky Forums board stats.
>I presume you are a mechanicalist, because everything you post is from that perspective. Then again, I'm not actually reading.

I don't think this is correct usage, and I hate to pull this, really, but I have a Ph. D. in Theoretical Linguistics.

You claimed the epistemology doesn't work, but you are still enjoying the products of it all around you. Clearly it works.
I'd like to see you explain exactly why the scientific method is wrong and doesn't work.

Different poster but one of the more common arguments is time-scale. Scientific observation leading to predictions tends to be one of the main arguments for its validity. However, a similar ideology would have been just as valid back when gods were used to explain aspects of nature/cosmos/whatever. Much of science, particularly more theoretical stuff does a shit load of begging the question that isn't too far away from the common Bible is True circular reasoning example seen in every philosophy textbook.

It's easy to make prediction that fit certain criteria in the short term, however, there is no way to say that there isn't a sort of meta-truth beyond our current standards (once there were gods that were simply representations of scientific phenomenon, now we have scientific observations and preditions which could just as easily be obfuscating a meta-layer that has nothing to do with it).

Could you give some examples?

There are issues with this, but it should illustrate the point clearer.

Let's not discuss whether people actually believed Helios drove the sun chariot across the sky for just a minute....Not that long ago there were people who thought that a god rode a flaming chariot across the sky...and he did this every day for some reason (presented in the mythology/source texts/whatever). Now based off the mythological source, there would be very good reason why he had to do this every day, and you could make predictions that could come true based off of this mythology. But of course, we know now, that this was simply obfuscating cosmological facts. Just because something fits within a belief does not mean that it confirms the belief. There is no real reason to think that this would not apply to the scientific system. The ability to make predictions does not confirm anything. If you want you can think of it in more Lovecraftian terms...we can accurately predict certain things regarding the cosmos, like the paths of planets...but who is to say that this is not dependent upon a system higher than science, say a system that is some sort of soccer game amongst beings beyond our realms, etc.

Oh, I thought you had something more specific than that. It is true that in physics we build systems to account for what we observe, but this is to help learn about things. When a system doesn't work anymore it is discarded, which is part of the scientific method. If one day everything we've observed and everything we've tested changes, we will adjust what we're doing. But there's no evidence for anything beyond gravitational forces dictating the path of the planets.

>What am I supposed to do with that information?

If you're asking this question you're still believing in free will. You can't do nothing with that information, since you can't do anything in general. Your body will react in some way, it will normalize those reactions thruogh thoughts and ''you'' will experience them.

I don't think we would change if we discovered some sort of meta-system beyond our current scientific one. If we still exist to the point where we hypothetically discovered one than it would be likely that we would be so technologically advanced that it would be beneficial to either ignore or disregard such a discovery. That certainly is an understandable course of action. At a certain point the search for truth or understanding could become actively retroactive, even if we managed to keep it within an understandable framework.

> There is no real reason to think that this would not apply to the scientific system. The ability to make predictions does not confirm anything.

What's your point? If we figure out flies can carry malaria and spread them, figure out which ones do etc, that still provides us with useful knowledge that can help improve our lives. That's nothing like making up shit like a flying horse and whatnot.

If we figure out that apples rot at a rate of 3 days on average, then we can use that knowledge to avoid having rotten apple or just having it for the fuck of it. It still tells us something about reality, that on average, apples will start rotting in 3 days.

It works for some things, specifically technology and purely physical phenomena. Once you try to apply it to the human mind and ideas like will or morality, it fails pretty miserable, hence the condition of most social """sciences"".

Claiming that because science worked for some things, we should discard everything else is a logical fallacy.

shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/

tl;dr Sam Harris only got his degrees to support his book/speaking career

Oh, no, i think you sort of miss something here. Your argument would apply to the flying horse as well. If we say the flaming horse goes across the sky and we have a mythology as to why that allows us to make predictions about the future (ie the flying horse will go across the sky tomorrow) than that also improves our life in a useable way.

The same could be said for any religious mythology, or any other system of thought. For example some religions believe in the power of prayer so going by your logic (just applying it to a non-scientific system) we could say that prayers are sometimes realized by the divine and that also gives us useful knowledge about our lives. Or religious doctrine/scriptures can give us 'useful knowledge' that can help improve our lives. The only difference is the framework.

Using 'useful knowledge' as a meter for truthiness is not a good idea.

Boo bah humbug. Samuel is just a fartbrain. We've all already heard everything he has to say in the 18th century. La Mettrie for a lousy American audience. It's all talk.

Define free will

That picture is hilarious given that analytic philosophers are mathematicians who only publish autistically short and narrow articles in obscure journals that nobody reads (aping scientific journals for surface scientificity); and that so called continental philosophy is just a cultural artefact of how structuralism has been received in the west (through the John Hopkins colloqium where Derrida made his name); plus the total ignorance of an entire tradition of epistemology and philosophy of science a la Bachelard, Koyré, Cavailles, scientific anthropology of Dumezil, Levi-Strauss, phenomenology, the pioneering structural linguistics of Benveniste and Jakobson...

You have to be really pseud to ape sciences like this and to still come up with nothing of note.

>We should care about the well-being of living creatures
It is literally impossible to justify this in a deterministic worldview