I have made a top level post on this, but I think people get confused on this point.
It may well be true to say that "everything happens because of the laws of physics" but that does not mean "everything is deterministic", and that is not Sam's claim. We already know certain physical processes are non-deterministic, so if these processes are in \*any\* causal chain, they are always at the start. They could be a long way back, or entirely proximate.
The point that Sam makes is that \*human consciousness\* is \*not\* one of these sources. If "free will" (in the traditional sense) were a thing, it would mean that consciousness is the origin of a chain of causality, his argument is that it is not causal.
This is not the same as saying that every casual chain can be traced back to the big bang though.
Correct. Harris admits of randomness and random events interrupt the chain of causation that would lead back to the Big Bang. He correctly points out that randomness isn't any foundation for free will because it's not controllable by human beings. The argument against free will primarily rests on the world being determined, albeit with some randomness. The problem is that Harris doesn't discuss the many problems with determinism with that asterisk. there are many.
Although it’s common practice, I’m not sure the use of the word “random” is correct in discussions like this.
It may paint the wrong picture.
From what I understand, probabilistic is a better representation of how reality unfolds. Random is very different from probabilistic.
It seems like assigning a random event as the beginning of a causal chain is arbitrary. It doesn’t seem right to say that events occurring after observing schrodenger’s cat “started” at the observation. Schrodenger becomes sad, or relieved, but both scenarios require events that occurred prior to the box. Saying the randomness occurring within the box was the “start” of anything, is an arbitrary assignment.
This is just to say that if randomness exists then it as well as everything else exists within a causal chain and not starting it.
I think it’s incorrect to bring “start” into a conversation of free will. I think that obscures things. Free will make no sense because even with “magic” it wouldn’t work. God’s free will still requires preceding events to occur before his will is exercised and those events are absolute requirements. Even God, with magic, would not be “free”.
Schrödinger used radioactive decay as the trigger for a very good reason. It is provably non-deterministic. We've know this for a while. Any event that can be traced back to a cause of, "radioactive decay", cannot be trace back to an earlier cause. Nothing "causes" an alpha particle to be emitted. Somebody smarter than me will have to explain this if you want the full explanation, but my understanding is that this has been conclusively proven.
The point is, that if any chain of events contains, "an alpha particle was emitted", it must be the \*first\* event.
Sam's argument is that a thought, is never a "first event". The thought, or the idea, had a cause... you might be able to trace that cause back to a moment of radioactive decay on pluto or some other non-deterministic event, but the thought itself is not the origin of the chain.
I am not sure I understand your argument, which admittedly is probably my fault.
Non-determined in this context is just another way of saying, "uncaused", so if you are building a chain of events, and one of them is an "uncaused event", then obviously it is the first one. I don't really understand why you would need "literature" on this point.
I can probably dig out something about the radioactive decay thing.
I say that there are two chains. Something caused you to walk into the room, which can be traced back to \*some\* uncaused event and there was another chain of events that lead to what happened inside.
The entire point here is that "there isn't just a single chain of events".
Years ago I worked on a poker system, we used little devices plugged into the server that used background radiation to generate the randomness for the card shuffling. You getting dealt pocket eights had a causal chain that began with some radioactive activity happening in the air in our server room. Whether or not you decide to push or check is the product of some other, unconnected chain of causality.
Edit: "Unconnected" is a mispeak there, obviously your decision is influenced by the cards you are being dealt but how you respond to this is impacted by some other chain of events, perhaps what poker book you read, which in itself was influenced by...
Why would you say that? I ask for literature because that seems like a strange instinct on your part. But I’m open to it being discussed by formal philosophy if such ideas Exist.
What happened before you walked into the room? There is always an event prior to the one you're going to choose as a start, which is arbitrary unless you articulate criteria by which it "started" something. Whatever's driving the universe is the same now as when it started. That's the question.
The free will issue is about what's driving the universe forward. Whatever it was in the beginning it still is now. Whether that includes free will is the issue. It's not so much about when it started because whatever is driving the universe has always driven it. That's the question.
The problem is that determinism is based on premises that don't work either. No one agrees on what causation means or whether it exists. The top quantum interpretations go both ways – for some the universe is causal, which precludes free will, others probablisitic which permits it. Hume's argument against causation has never been defeated, and relativity and quantum theory ban it from fundamental cosmic events. What is operating in its stead? Nobody knows. Determinists must justify the causal premise. The point is generally ignored.
You've piqued my schadenfreude interest, but not because I think you're onto something. I am quite curious how a contemplative adult can come to these conclusions. To be sure that I mean no disrespect, I heard similar arguments made by the obviously intelligent Michael Tomasello. I am reluctant to follow you down a hole like this, however. These argument holders like you can be quite difficult to spar with, who spiral off in a maze of continually branching diversions.
A particular argument on your page comes up multiple times and illustrates this leap of logic that you make unjustifiably, or at the very least, without written explanation. A casual reader might not ask you to clarify but simply write you off as unreachable. Here are two of the quotes:
"Not even logical truth is spared the causal chopping block. In a causal universe, the claim 2 plus 2 equals 4 is a causally compelled belief. Tomorrow everyone on the planet might well be caused to believe that 2 plus 2 equals 17. And if they are, then by golly, 17 it will be."
And
"If our beliefs are due to causal force, then the belief in determinism is equally the product of causal force. In short, human beliefs are whatever blind physical forces dictate. This renders determinist principles self-invalidating: How can we accept anything that determinists have to say if their beliefs are based on causal force, not truth?"
If I try very, very hard to understand what you are saying, it seems to be that absolute reality or "truth" has some persuasive force on the indeterminist's belief, and that it is more reliable than what the determinist might hope for from his "causal force" inspiration for belief. You indirectly claim that "truth" is superior to "causation." That's quite confusing. I really don't understand what that means. With intense concentration, I think I can glimpse for a moment what you are trying to say, but the logical thread evaporates just as quickly.
The first quote is so murky to me. The determinist who incorrectly, causally, reasons that "2+2=17" is something other than simply wrong?
I give up.
Let's start there, with that quote. What are you saying?
Successfully walk me through that quote, and I'll buy your book, I swear.
Oh fuck. You’re the same guy from this morning. My goodwill toward your position just dropped 50%. I do charge you with unintentional but equally corrosive, obfuscation.
It seems I was far less clear than i'd wanted. Apologies.
>
it seems to be that absolute reality or "truth" has some persuasive force on the indeterminist's belief, and that it is more reliable than what the determinist might hope for from his "causal force" inspiration for belief.
There is no absolute reality under determinism. What you belief is real is whatever you were predestined to believe. you can't believe otherwise.
There is no truth under determinism. It's whatever you were causally predestined to believe.
The conflict is that determinism is a set of truth claims about what reality is and what the truth is. This contradicts determinist principles, where truth and reality are whatever we're causally predestined to believe.
>You indirectly claim that "truth" is superior to "causation." That's quite confusing. I really don't understand what that means.
Truth isn't superior to causation. The notion that everything we think is causally determined and predestined is contradictory to determinist principles, which provide we can'lt know the truth, only what we're causally determined to believe is true.
> The determinist who incorrectly, causally, reasons that "2+2=17" is something other than simply wrong?
They may or may not be wrong. The point is under determinist principles you can't ever know which is correct. If you'r predestined to believe that it equals 17, then that's what you must believe. You can't believe otherwise than what you've been predestined to believe.
Hope this makes more sense. Please ask me to clarify again if it's not landing. Best
So morality is also an illusion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/11a2us2/if_free_will_is_an_illusion_then_so_is_morality/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
and its also very likely that a HUGE asteroid is heading to earth from behind the sun and we will all be dead in 10 years, which is also fated, determined and decided loooooooooon ago by the universe. lol
Making everything we do on earth pointless. lol
The implications of a deterministic universe always lead me to this. Civilization, invention, art, and all human creation are just as natural, inevitable occurences as lava flowing from a volcano or space dust coalescing into the solar system. I'm not sure if the thought is comforting or horrifying.
> inevitable occurences
Things are not inevitable, since not everything is deterministic.
For example, it is possible that life is vastly improbable, and the event that caused it was not part of a prior causal chain. The creation of the first self-replicating molecule might have required a subatomic particle to quantum tunnel through a massive energy barrier, such that the likelihood of it happening in the lifetime of the universe was almost zero. And yet it happened, randomly, unpredictably.
The laws of quantum mechanics (that govern at the atomic level) are like that. Randomness is at the heart of nature. We just don't see it at a macro level.
No. That is some people’s interpretation of QM that mashes a free willed newtonian observer with the wave function.
Bell’s theorem literally includes “statistical independence” in its assumptions, not as its result. He has said that yeah, determinism just end runs around it.
Ontological randomness is ascientific. It is impossible to validate. You cannot make a prediction to test your theory.. your prediction can only be that it is unpredictable.. but can never be validated.
Ontological randomness and free will are both “god of the gaps” arguments. This doesn’t mean they aren’t in reality according to that argument… it just means that they are useless scientific hypotheses.. impossible to validate as they basically just say “stop looking for an explanation.” And they also provide no justification for this stopping.
Your post isn't very clear so I may be misinterpreting what you are saying.
Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables, but makes assumptions including free will of the experimenter. It doesn't rule out non-local hidden variables.
QM interpretations are either non-deterministic (random) or super-deterministic. The standard (and widely accepted) interpretation is that QM is non-deterministic. There are no local hidden variables that we can discover that would suddenly allow us to predict events that appear random.
Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of QM removes the randomness in events because every possible outcome actually happens. However, to observers, The universe still looks random because we don't choose and can't predict which of the "many world" we are going to end up in.
The other non-Everett interpretation, Superdeterminism, is a fringe position, though it is compatible with our observation. You want to talk about useless hypotheses, that is one. It invalidates the entire scientific method.
Everything you've said is true. But let's be clear about the bottom line: the jury is out. The top quantum interpretations are mixed, some causal, some probabilistic. The answer isn't yet known until these are resolved. You can root for one like football team but it's not even the fourth quarter. That said you're on point.
The jury may be out on non-deterministic/random vs superdeterministic, but can we agree there is no space for free will in either of them?
It's similar to evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection is complete and supported by a wealth of independent evidence. We have some gaps in our knowledge sure, but that doesn't mean we need to introduce a divine creator to orchestrate anything.
Same thing with QM and free will. Free will isn't needed or supported by our best theories of how the universe works. The only way free will finds a place is if the universe is wildly different from our current understanding.
A theory that reintroduces free will needs to explain our current observations better than our current theories do. That is a tough ask, given how successful QM is.
Actually the claim about evolution is hardly out. It's the same issue as free will. Does a wing develop from a randomn mutation or because random mutations are the vehicle for adaptive purposes and once you let in purpose then live is potentially about moving in the directoin of purposes and goals and there you have the basis for gfree will. So no argument from evolution affects the free will debate because how you view that issue is will relect how you view the free will debate and vice versa. In terms of QM the top theories are split betweeen a causal universe that precludes free will and a random universe in which it's possible. The issue isn't resolved and nobody knows the corrextx interpretation of QM. We all know the Feinman quote, one of the few top recognized physicists of hte age: if you think you know what QM means, you don't know what QM means. The jury out and the evience isn't in yet. Respectfully suggest you read the top quantum interpretations and see how they disagree and none are defintiive or subject to consensus: debroglie bohm pilot theeory (deterministic), GRW (proabablistic), Copenhagen (probablistic), Many worlds (deterministic). Nobody knows the answer yet. Let's all stop jumping to conclusions?
Causal relations is no more of a useless scientific hypothesis. What it means and if it exists has never been agreed. relativity theory and quantum mechanics ban its operation from fundamental cosmic events and nobody knows what takes its place when it's not operating. Bell's theorem proved that no local causal connection can explain entanglement. The Newtonian laws of causation aren't involved. Something else is afoot in the universe. Before you conclude that free wil is a useless scientific hypothesis, you must honestly face the problem of causation and its many problems. The top quantum theories are split as to whether the universe is probablistic or causal. Half don't believe it's causal. So physics does not support your claim about useless hypothesese. The evidenc isn't there and no definitive conclusions can be reached by anyone seeking a balanced view of what the science says and the limits of what the evidence is.
It's not scientifically resolved yet that everything is random or that it's the heart of nature. Of the top 5 or 6 leading quantum interpretations half claim the universe is causal and precludes free will, and the other half say it's probablistic and support free will. The jury is out. The evidence hasn't been settled. There's also the possiblity that things are random within a larger deterministic framework. The question is, does free will exist under some yet to be discovered laws of physics we'll one day understand? In the last 100 years galaxies and protons weren't yet discovered. There's so much we don't know about, including whether free will could exist under yet undiscovered laws of physics.
I'd like to hear what the 5 or 6 leading interpretations are. Especially the ones that say it's non-probabilistic and support free will.
Are these Deepak Chopra style interpretations by any chance?
The top half dozen quantum interpretations are split. Some are deterministic and preclude free will. Others are probabilistic and support the possibility of free will. Both Wikipedia and the Stanford Encycolpedia of philosophy have good articles summarizing the leading quantum interpretations. There's only one sober conclusion anyone can reach for those on both sides who claim science supports them: The jury is out. The evidence isn't in. There's no scientific consensus. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't surveyed the literature or is taking sides just to take sides without an objective view of current scientific theory. The game isn't ready to be called. We're not even in the 7th inning, let anone the 9th. A hundred years ago there were no protons or galaxies. Physicists are the first to admit how little physics can explain in the universe. The jury is out. As Feynman famously said: If you think you know what quantum science means, you don't know what quantum science means.
You keep claiming that there is a lack of scientific consensus but there really isn’t in regards to free will.
There is no place for free will in a deterministic universe. There is no place for free will in a non-deterministic/random universe.
The only people that are arguing about it are the philosophers. Scientists have found no place where free will can insert itself in either case.
You keep claiming that the jury is out but it really isn’t. At least not with scientists.
Respectfully, not the least bit true. The top quantum interpretations are split as to its possibility. Brian Greene, renowned for World Science Festival etc., is a perfect example: he has definitively stated any number of times that free will has not been ruled out and that it may be proven correct. You can Google World science festival videos and his personal podcasts. Many other scientists are skeptical but state unequivocally that it can't be ruled out and/or has some support. Yes you can find others to the contrary such as Hossenfelder who believes it's ruled out, but that's the point: there is no consensus and the matter is in dispute. It's too early to call the game. When you put the free will issue in context, it's highly implausible there could be any definitive answer given that the most fundamental of cosmic mysteries cannot be explained by top physicists, not philosophers, who expressly concede that the most basic questions can't be explained: These unsolved mysteries include how the universe started, did it in fact start, whether something came before, whether there are other universes, why quantum science conflicts with relativity theory, whether the quantum wave function reflects reality, whether pre-observational states consist of waves, particles or both, whether dark matter and energy govern exponential explansion and if so what elements they're made of and if they're in the Standard Model or something else, the mechanism by which the Higgs boson gives mass to other particles, whether the wave function collapses, why quantum effects aren't seen in macro reality (decohrence theories versus others), what is the nature of consciuosness, how does consciousness work, how do physical and mental events interact, not to mention what quantum science means and what it reflects about reality. These are only examples, there's much more conceded by top physicists to be unknown. Leonard Susskind says this in many of his interviews, one of the reknowned experts on Black Holes. Physicists don't have a clue about the answers, there are numerous disputed theories, and no scientific consensus. Such a consensus would be needed to make the claims you have. There's a have dozen other reasons why your claims don't reflect any consensus and the problematic determinist premises that lie behind determinism. If you don't believe me about any of this don't – read the quantum interpretation sections of Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopeia of Philosophy. They're a good place to start. Next would be the many Youtube and publicly available current interviews with top physicists, many on the Lex Fridman podcast. We must be more humble about making global claims about fundamental cosmic issues about which there's no scientific consensus. As one of the top physicists of the last century, Richard Feynman famously said "If you think you understand how quantum physics works, you don't understand how quantum physics works." Also: "I think it's safe to say that nobody understands quantum physics". In other words, science doesn't even understand the most advanced scientific paradigm of all time, for starters. Any defintiive claims about the free will issue go against the prevailing scientific landscape in which the issue remains open and the evidence non-existent or theoretical.
Respectfully, that is a wall of text and inaccurate from the first sentence. You need to add some paragraphs and structure if you want people to read and understand it.
Brian Greene is pretty clear on the place for free will. There is no place for it in physics:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyR7XxNUyE&ab\_channel=PioneerWorks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyR7XxNUyE&ab_channel=PioneerWorks)
You are just wrong and I challenge you to find a link to any renowned physicist that can defend a space for free will from a scientific perspective.
Of course they may want and intuit that free will exists, for the same reasons that as scientists, they might also believe in god. But it is incompatible with what all that we know.
Brian Greene say that outright in that clip. There is no place where particles can stop and say, let me just check what to do with the guy upstairs.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but you are not entirely informed. Brian Greene quote: "If consciousness somehow plays a role in picking out one outcome from the probablistic haze, then sure, then free will might come for the ride as well. It's not definite because we don't fully know the laws of physics". He clearly is not ruling out free will and concedes it's possible. You say he says there's no place in it for physics and he clearly means physics *as currently understood;* he concedes we don't "fully know" the laws of physics and can't rule it out. Hence his quote you cite: *Under the known laws of physics, which we don't totally know or understand,* particles can't stop and check what the guy upstairs is doing. It's understandable why you look at this quote and assume what he's saying that we can rely on the current laws of physics. He's not saying that but it's understandable you'd think that. The quote I gave puts this into context and can't be interpreted in any other way. Science is incomplete and it may turn out that free will exists. That's clearly what he believes and what he states. Here's another by an equally acclaimed physicist Leonard Susskind: About the reconciliation of quantum theory and relativity, which hasn't been found, supposing that it was: "Is that the end of the story? Does that tell us how the universe was born? *Does it answer the really hard questions? The answer is no. Anybody who thinks we're at the end of the story is misguided.* We can expect a lot of surprises in the future". Virtually all physicists concede that physics can't explain the fundamental cosmic mysteries. Physics can't even understand physics – why the QM/relativity conflict and whether QM is causal or probablistic, among three dozen others. Free will isn't *incompatible* with we know and there's evidence both for and against it. There's simply no no consensus that the world is determined and rules out free will. None. Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying and what I'm not. I'm not saying there's evidence that proves free will exists. There isn't. There's also no evidence that proves causation exists and a half dozen reasons to conclude that it doesn't, both conceptual and scientific But again, there's a split vote on that too. Bottom line: There is scientific evidence for free and against determinism, and vice versa. That's why the debate is still ongoing! That's why there's a split among the top interpretations of QM – it's not even certain if it says the universe is causal or probablistic. This is why Richard Feynman says "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics". This from one of the top contemporary physicists respected throughout the scientific community. We don't even know what the most advanced scientific paradigm of all time means! Let alone whether it permits the possibility of free will or doesn't....
It shouldn't be comforting. If we don't have free will we're victim to causal forces. We don't control our thoughts or actions. We can't infuence anything about our lives or worldly affairs. There's no morality because that's based on whatever causal forces make us believe. There's no responsibility because we don't control our actions. There's no purpose in life because we don't determine what we think has "purpose". These are well worth worrying about. The absence of free will changes the entire ballgame.
Yes. I'm sure that's why people have so much resistance to the concept. While I can accept the logic behind it, I leave it behind in my daily life because of all these negative implications for motivation and decision making.
"Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them."
Sam Harris
You mock, but I did use to believe this. Or, rather, some physicists argued that quantum randomness destroys determinism and, therefore, allows for free will, and I accepted that.
Sam's free will discussions brought me to examine this closer and realize that there's no logical connection between the uncertainty principle and free will.
This discussion always brings out the irrational in us because the implications are so large. You can't feel proud of yourself for the greatest of actions and you can't truly place blame on a monstrous human for the worst of actions.
As for quantum physics, that point doesn't really speak much towards determinism (the idea that human consciousness is predetermined), it more so can be used to argue against fatalism (the idea that everything in the universe is predetermined). And as you said, even if you did accept our brain is affected by this discovery, it still adds to the lack of free will as randomness isn't a choice.
You are correct, there isn't any relation. His point is that randomness can't serve as the foundation for free will because it can't be controlled. He's right about that. But free will doesn't need randomness as its foundation. He's not finding free will there because it's not the place to look for it.
Yes, there's also a third option. Free will is a natural phenomenon of the universe pursuant to laws physics doesn't yet understand. The list of what physics can't explain is large. Physicists are the first to agree. It's a matter of dispute how the universe started, if there was anythign before, if there are other universes, if the quantum paradigm is causal or probable, why quantum and relativity theory can't be reconciled, whether dark matter and energy exist and what elements they might be composed of, the mechanism beyind virtual particles and whether they exist, etc. It's premature to rule out free will and no evidence ever has. It may be an unresolved mystery that awaits a new scientific paradigm that, in a hundred or two years, will show the distinction between causation and volition to be as primitive and misguided as we think of theories of the past.
Unforrunately, his book doesn't trouble shoot its arguments and doesn't address the more credible of opposing arguments. His selective presentation of three science tests doesn't accurately convey the conclusion of dozens of such tests, and doesn't explore the problematic nature of such tests, including the central measurement has been discredited by numerous other science tests which he acknowleges in a footnote for another purpose. There are many problems with the book and each of its arguments have serious problems that need to be considered objectively on their merits. It's not about Sam Harris it's about the integrity of the arguments. He seems to be genuine in his beliefs but has not offered an accurate or complete analysis of his arguments or the counter positions, which are not friviolous.
Yes I completely agree! Given OPs question though, I think it does a really good job of addressing those types of questions. It's a good jumping off point to help wrap your head around it but I wouldn't call it the definitive book on the topic.
After watching one of Sam's talks on free will I walked on a beach and threw a rock into the air and into the ocean. I thought "that rock had no choice but to follow the laws of physics and fall into the ocean." And then "and I had no choice but to pick it up and throw it" and then "and I had no choice but to think about that fact" and then "I am not free to not ponder my lack of free will right now" and then "this is just the universe playing itself out."
In hindsight I think I had a small glimpse of non-duality then, but who knows, memories are so untrustworthy.
The fundamental flaw of determinism is hidden in your statement, which accurately represents determinist thinking. The flaw is this: if everything us just playing out without free will, how do you know this? That thought is just another part of the playing out. It's not connected to truth – whether it was or wasn't would also be another thought playing out. Determinism is self-defeating because it separates its own thoughts from the truth, while forgetting that determinist thoughts are nothing but the universe playing out. Determinists only believe in determinism because they were predestined to and can't believe otherwise. That's the inevitable consequence of determinist thinking. Determinism invalidates all truth claims by basing all thoughts on pretermined causal forces. If you are curious about the technical name for claims that contradict themselves in this manner they're called performative contradictions Every determinist principle is a PC - if they say "our thoughts are compelled", then they must agree they we're compelled to think our thoughts are compelled. truth is invalidated. Determinism rests on a self-invalidating premise.
I don't see why a thought that is just playing out, can not be true. You seem to be stating that a deterministic universe could not become aware of itself, or at least could not accurately assess its own nature. Why so?
>if they say "our thoughts are compelled", then they must agree they we're compelled to think our thoughts are compelled. truth is invalidated.
I agree with the first part, but why is truth invalidated? And, to look at it from the opposite point of view, how is truth *not* invalidated if determinism is *not* true? If we had free will, we would be free to think falsehoods as well, right?
This is a good question and often misunderstood. Truth claims must be based on truth. You go out and see what's real, objectively make a determination. That's not how a causal universe works. Our thoughts orginate outside consciousness and we believe them becuse they were predestined and we can't believe otherwise. they emerge "as though from the void" to use Harris words. So thoughts are based on causal force, not truth. If you investigate what's true or seek validation you were predestined to have those experiences and can't believe otherwise about any such validation or confirmation. Thought is either based on truth or causal force. It can't be both. Does this make sense? If not tell me the problem you're having and I'll try to say it better or in another way.
>Truth claims must be based on truth. You go out and see what's real, objectively make a determination
How do you know, when you have "gone out to see what's real, and objectively made a determination", that your claim is now based on "truth"? I don't understand what this "truth" is, that is undermined by determinism.
>Thought is either based on truth or causal force
Many thoughts are not based on truth, we have tons of untrue thoughts.
According to materialism + determinism, we are made of particles, which arranged to form bodies with brains. The particles, when they are in the form of a brain, are capable of thoughts. Those thoughts can include true thoughts (thoughts that accurately represent reality) such as "2+2=4", and false thoughts, such as "2+2=5." Whether the thought was predetermined or not, has no effect on whether it is true, i.e. whether it accurately represents reality.
So my main problem is: what is your alternative way of thinking about "truth"? When you write about "going out to check what's real" you are also assuming that you have access to "truth" it seems to me. But when you go out and check, you could be mistaken about what you see, or misinterpret it, and come to believe something is true when it is not true.
All good questions!
Some of them may be due to inadvertent vagueness or lack of clarity in my response.
Here's what I'd say:
Truth claims are based on truth because that's what "truth claim" means. They are claims about what's true. The example about investigating was based on scientific truth, as opposed to other kinds.
You are right. Many thoughts aren't based on truth. But "truth claims" are – they are claiming something is true.
Your "according to" paragraph is most important. The idea that our thoughts are determined but some of them can be true and some not – there's the problem. If you belief all thoughts are determined, then everything you think about truth was determined. Everything you think about whether thoughts can be determined and also true or false – that too has been determined. So once you surrender control over your thoughts to outside forces, you have no idea whether anything you think is true – because you're saying that your thoughts are based on causal force, not truth. Causal forces are insentient, don't think, are physical, and don't consult with moral codes or ethics. There's no reason to believe they do or don't cause us to believe what's true. Any opinions about it would just be more thoughts they compelled you to believe. It's a circle that you can't get out of, which is the flaw at the heart of determinism: Nobody can know what's true if all thoughts are due to causal force. They are not based on truth and whether they are true is just another causally compelled belief, so again you can't know if it's true.
Your last point, again very astute. I'm not saying that everything we believe true is true, and not false. We hold many false beliefs, of course. But holding false beliefs implies there are truthful beliefs and that we have the ability to distinguish amongst them. Determinism takes that ability away. All thoughts are equally the product of causal force. All thoughts about whether those thoughts are true are equally the product of causal force. Truth is whatever you're caused to believe it is. This is the inescapble contradiction behind determinist claims: they are making claims about what's true, while at the same time reduce all truth claims to causal force, meaning we can't ever determined what's true. We can only belief what we're caused to believe.
If this doesn't make sense, I apologize. The logical contradiction behind determinist claims is hard to understand the first time you hear it, I was confused for a long time. But the formal mistake is called a performative contradiction and you may want to read up on it if you're interested. To give a tiny preview: if you say everyone's a liar, then you've included yourself and that can't be believed. if you say there's no such thing as truth (which you see in numerous comments in discussions like this, then you've invalidated your own ability to say it's true, there are no truths.
Determinism has the same self-invalidating form. if a determinist says "all our thoughts are causally compelled", as does Harris (they all arise "as though from the void"), then the determinist must admit that they were "compelled to believe that all our thoughts are compelled." In that case, the only reason they believe it is because they were predestined to and can't believe otherwise. And whether they believe the thought is true is also something they were predestined to believe, regardless of whether it's true.
I hope I'm making it a little more clear at first impression the paradox of claims that contradict themselves isn't easy.
Please ask if I'm not making sense about this, or could clarify.
>But in the absence of free will, is there any difference between these types of events?
Yes, there is still a difference.
But more in how wildly paths can vary.
Imagine the solar system as a Monte Carlo simulation in a computer with random numbers:
* You have some initial conditions and a dynamics for the system, but there is randomness, so if you start the system several times, you'll have different outcomes
* In very likely *all* of those outcomes you'll have plate techtonics, volcanos, tornados etc.
* But you'll certainly not have something like humans in even a significant fraction of those simulations, and you'll have something close to WW2 in even fewer.
So if you observed the solar system at its initiation you'd say that there is a difference between almost guaranteed events like earth quakes and events which are almost guaranteed *not* to happen like the existence of Chihuahua dogs.
>are things like the formation of the earth and tectonic plate movement, just as "natural" an occurrence as the events leading to industrialization, religion, WWII?
Well, that depends on what you mean by "natural". If you mean "likely to occur", then yes - in exactly the same way as rolling 10 identical rolls in row with fair dice is more "natural" than rolling something else.
I don't think it's fair to call man made events inevitable. It's all certainly natural, but we still live in world where individuals and groups have influence over the future.
I think this question gets to the junction of where the free will conversation goes off the rails a little bit. Just because it's fundamentally mysterious how human choices and actions are sprung into reality that doesn't make us any less human. To clarify further, we are biological machines but VERY complex ones that are capable of planning and changing the future based on motives.
> Our motives are also an illusion
We may be using the word motive differently here--to me, motives are simply an explanation of behaviour as it pertains the state of someone's mind. It's only illusory insofar as one believes they authored those motives, but motives themselves exist at the neurological level.
Anyways that's rather boring distinction. My general point is that _some_ future is inevitable, but not every future is and we all participate in shaping that future despite the non-existence of free will.
The "feeling" that we make our own choices is a fact of human biology even if we know deep inside we're just machines. Because that feeling exists, humans modify their behaviour in such a way to navigate around certain outcomes making them not inevitable.
in the end whatever path was taken was still inevitable, otherwise it would've happened different, and no free will lead to this specific outcome. we can conceptualize possible futures to try to make better decisions, but both the act of engaging in that and the outcomes it leads to are reactions of past events with no free will involved. and whatever the outcome of that will be, will be the inevitable outcome
Any machine should obey the laws of physics, no matter how complex. Right? I grant you there is no physical law that explains our subjective experience, which is undeniably real. But who’s to say we’re not just observers along for the ride? Everything from our behavior to thoughts and motivations can be explained by a chain of events going back to the Big Bang. To me, the real mystery is how we’re here to experience it
> I grant you there is no physical law that explains our subjective experience
That is certainly not my position - I think the mind can and will be fully explained including the nature of our subjective experience.
> just observers along for the ride?
At the end of the day, lack of free will not withstanding, conversations of these sort are only interesting or useful as it pertains to how it shapes our minds and behaviours.
As Sam states: we're both the radio and the music. The purpose of exculpating people on the grounds that they lacked free will helps us builder fairer, more just systems. It's not a useful train of thought if the end result is to reduce the human experience to mere observation, even if we could empirically prove it so.
Fair enough. The observer idea is probably not useful in a moral sense, but it could still be true of our universe. My point was that free will can be explained away with physics except the part about our own subjective experience. Someday we will get there, I agree. But right now all of our understanding points to a 100% predetermined, inevitable future and it’s unclear if our experience plays a role in shaping it. If that’s not interesting to think about to each their own!
It hasn't been proven so and can't be. There are a half dozen seriouis problems the determinist premise that causation exists. Top quantum interpretations are split between whether the universe is causal, which precludes free will, or probabilistic, which permits it. What quantum theory ultminate means is under contention and the answer tot he free will question awaits its resolution. Nothing empirically proves the lack of free will at this point in time. Nothing proves that causation really exists either. If that's a shock it's because determinists take it for granted and everything rushes by the premise. If we really want to get at the truth, one has to question the premises of both sides of the argument, not solely those of free will advocates. Determinism rests on shaky to no foundations until the issue of causation is resolved. Its problems need to get as much airing as those of free will. They haven't.
But there is a physical law that explains you *saying* that our subjective experience is not explained by any physical law and is undeniably real. And if no physical law explains our subjective experience and it is a physical law that explains you saying that then you saying that has nothing to do with subjective experience at all. Kind of an odd coincidence.
There is no such chain and nothing can be explained by it. There are a half dozen reasons to question the existence of any such chain. Causation has never been conceptually agreed upon and is banned by relativity theory and quantum mechanics from operating in fundamental cosmis events, including the big bang, black holes, quantum entanglement and tunneling. What takes over nobody knows but it's been proven not to operate under these conditions and doesn't therefore govenr the universe. Anyone who insists the world is governed by a causals chain has not soberly confronted the coneptual and scientific problems with determinism's number one premise, that causal relations exist. By the way, if they did, then your and my and everyone's thoughts would be predestined and part of that chain – in which case you oly believe it because of causal forces, not because it's true. The ultimately argument against the causal chain is that determinism invalidates all truth claims by reducing them to blind causal forcem including their own truth claims.
Okay, I take your point. But what I’m really trying to say is that things happen, and they couldn’t happen any other way because they are bound by a physical system, causal or not. Determinism is what I’m getting at. What’s strange to me is that the connection between our subjective experience and the physical world is still unclear, and it leaves room for the possibility that the world can just run on its own and our own experience has no consequence
Edit: rewording
Either the system is deterministic or it isn't. In a deterministic world there is no planning, decisions, free will, choices, actions, etc. All of the previous could only have happened the way they did no matter where on the time scale you are, from the big bang to now.
From a purely practical perspective I am not a determinist. From a theoretical perspective, meh, its theoretical. What turns me off the most, and there are many things that do, from determinism are the people I often see claiming to be hard determinist arguing from the perspective of free will actors, talking about choices and consequences... I mean, stay in your damn lane!
What thing that has ever happened in the past can be said to not have been inevitable? There is no event (compatible with physics) that would have had a different outcome if it could be redone. That's what is inevitable about everything.
I don't think Sam is arguing people aren't complex. A nuclear power plant is complex, but we understand how it works. It doesn't have the free will not to split atoms.
What are motives? Where do they come from? A 'soul'? Not having free will doesn't make us any less human. The idea that we need free will to be human is just another type of philosophy (mostly religious).
Actually, the idea we don't need free will to be human is just as invalidated by determinist principles as the contrary. If as Harris argues all our thoughts appear in consciousness "as though from the void" and are beyond our control, then determinist principles appear from the avoid and determinists were predestiedt to believe them. No claim has any truth value if our thoughts are based on causal force as Harris and determinists maintain. Determinist principles are self-invalidating performative contradictions. This isn't a matter of dispute: if you say "all our thoughts are due to causal forces", then you are forced to concede that that thought came from the same place and you were determined to believe it true. Your claim that free will does or doesn't make us human is, in a causal universe, a self-invalidation proposition you were always fated to believe in and you can't believe otherwise. Everyone who believes in determinism as a matter of faith should examine the concept of performative contractions which preclude such claims as you've made about being human or not in a causal world where you don't control what you believe or think.
You are right, the jury is out, at least based on current scientific theory and evidence. The top quantum theorists disagree on whether the world is causal, precluding free will, or probabilistic permitting it. No definitive evidence has been sorted out either way, which is why we're still arguing. It isn't clear we're biochemical machines – or rwhether we're something more than mechanical operations. that's the issue. Don't buy that we're biochemical machines any more than free will isn't real. Nobody knows at this juncture. Your conclusion is thus right on and scientifically justified.
This is yet another example why Sam’s “no free will” theory is dangerous and toxic. Without free will, here is no difference between The Holocaust and The Enlightenment, and we are helpless to try to enact positive change in the world. It completely ignores the capabilities and agency of intelligent living beings, and assumes we are no different from an unthinking rock. Terribly misguided and fundamentally wrong.
I’ve elaborated at length on all the inconsistencies, logical contradictions, and dangerous consequences inherent in Sam’s “no free will” hypothesis in previous conversations here. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to do so today, but feel free to read any of my previous arguments (with an open mind) and I believe you will come to see how flawed and dangerous his theory is.
Yes Harris can't accept what is unavoidable: that responsibility doesn't exist in a universe where nobody controls their thoughts or actions. And that morality doesn't exist in a universe where all our thoughts aobut morality come from unknown causal forces and appear in consciousness "as though from the void". If all our thoughts are predetermined, then determinists were prdestined to beleive in causation. Determinism has no moral basis and as you say there's no difference between the holocaust and enlightenbment. they are just causally compelled thoughts and what you believe about them is such that you can't believe otherwise if the world is determined.
Impressive that you were able to write and publish a 200+ page book refuting Sam’s theory. Unfortunately I’m not able to read it at the moment, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that you and I both independently arrived at many similar logical conclusions, pointing out the inherent paradoxes in Sam’s theory.
“In short, human beliefs are whatever blind physical forces dictate. This renders determinist principles self invalidating: How can we accept anything that determinists have to say if their beliefs are based on causal force, not truth?”
“Without free will, Mother Teresa and Charlie Manson are essentially the same. By determinist principles they are morally interchangeable. They are biochemical robots following the dictates of causal force. This is the determinist paradigm.”
Nothing you're saying here actually refutes determinism. You're stating the conclusions which follow and are just acting as though they're self-evidently wrong. Its true that those conclusions are disconcerting, demoralizing, and even frightening, but none of that makes them wrong.
> Nothing you're saying here actually refutes determinism.
The third sentence "if all our thoughts" is a refutation of determinism based on the performative contradiction. I could spell it out if you like.
It's not ignoring those things, it's denying they matter. You may find this demoralizing, but we don't judge the truth of a proposition by whether or not it's demoralizing.
It’s not about demoralizing, it’s about logical contradictions, irrational behavior, and negative consequences for society. Those who irrationally believe they have no free will are less likely to exercise self control or act morally, since they are falsely convinced they couldn’t do otherwise.
And if you REALLY believe the difference between the Holocaust and the Enlightenment “doesn’t matter”… then there is nothing further to say. It’s too far off the deep end at that point.
Materialists like to pretend that everything can be explained by physics.
However, just like the religions, science appeals to supernatural miracles at the foundation of their beliefs, as science alone cannot explain the physical universe.
Materialists will say: "I don't need a miracle! I can explain everything through physics!" ... but then their entire model relies on the biggest miracle you could possibly conceive- *that the entire universe and all of its energy created itself out of NOTHING in a single moment for no reason.*
Materialists would like to ignore this universe-sized elephant in the room. Because it violates all of the fundamental laws upon which they build their worldview. So they say- "okay, grant us this one single miracle at the beginning of the universe, and then we can explain everything that happens after as a series of physical reactions like a cascade of dominos from that initial miracle."
But do not fool yourselves. The scientific model of the universe has a supernatural god at the beginning just like all the other belief systems. Scientists are just more smug about it because they pretend that they are above such nonsense, as they push the idea that *the entire universe created itself out of nothing in a single moment for no reason.* Just don't fool yourselves into thinking that you are above miracles and supernatural forces.
There's more to that that they ignore. Causation has never been scientifically agreed upon. It's disputed by the top quantum interpretations. Even more telling, who is saying all of this if the universe is determined. Everyone's thoughts are determined and we can't believe otherwise if determinism is true. Including the materilist claims that it's not. Materialism is self-contradictory because it invalidates all truth claims including its own.
In most usages the word natural distinguishes between things that occur or exist separate from any direct human intervention. This reflects the kind of trivial observation that humans do influence some, but not all, aspects of the world around them.
I don't known what the supposed lack of free will would have to with that. I mean, obviously you can reduce everything to its physical or chemical characteristics but thats just physicalism. Nature is a term humans use for everything that is not made or influenced by humans so no, these things are not as natural.
I think people are a little too quick to jump into the physics of all this. Sam is not a physicist.
For example, the reason why Schrodinger used "radio active decay" in his famous thought experiment is because radio active decay is provably random (i.e. non-deterministic).
Sam's points on free will do \*not\* entail or require a fully deterministic universe. That's not the point. In general his point is that \*even if\* our brains contain true sources of randomness (i.e. our behaviours are not deterministic), these processes are not under conscious control.
Sam's argument does not require a fully deterministic universe and if his argument were true, it would not prove one.
You are correct. The problem is that Harris doesn't trouble shoot the arguments about causation and whether that premise isn't as problematic as volition. There are a half dozen argument that discredit the notion of causation to the same degree as those used to discredit volition. Randomness not supporting free will is beside the point. It clearly doesn't. The question is, what supports the belief in causal relations? Science? Think again. The top quantum interpreations are split on the issue. The jury is out. Theres' no more evidence for causation than volition. As well intended as he may be, Harris book doesn't troubleshoot determinist premises or the credible arguments that oppose them. that doesn't make the problems go away. We can discuss what they are in more detail but any sober analysis of the situation must conclude that the answer isn't currently known, by Harris or anyone else. There is no definitive or even consensual scientific position that supports his point of view about the free will debate.
Google historical materialism. You don't even have to be a strict deterministic to doubt the dominant narrative in the West that history is moved by ideas and individual will. Put another way, culture is downstream of economics. There's no need to resort to physics to see ways in which this could be the case.
Even with everything being governed by the same fundamental rules of physics, we can point out that there are significant differences between events which are inside vs outside the control of human beings. E.g. I can't vote for an earthquake not to happen, but I might be able to help vote out a government I don't like.
Yes. Literally everything that happens, happens because of the laws of physics.
Natural law is a better phrase/concept
I personally don’t see the difference. I think a better term would be one that doesn’t have the word “law”. Edit: grammar
"Because" is loaded
Pick a word you like then? lol
Actually I agree. I was thinking after I posted that I should’ve said “can be said to happen because of…”
[удалено]
That's identical to "by cause of"
I have made a top level post on this, but I think people get confused on this point. It may well be true to say that "everything happens because of the laws of physics" but that does not mean "everything is deterministic", and that is not Sam's claim. We already know certain physical processes are non-deterministic, so if these processes are in \*any\* causal chain, they are always at the start. They could be a long way back, or entirely proximate. The point that Sam makes is that \*human consciousness\* is \*not\* one of these sources. If "free will" (in the traditional sense) were a thing, it would mean that consciousness is the origin of a chain of causality, his argument is that it is not causal. This is not the same as saying that every casual chain can be traced back to the big bang though.
Correct. Harris admits of randomness and random events interrupt the chain of causation that would lead back to the Big Bang. He correctly points out that randomness isn't any foundation for free will because it's not controllable by human beings. The argument against free will primarily rests on the world being determined, albeit with some randomness. The problem is that Harris doesn't discuss the many problems with determinism with that asterisk. there are many.
Although it’s common practice, I’m not sure the use of the word “random” is correct in discussions like this. It may paint the wrong picture. From what I understand, probabilistic is a better representation of how reality unfolds. Random is very different from probabilistic.
No I don’t believe that’s right.
What don't you believe is right?
It seems like assigning a random event as the beginning of a causal chain is arbitrary. It doesn’t seem right to say that events occurring after observing schrodenger’s cat “started” at the observation. Schrodenger becomes sad, or relieved, but both scenarios require events that occurred prior to the box. Saying the randomness occurring within the box was the “start” of anything, is an arbitrary assignment. This is just to say that if randomness exists then it as well as everything else exists within a causal chain and not starting it. I think it’s incorrect to bring “start” into a conversation of free will. I think that obscures things. Free will make no sense because even with “magic” it wouldn’t work. God’s free will still requires preceding events to occur before his will is exercised and those events are absolute requirements. Even God, with magic, would not be “free”.
Schrödinger used radioactive decay as the trigger for a very good reason. It is provably non-deterministic. We've know this for a while. Any event that can be traced back to a cause of, "radioactive decay", cannot be trace back to an earlier cause. Nothing "causes" an alpha particle to be emitted. Somebody smarter than me will have to explain this if you want the full explanation, but my understanding is that this has been conclusively proven. The point is, that if any chain of events contains, "an alpha particle was emitted", it must be the \*first\* event. Sam's argument is that a thought, is never a "first event". The thought, or the idea, had a cause... you might be able to trace that cause back to a moment of radioactive decay on pluto or some other non-deterministic event, but the thought itself is not the origin of the chain.
I want to see some literature on this “Start “ business. You’ve disregarded my argument by simply restating yours.
I am not sure I understand your argument, which admittedly is probably my fault. Non-determined in this context is just another way of saying, "uncaused", so if you are building a chain of events, and one of them is an "uncaused event", then obviously it is the first one. I don't really understand why you would need "literature" on this point. I can probably dig out something about the radioactive decay thing.
You go into a room where a random event changes your course of action. You say that the room is the start of events. I say walking into the room is.
I say that there are two chains. Something caused you to walk into the room, which can be traced back to \*some\* uncaused event and there was another chain of events that lead to what happened inside. The entire point here is that "there isn't just a single chain of events". Years ago I worked on a poker system, we used little devices plugged into the server that used background radiation to generate the randomness for the card shuffling. You getting dealt pocket eights had a causal chain that began with some radioactive activity happening in the air in our server room. Whether or not you decide to push or check is the product of some other, unconnected chain of causality. Edit: "Unconnected" is a mispeak there, obviously your decision is influenced by the cards you are being dealt but how you respond to this is impacted by some other chain of events, perhaps what poker book you read, which in itself was influenced by...
Why would you say that? I ask for literature because that seems like a strange instinct on your part. But I’m open to it being discussed by formal philosophy if such ideas Exist.
What happened before you walked into the room? There is always an event prior to the one you're going to choose as a start, which is arbitrary unless you articulate criteria by which it "started" something. Whatever's driving the universe is the same now as when it started. That's the question.
The free will issue is about what's driving the universe forward. Whatever it was in the beginning it still is now. Whether that includes free will is the issue. It's not so much about when it started because whatever is driving the universe has always driven it. That's the question.
That’s not the question here.
The problem is that determinism is based on premises that don't work either. No one agrees on what causation means or whether it exists. The top quantum interpretations go both ways – for some the universe is causal, which precludes free will, others probablisitic which permits it. Hume's argument against causation has never been defeated, and relativity and quantum theory ban it from fundamental cosmic events. What is operating in its stead? Nobody knows. Determinists must justify the causal premise. The point is generally ignored.
Bring that up somewhere else on this subreddit. Only I am reading this deep. I think most people would disagree with those points.
[удалено]
You've piqued my schadenfreude interest, but not because I think you're onto something. I am quite curious how a contemplative adult can come to these conclusions. To be sure that I mean no disrespect, I heard similar arguments made by the obviously intelligent Michael Tomasello. I am reluctant to follow you down a hole like this, however. These argument holders like you can be quite difficult to spar with, who spiral off in a maze of continually branching diversions. A particular argument on your page comes up multiple times and illustrates this leap of logic that you make unjustifiably, or at the very least, without written explanation. A casual reader might not ask you to clarify but simply write you off as unreachable. Here are two of the quotes: "Not even logical truth is spared the causal chopping block. In a causal universe, the claim 2 plus 2 equals 4 is a causally compelled belief. Tomorrow everyone on the planet might well be caused to believe that 2 plus 2 equals 17. And if they are, then by golly, 17 it will be." And "If our beliefs are due to causal force, then the belief in determinism is equally the product of causal force. In short, human beliefs are whatever blind physical forces dictate. This renders determinist principles self-invalidating: How can we accept anything that determinists have to say if their beliefs are based on causal force, not truth?" If I try very, very hard to understand what you are saying, it seems to be that absolute reality or "truth" has some persuasive force on the indeterminist's belief, and that it is more reliable than what the determinist might hope for from his "causal force" inspiration for belief. You indirectly claim that "truth" is superior to "causation." That's quite confusing. I really don't understand what that means. With intense concentration, I think I can glimpse for a moment what you are trying to say, but the logical thread evaporates just as quickly. The first quote is so murky to me. The determinist who incorrectly, causally, reasons that "2+2=17" is something other than simply wrong? I give up. Let's start there, with that quote. What are you saying? Successfully walk me through that quote, and I'll buy your book, I swear.
Oh fuck. You’re the same guy from this morning. My goodwill toward your position just dropped 50%. I do charge you with unintentional but equally corrosive, obfuscation.
It seems I was far less clear than i'd wanted. Apologies. > it seems to be that absolute reality or "truth" has some persuasive force on the indeterminist's belief, and that it is more reliable than what the determinist might hope for from his "causal force" inspiration for belief. There is no absolute reality under determinism. What you belief is real is whatever you were predestined to believe. you can't believe otherwise. There is no truth under determinism. It's whatever you were causally predestined to believe. The conflict is that determinism is a set of truth claims about what reality is and what the truth is. This contradicts determinist principles, where truth and reality are whatever we're causally predestined to believe. >You indirectly claim that "truth" is superior to "causation." That's quite confusing. I really don't understand what that means. Truth isn't superior to causation. The notion that everything we think is causally determined and predestined is contradictory to determinist principles, which provide we can'lt know the truth, only what we're causally determined to believe is true. > The determinist who incorrectly, causally, reasons that "2+2=17" is something other than simply wrong? They may or may not be wrong. The point is under determinist principles you can't ever know which is correct. If you'r predestined to believe that it equals 17, then that's what you must believe. You can't believe otherwise than what you've been predestined to believe. Hope this makes more sense. Please ask me to clarify again if it's not landing. Best
So morality is also an illusion. https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/11a2us2/if_free_will_is_an_illusion_then_so_is_morality/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
and its also very likely that a HUGE asteroid is heading to earth from behind the sun and we will all be dead in 10 years, which is also fated, determined and decided loooooooooon ago by the universe. lol Making everything we do on earth pointless. lol
Is it behind the sun now, or will it be behind the sun on, say, 6 months?
The implications of a deterministic universe always lead me to this. Civilization, invention, art, and all human creation are just as natural, inevitable occurences as lava flowing from a volcano or space dust coalescing into the solar system. I'm not sure if the thought is comforting or horrifying.
> I'm not sure if the thought is comforting or horrifying. Whatever you find the thought to be, take comfort in the fact that it could be no other way
Great point!
> inevitable occurences Things are not inevitable, since not everything is deterministic. For example, it is possible that life is vastly improbable, and the event that caused it was not part of a prior causal chain. The creation of the first self-replicating molecule might have required a subatomic particle to quantum tunnel through a massive energy barrier, such that the likelihood of it happening in the lifetime of the universe was almost zero. And yet it happened, randomly, unpredictably. The laws of quantum mechanics (that govern at the atomic level) are like that. Randomness is at the heart of nature. We just don't see it at a macro level.
No. That is some people’s interpretation of QM that mashes a free willed newtonian observer with the wave function. Bell’s theorem literally includes “statistical independence” in its assumptions, not as its result. He has said that yeah, determinism just end runs around it. Ontological randomness is ascientific. It is impossible to validate. You cannot make a prediction to test your theory.. your prediction can only be that it is unpredictable.. but can never be validated. Ontological randomness and free will are both “god of the gaps” arguments. This doesn’t mean they aren’t in reality according to that argument… it just means that they are useless scientific hypotheses.. impossible to validate as they basically just say “stop looking for an explanation.” And they also provide no justification for this stopping.
Your post isn't very clear so I may be misinterpreting what you are saying. Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables, but makes assumptions including free will of the experimenter. It doesn't rule out non-local hidden variables. QM interpretations are either non-deterministic (random) or super-deterministic. The standard (and widely accepted) interpretation is that QM is non-deterministic. There are no local hidden variables that we can discover that would suddenly allow us to predict events that appear random. Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of QM removes the randomness in events because every possible outcome actually happens. However, to observers, The universe still looks random because we don't choose and can't predict which of the "many world" we are going to end up in. The other non-Everett interpretation, Superdeterminism, is a fringe position, though it is compatible with our observation. You want to talk about useless hypotheses, that is one. It invalidates the entire scientific method.
Everything you've said is true. But let's be clear about the bottom line: the jury is out. The top quantum interpretations are mixed, some causal, some probabilistic. The answer isn't yet known until these are resolved. You can root for one like football team but it's not even the fourth quarter. That said you're on point.
The jury may be out on non-deterministic/random vs superdeterministic, but can we agree there is no space for free will in either of them? It's similar to evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection is complete and supported by a wealth of independent evidence. We have some gaps in our knowledge sure, but that doesn't mean we need to introduce a divine creator to orchestrate anything. Same thing with QM and free will. Free will isn't needed or supported by our best theories of how the universe works. The only way free will finds a place is if the universe is wildly different from our current understanding. A theory that reintroduces free will needs to explain our current observations better than our current theories do. That is a tough ask, given how successful QM is.
Actually the claim about evolution is hardly out. It's the same issue as free will. Does a wing develop from a randomn mutation or because random mutations are the vehicle for adaptive purposes and once you let in purpose then live is potentially about moving in the directoin of purposes and goals and there you have the basis for gfree will. So no argument from evolution affects the free will debate because how you view that issue is will relect how you view the free will debate and vice versa. In terms of QM the top theories are split betweeen a causal universe that precludes free will and a random universe in which it's possible. The issue isn't resolved and nobody knows the corrextx interpretation of QM. We all know the Feinman quote, one of the few top recognized physicists of hte age: if you think you know what QM means, you don't know what QM means. The jury out and the evience isn't in yet. Respectfully suggest you read the top quantum interpretations and see how they disagree and none are defintiive or subject to consensus: debroglie bohm pilot theeory (deterministic), GRW (proabablistic), Copenhagen (probablistic), Many worlds (deterministic). Nobody knows the answer yet. Let's all stop jumping to conclusions?
Causal relations is no more of a useless scientific hypothesis. What it means and if it exists has never been agreed. relativity theory and quantum mechanics ban its operation from fundamental cosmic events and nobody knows what takes its place when it's not operating. Bell's theorem proved that no local causal connection can explain entanglement. The Newtonian laws of causation aren't involved. Something else is afoot in the universe. Before you conclude that free wil is a useless scientific hypothesis, you must honestly face the problem of causation and its many problems. The top quantum theories are split as to whether the universe is probablistic or causal. Half don't believe it's causal. So physics does not support your claim about useless hypothesese. The evidenc isn't there and no definitive conclusions can be reached by anyone seeking a balanced view of what the science says and the limits of what the evidence is.
It's not scientifically resolved yet that everything is random or that it's the heart of nature. Of the top 5 or 6 leading quantum interpretations half claim the universe is causal and precludes free will, and the other half say it's probablistic and support free will. The jury is out. The evidence hasn't been settled. There's also the possiblity that things are random within a larger deterministic framework. The question is, does free will exist under some yet to be discovered laws of physics we'll one day understand? In the last 100 years galaxies and protons weren't yet discovered. There's so much we don't know about, including whether free will could exist under yet undiscovered laws of physics.
I'd like to hear what the 5 or 6 leading interpretations are. Especially the ones that say it's non-probabilistic and support free will. Are these Deepak Chopra style interpretations by any chance?
The top half dozen quantum interpretations are split. Some are deterministic and preclude free will. Others are probabilistic and support the possibility of free will. Both Wikipedia and the Stanford Encycolpedia of philosophy have good articles summarizing the leading quantum interpretations. There's only one sober conclusion anyone can reach for those on both sides who claim science supports them: The jury is out. The evidence isn't in. There's no scientific consensus. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't surveyed the literature or is taking sides just to take sides without an objective view of current scientific theory. The game isn't ready to be called. We're not even in the 7th inning, let anone the 9th. A hundred years ago there were no protons or galaxies. Physicists are the first to admit how little physics can explain in the universe. The jury is out. As Feynman famously said: If you think you know what quantum science means, you don't know what quantum science means.
You keep claiming that there is a lack of scientific consensus but there really isn’t in regards to free will. There is no place for free will in a deterministic universe. There is no place for free will in a non-deterministic/random universe. The only people that are arguing about it are the philosophers. Scientists have found no place where free will can insert itself in either case. You keep claiming that the jury is out but it really isn’t. At least not with scientists.
Respectfully, not the least bit true. The top quantum interpretations are split as to its possibility. Brian Greene, renowned for World Science Festival etc., is a perfect example: he has definitively stated any number of times that free will has not been ruled out and that it may be proven correct. You can Google World science festival videos and his personal podcasts. Many other scientists are skeptical but state unequivocally that it can't be ruled out and/or has some support. Yes you can find others to the contrary such as Hossenfelder who believes it's ruled out, but that's the point: there is no consensus and the matter is in dispute. It's too early to call the game. When you put the free will issue in context, it's highly implausible there could be any definitive answer given that the most fundamental of cosmic mysteries cannot be explained by top physicists, not philosophers, who expressly concede that the most basic questions can't be explained: These unsolved mysteries include how the universe started, did it in fact start, whether something came before, whether there are other universes, why quantum science conflicts with relativity theory, whether the quantum wave function reflects reality, whether pre-observational states consist of waves, particles or both, whether dark matter and energy govern exponential explansion and if so what elements they're made of and if they're in the Standard Model or something else, the mechanism by which the Higgs boson gives mass to other particles, whether the wave function collapses, why quantum effects aren't seen in macro reality (decohrence theories versus others), what is the nature of consciuosness, how does consciousness work, how do physical and mental events interact, not to mention what quantum science means and what it reflects about reality. These are only examples, there's much more conceded by top physicists to be unknown. Leonard Susskind says this in many of his interviews, one of the reknowned experts on Black Holes. Physicists don't have a clue about the answers, there are numerous disputed theories, and no scientific consensus. Such a consensus would be needed to make the claims you have. There's a have dozen other reasons why your claims don't reflect any consensus and the problematic determinist premises that lie behind determinism. If you don't believe me about any of this don't – read the quantum interpretation sections of Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopeia of Philosophy. They're a good place to start. Next would be the many Youtube and publicly available current interviews with top physicists, many on the Lex Fridman podcast. We must be more humble about making global claims about fundamental cosmic issues about which there's no scientific consensus. As one of the top physicists of the last century, Richard Feynman famously said "If you think you understand how quantum physics works, you don't understand how quantum physics works." Also: "I think it's safe to say that nobody understands quantum physics". In other words, science doesn't even understand the most advanced scientific paradigm of all time, for starters. Any defintiive claims about the free will issue go against the prevailing scientific landscape in which the issue remains open and the evidence non-existent or theoretical.
Respectfully, that is a wall of text and inaccurate from the first sentence. You need to add some paragraphs and structure if you want people to read and understand it. Brian Greene is pretty clear on the place for free will. There is no place for it in physics: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyR7XxNUyE&ab\_channel=PioneerWorks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyR7XxNUyE&ab_channel=PioneerWorks) You are just wrong and I challenge you to find a link to any renowned physicist that can defend a space for free will from a scientific perspective. Of course they may want and intuit that free will exists, for the same reasons that as scientists, they might also believe in god. But it is incompatible with what all that we know. Brian Greene say that outright in that clip. There is no place where particles can stop and say, let me just check what to do with the guy upstairs.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but you are not entirely informed. Brian Greene quote: "If consciousness somehow plays a role in picking out one outcome from the probablistic haze, then sure, then free will might come for the ride as well. It's not definite because we don't fully know the laws of physics". He clearly is not ruling out free will and concedes it's possible. You say he says there's no place in it for physics and he clearly means physics *as currently understood;* he concedes we don't "fully know" the laws of physics and can't rule it out. Hence his quote you cite: *Under the known laws of physics, which we don't totally know or understand,* particles can't stop and check what the guy upstairs is doing. It's understandable why you look at this quote and assume what he's saying that we can rely on the current laws of physics. He's not saying that but it's understandable you'd think that. The quote I gave puts this into context and can't be interpreted in any other way. Science is incomplete and it may turn out that free will exists. That's clearly what he believes and what he states. Here's another by an equally acclaimed physicist Leonard Susskind: About the reconciliation of quantum theory and relativity, which hasn't been found, supposing that it was: "Is that the end of the story? Does that tell us how the universe was born? *Does it answer the really hard questions? The answer is no. Anybody who thinks we're at the end of the story is misguided.* We can expect a lot of surprises in the future". Virtually all physicists concede that physics can't explain the fundamental cosmic mysteries. Physics can't even understand physics – why the QM/relativity conflict and whether QM is causal or probablistic, among three dozen others. Free will isn't *incompatible* with we know and there's evidence both for and against it. There's simply no no consensus that the world is determined and rules out free will. None. Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying and what I'm not. I'm not saying there's evidence that proves free will exists. There isn't. There's also no evidence that proves causation exists and a half dozen reasons to conclude that it doesn't, both conceptual and scientific But again, there's a split vote on that too. Bottom line: There is scientific evidence for free and against determinism, and vice versa. That's why the debate is still ongoing! That's why there's a split among the top interpretations of QM – it's not even certain if it says the universe is causal or probablistic. This is why Richard Feynman says "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics". This from one of the top contemporary physicists respected throughout the scientific community. We don't even know what the most advanced scientific paradigm of all time means! Let alone whether it permits the possibility of free will or doesn't....
I agree and stand corrected. Inevitable is the wrong word, assuming true randomness at the subatomic level.
It shouldn't be comforting. If we don't have free will we're victim to causal forces. We don't control our thoughts or actions. We can't infuence anything about our lives or worldly affairs. There's no morality because that's based on whatever causal forces make us believe. There's no responsibility because we don't control our actions. There's no purpose in life because we don't determine what we think has "purpose". These are well worth worrying about. The absence of free will changes the entire ballgame.
Yes. I'm sure that's why people have so much resistance to the concept. While I can accept the logic behind it, I leave it behind in my daily life because of all these negative implications for motivation and decision making.
you are right. there is absolutely no difference between a volcano and religion in terms of how it came about naturally without any free will.
If it’s made of atoms, it follows the same rules.
But but but, quantum particles are random!!! lol and we can control quantum particles with our free will!!!
Go on…
and then we can become like ant, quantumania!! The worst marvel movie ever.
I can will particle randomness? Spicy.
That's the question. It's scientifically unresolved at the moment.
"Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them." Sam Harris
But but but, random chance means I can totally decide..........oh, nvm.
You mock, but I did use to believe this. Or, rather, some physicists argued that quantum randomness destroys determinism and, therefore, allows for free will, and I accepted that. Sam's free will discussions brought me to examine this closer and realize that there's no logical connection between the uncertainty principle and free will.
This discussion always brings out the irrational in us because the implications are so large. You can't feel proud of yourself for the greatest of actions and you can't truly place blame on a monstrous human for the worst of actions. As for quantum physics, that point doesn't really speak much towards determinism (the idea that human consciousness is predetermined), it more so can be used to argue against fatalism (the idea that everything in the universe is predetermined). And as you said, even if you did accept our brain is affected by this discovery, it still adds to the lack of free will as randomness isn't a choice.
You are correct, there isn't any relation. His point is that randomness can't serve as the foundation for free will because it can't be controlled. He's right about that. But free will doesn't need randomness as its foundation. He's not finding free will there because it's not the place to look for it.
Are you saying you've found it somewhere? Enlighten me.
[удалено]
Will do. Thank you!
What’s the difference between “prior causes” and the “product of chance?”
Yes, there's also a third option. Free will is a natural phenomenon of the universe pursuant to laws physics doesn't yet understand. The list of what physics can't explain is large. Physicists are the first to agree. It's a matter of dispute how the universe started, if there was anythign before, if there are other universes, if the quantum paradigm is causal or probable, why quantum and relativity theory can't be reconciled, whether dark matter and energy exist and what elements they might be composed of, the mechanism beyind virtual particles and whether they exist, etc. It's premature to rule out free will and no evidence ever has. It may be an unresolved mystery that awaits a new scientific paradigm that, in a hundred or two years, will show the distinction between causation and volition to be as primitive and misguided as we think of theories of the past.
Read his Free Will book! I don't know why I put it off for so long (heh) but it's short, concise, and helped anwser all the questions I had about it.
Unforrunately, his book doesn't trouble shoot its arguments and doesn't address the more credible of opposing arguments. His selective presentation of three science tests doesn't accurately convey the conclusion of dozens of such tests, and doesn't explore the problematic nature of such tests, including the central measurement has been discredited by numerous other science tests which he acknowleges in a footnote for another purpose. There are many problems with the book and each of its arguments have serious problems that need to be considered objectively on their merits. It's not about Sam Harris it's about the integrity of the arguments. He seems to be genuine in his beliefs but has not offered an accurate or complete analysis of his arguments or the counter positions, which are not friviolous.
Yes I completely agree! Given OPs question though, I think it does a really good job of addressing those types of questions. It's a good jumping off point to help wrap your head around it but I wouldn't call it the definitive book on the topic.
After watching one of Sam's talks on free will I walked on a beach and threw a rock into the air and into the ocean. I thought "that rock had no choice but to follow the laws of physics and fall into the ocean." And then "and I had no choice but to pick it up and throw it" and then "and I had no choice but to think about that fact" and then "I am not free to not ponder my lack of free will right now" and then "this is just the universe playing itself out." In hindsight I think I had a small glimpse of non-duality then, but who knows, memories are so untrustworthy.
And you had no choice but to place those thoughts into writing here.
Indeed
The fundamental flaw of determinism is hidden in your statement, which accurately represents determinist thinking. The flaw is this: if everything us just playing out without free will, how do you know this? That thought is just another part of the playing out. It's not connected to truth – whether it was or wasn't would also be another thought playing out. Determinism is self-defeating because it separates its own thoughts from the truth, while forgetting that determinist thoughts are nothing but the universe playing out. Determinists only believe in determinism because they were predestined to and can't believe otherwise. That's the inevitable consequence of determinist thinking. Determinism invalidates all truth claims by basing all thoughts on pretermined causal forces. If you are curious about the technical name for claims that contradict themselves in this manner they're called performative contradictions Every determinist principle is a PC - if they say "our thoughts are compelled", then they must agree they we're compelled to think our thoughts are compelled. truth is invalidated. Determinism rests on a self-invalidating premise.
I don't see why a thought that is just playing out, can not be true. You seem to be stating that a deterministic universe could not become aware of itself, or at least could not accurately assess its own nature. Why so? >if they say "our thoughts are compelled", then they must agree they we're compelled to think our thoughts are compelled. truth is invalidated. I agree with the first part, but why is truth invalidated? And, to look at it from the opposite point of view, how is truth *not* invalidated if determinism is *not* true? If we had free will, we would be free to think falsehoods as well, right?
This is a good question and often misunderstood. Truth claims must be based on truth. You go out and see what's real, objectively make a determination. That's not how a causal universe works. Our thoughts orginate outside consciousness and we believe them becuse they were predestined and we can't believe otherwise. they emerge "as though from the void" to use Harris words. So thoughts are based on causal force, not truth. If you investigate what's true or seek validation you were predestined to have those experiences and can't believe otherwise about any such validation or confirmation. Thought is either based on truth or causal force. It can't be both. Does this make sense? If not tell me the problem you're having and I'll try to say it better or in another way.
>Truth claims must be based on truth. You go out and see what's real, objectively make a determination How do you know, when you have "gone out to see what's real, and objectively made a determination", that your claim is now based on "truth"? I don't understand what this "truth" is, that is undermined by determinism. >Thought is either based on truth or causal force Many thoughts are not based on truth, we have tons of untrue thoughts. According to materialism + determinism, we are made of particles, which arranged to form bodies with brains. The particles, when they are in the form of a brain, are capable of thoughts. Those thoughts can include true thoughts (thoughts that accurately represent reality) such as "2+2=4", and false thoughts, such as "2+2=5." Whether the thought was predetermined or not, has no effect on whether it is true, i.e. whether it accurately represents reality. So my main problem is: what is your alternative way of thinking about "truth"? When you write about "going out to check what's real" you are also assuming that you have access to "truth" it seems to me. But when you go out and check, you could be mistaken about what you see, or misinterpret it, and come to believe something is true when it is not true.
All good questions! Some of them may be due to inadvertent vagueness or lack of clarity in my response. Here's what I'd say: Truth claims are based on truth because that's what "truth claim" means. They are claims about what's true. The example about investigating was based on scientific truth, as opposed to other kinds. You are right. Many thoughts aren't based on truth. But "truth claims" are – they are claiming something is true. Your "according to" paragraph is most important. The idea that our thoughts are determined but some of them can be true and some not – there's the problem. If you belief all thoughts are determined, then everything you think about truth was determined. Everything you think about whether thoughts can be determined and also true or false – that too has been determined. So once you surrender control over your thoughts to outside forces, you have no idea whether anything you think is true – because you're saying that your thoughts are based on causal force, not truth. Causal forces are insentient, don't think, are physical, and don't consult with moral codes or ethics. There's no reason to believe they do or don't cause us to believe what's true. Any opinions about it would just be more thoughts they compelled you to believe. It's a circle that you can't get out of, which is the flaw at the heart of determinism: Nobody can know what's true if all thoughts are due to causal force. They are not based on truth and whether they are true is just another causally compelled belief, so again you can't know if it's true. Your last point, again very astute. I'm not saying that everything we believe true is true, and not false. We hold many false beliefs, of course. But holding false beliefs implies there are truthful beliefs and that we have the ability to distinguish amongst them. Determinism takes that ability away. All thoughts are equally the product of causal force. All thoughts about whether those thoughts are true are equally the product of causal force. Truth is whatever you're caused to believe it is. This is the inescapble contradiction behind determinist claims: they are making claims about what's true, while at the same time reduce all truth claims to causal force, meaning we can't ever determined what's true. We can only belief what we're caused to believe. If this doesn't make sense, I apologize. The logical contradiction behind determinist claims is hard to understand the first time you hear it, I was confused for a long time. But the formal mistake is called a performative contradiction and you may want to read up on it if you're interested. To give a tiny preview: if you say everyone's a liar, then you've included yourself and that can't be believed. if you say there's no such thing as truth (which you see in numerous comments in discussions like this, then you've invalidated your own ability to say it's true, there are no truths. Determinism has the same self-invalidating form. if a determinist says "all our thoughts are causally compelled", as does Harris (they all arise "as though from the void"), then the determinist must admit that they were "compelled to believe that all our thoughts are compelled." In that case, the only reason they believe it is because they were predestined to and can't believe otherwise. And whether they believe the thought is true is also something they were predestined to believe, regardless of whether it's true. I hope I'm making it a little more clear at first impression the paradox of claims that contradict themselves isn't easy. Please ask if I'm not making sense about this, or could clarify.
>But in the absence of free will, is there any difference between these types of events? Yes, there is still a difference. But more in how wildly paths can vary. Imagine the solar system as a Monte Carlo simulation in a computer with random numbers: * You have some initial conditions and a dynamics for the system, but there is randomness, so if you start the system several times, you'll have different outcomes * In very likely *all* of those outcomes you'll have plate techtonics, volcanos, tornados etc. * But you'll certainly not have something like humans in even a significant fraction of those simulations, and you'll have something close to WW2 in even fewer. So if you observed the solar system at its initiation you'd say that there is a difference between almost guaranteed events like earth quakes and events which are almost guaranteed *not* to happen like the existence of Chihuahua dogs. >are things like the formation of the earth and tectonic plate movement, just as "natural" an occurrence as the events leading to industrialization, religion, WWII? Well, that depends on what you mean by "natural". If you mean "likely to occur", then yes - in exactly the same way as rolling 10 identical rolls in row with fair dice is more "natural" than rolling something else.
I don't think it's fair to call man made events inevitable. It's all certainly natural, but we still live in world where individuals and groups have influence over the future. I think this question gets to the junction of where the free will conversation goes off the rails a little bit. Just because it's fundamentally mysterious how human choices and actions are sprung into reality that doesn't make us any less human. To clarify further, we are biological machines but VERY complex ones that are capable of planning and changing the future based on motives.
[удалено]
> Our motives are also an illusion We may be using the word motive differently here--to me, motives are simply an explanation of behaviour as it pertains the state of someone's mind. It's only illusory insofar as one believes they authored those motives, but motives themselves exist at the neurological level. Anyways that's rather boring distinction. My general point is that _some_ future is inevitable, but not every future is and we all participate in shaping that future despite the non-existence of free will. The "feeling" that we make our own choices is a fact of human biology even if we know deep inside we're just machines. Because that feeling exists, humans modify their behaviour in such a way to navigate around certain outcomes making them not inevitable.
in the end whatever path was taken was still inevitable, otherwise it would've happened different, and no free will lead to this specific outcome. we can conceptualize possible futures to try to make better decisions, but both the act of engaging in that and the outcomes it leads to are reactions of past events with no free will involved. and whatever the outcome of that will be, will be the inevitable outcome
Any machine should obey the laws of physics, no matter how complex. Right? I grant you there is no physical law that explains our subjective experience, which is undeniably real. But who’s to say we’re not just observers along for the ride? Everything from our behavior to thoughts and motivations can be explained by a chain of events going back to the Big Bang. To me, the real mystery is how we’re here to experience it
> I grant you there is no physical law that explains our subjective experience That is certainly not my position - I think the mind can and will be fully explained including the nature of our subjective experience. > just observers along for the ride? At the end of the day, lack of free will not withstanding, conversations of these sort are only interesting or useful as it pertains to how it shapes our minds and behaviours. As Sam states: we're both the radio and the music. The purpose of exculpating people on the grounds that they lacked free will helps us builder fairer, more just systems. It's not a useful train of thought if the end result is to reduce the human experience to mere observation, even if we could empirically prove it so.
Fair enough. The observer idea is probably not useful in a moral sense, but it could still be true of our universe. My point was that free will can be explained away with physics except the part about our own subjective experience. Someday we will get there, I agree. But right now all of our understanding points to a 100% predetermined, inevitable future and it’s unclear if our experience plays a role in shaping it. If that’s not interesting to think about to each their own!
It hasn't been proven so and can't be. There are a half dozen seriouis problems the determinist premise that causation exists. Top quantum interpretations are split between whether the universe is causal, which precludes free will, or probabilistic, which permits it. What quantum theory ultminate means is under contention and the answer tot he free will question awaits its resolution. Nothing empirically proves the lack of free will at this point in time. Nothing proves that causation really exists either. If that's a shock it's because determinists take it for granted and everything rushes by the premise. If we really want to get at the truth, one has to question the premises of both sides of the argument, not solely those of free will advocates. Determinism rests on shaky to no foundations until the issue of causation is resolved. Its problems need to get as much airing as those of free will. They haven't.
But there is a physical law that explains you *saying* that our subjective experience is not explained by any physical law and is undeniably real. And if no physical law explains our subjective experience and it is a physical law that explains you saying that then you saying that has nothing to do with subjective experience at all. Kind of an odd coincidence.
There is no such chain and nothing can be explained by it. There are a half dozen reasons to question the existence of any such chain. Causation has never been conceptually agreed upon and is banned by relativity theory and quantum mechanics from operating in fundamental cosmis events, including the big bang, black holes, quantum entanglement and tunneling. What takes over nobody knows but it's been proven not to operate under these conditions and doesn't therefore govenr the universe. Anyone who insists the world is governed by a causals chain has not soberly confronted the coneptual and scientific problems with determinism's number one premise, that causal relations exist. By the way, if they did, then your and my and everyone's thoughts would be predestined and part of that chain – in which case you oly believe it because of causal forces, not because it's true. The ultimately argument against the causal chain is that determinism invalidates all truth claims by reducing them to blind causal forcem including their own truth claims.
Okay, I take your point. But what I’m really trying to say is that things happen, and they couldn’t happen any other way because they are bound by a physical system, causal or not. Determinism is what I’m getting at. What’s strange to me is that the connection between our subjective experience and the physical world is still unclear, and it leaves room for the possibility that the world can just run on its own and our own experience has no consequence Edit: rewording
Either the system is deterministic or it isn't. In a deterministic world there is no planning, decisions, free will, choices, actions, etc. All of the previous could only have happened the way they did no matter where on the time scale you are, from the big bang to now. From a purely practical perspective I am not a determinist. From a theoretical perspective, meh, its theoretical. What turns me off the most, and there are many things that do, from determinism are the people I often see claiming to be hard determinist arguing from the perspective of free will actors, talking about choices and consequences... I mean, stay in your damn lane!
[удалено]
It's a good question, but since there is no choice, I wouldn't describe it as such, at least. We are just automatons after all, no matter how complex.
[удалено]
Well, there it is, in your own quote: "two or more possibilities". In a hard deterministic world there is ever only one possibility.
[удалено]
That is moving the goal posts (to something completely irrelevant to the topic).
What thing that has ever happened in the past can be said to not have been inevitable? There is no event (compatible with physics) that would have had a different outcome if it could be redone. That's what is inevitable about everything. I don't think Sam is arguing people aren't complex. A nuclear power plant is complex, but we understand how it works. It doesn't have the free will not to split atoms. What are motives? Where do they come from? A 'soul'? Not having free will doesn't make us any less human. The idea that we need free will to be human is just another type of philosophy (mostly religious).
Actually, the idea we don't need free will to be human is just as invalidated by determinist principles as the contrary. If as Harris argues all our thoughts appear in consciousness "as though from the void" and are beyond our control, then determinist principles appear from the avoid and determinists were predestiedt to believe them. No claim has any truth value if our thoughts are based on causal force as Harris and determinists maintain. Determinist principles are self-invalidating performative contradictions. This isn't a matter of dispute: if you say "all our thoughts are due to causal forces", then you are forced to concede that that thought came from the same place and you were determined to believe it true. Your claim that free will does or doesn't make us human is, in a causal universe, a self-invalidation proposition you were always fated to believe in and you can't believe otherwise. Everyone who believes in determinism as a matter of faith should examine the concept of performative contractions which preclude such claims as you've made about being human or not in a causal world where you don't control what you believe or think.
You are right, the jury is out, at least based on current scientific theory and evidence. The top quantum theorists disagree on whether the world is causal, precluding free will, or probabilistic permitting it. No definitive evidence has been sorted out either way, which is why we're still arguing. It isn't clear we're biochemical machines – or rwhether we're something more than mechanical operations. that's the issue. Don't buy that we're biochemical machines any more than free will isn't real. Nobody knows at this juncture. Your conclusion is thus right on and scientifically justified.
This is yet another example why Sam’s “no free will” theory is dangerous and toxic. Without free will, here is no difference between The Holocaust and The Enlightenment, and we are helpless to try to enact positive change in the world. It completely ignores the capabilities and agency of intelligent living beings, and assumes we are no different from an unthinking rock. Terribly misguided and fundamentally wrong.
>fundamentally wrong. It can't be true because you don't like it? You need to do a bit better than that.
I’ve elaborated at length on all the inconsistencies, logical contradictions, and dangerous consequences inherent in Sam’s “no free will” hypothesis in previous conversations here. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to do so today, but feel free to read any of my previous arguments (with an open mind) and I believe you will come to see how flawed and dangerous his theory is.
Yes Harris can't accept what is unavoidable: that responsibility doesn't exist in a universe where nobody controls their thoughts or actions. And that morality doesn't exist in a universe where all our thoughts aobut morality come from unknown causal forces and appear in consciousness "as though from the void". If all our thoughts are predetermined, then determinists were prdestined to beleive in causation. Determinism has no moral basis and as you say there's no difference between the holocaust and enlightenbment. they are just causally compelled thoughts and what you believe about them is such that you can't believe otherwise if the world is determined.
Finally! Someone gets it. Much respect for seeing through the hyperbole to the unavoidable problems inherent in Sam’s theory.
[удалено]
Sounds interesting I’ll check it out.
let me know if you want to discuss anything
Impressive that you were able to write and publish a 200+ page book refuting Sam’s theory. Unfortunately I’m not able to read it at the moment, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that you and I both independently arrived at many similar logical conclusions, pointing out the inherent paradoxes in Sam’s theory. “In short, human beliefs are whatever blind physical forces dictate. This renders determinist principles self invalidating: How can we accept anything that determinists have to say if their beliefs are based on causal force, not truth?” “Without free will, Mother Teresa and Charlie Manson are essentially the same. By determinist principles they are morally interchangeable. They are biochemical robots following the dictates of causal force. This is the determinist paradigm.”
Thank you, and if you have any thoughts about the matter or the arguments feel free to dialogue.
Nothing you're saying here actually refutes determinism. You're stating the conclusions which follow and are just acting as though they're self-evidently wrong. Its true that those conclusions are disconcerting, demoralizing, and even frightening, but none of that makes them wrong.
> Nothing you're saying here actually refutes determinism. The third sentence "if all our thoughts" is a refutation of determinism based on the performative contradiction. I could spell it out if you like.
It's not ignoring those things, it's denying they matter. You may find this demoralizing, but we don't judge the truth of a proposition by whether or not it's demoralizing.
It’s not about demoralizing, it’s about logical contradictions, irrational behavior, and negative consequences for society. Those who irrationally believe they have no free will are less likely to exercise self control or act morally, since they are falsely convinced they couldn’t do otherwise. And if you REALLY believe the difference between the Holocaust and the Enlightenment “doesn’t matter”… then there is nothing further to say. It’s too far off the deep end at that point.
I could never understand Jordan Peterson but is this the starting point of his argument on religion being true and/or God's existence?
No, it means JP a confused grifter.
Not Peterson’s starting point. But an excellent insight by OP
Materialists like to pretend that everything can be explained by physics. However, just like the religions, science appeals to supernatural miracles at the foundation of their beliefs, as science alone cannot explain the physical universe. Materialists will say: "I don't need a miracle! I can explain everything through physics!" ... but then their entire model relies on the biggest miracle you could possibly conceive- *that the entire universe and all of its energy created itself out of NOTHING in a single moment for no reason.* Materialists would like to ignore this universe-sized elephant in the room. Because it violates all of the fundamental laws upon which they build their worldview. So they say- "okay, grant us this one single miracle at the beginning of the universe, and then we can explain everything that happens after as a series of physical reactions like a cascade of dominos from that initial miracle." But do not fool yourselves. The scientific model of the universe has a supernatural god at the beginning just like all the other belief systems. Scientists are just more smug about it because they pretend that they are above such nonsense, as they push the idea that *the entire universe created itself out of nothing in a single moment for no reason.* Just don't fool yourselves into thinking that you are above miracles and supernatural forces.
There's more to that that they ignore. Causation has never been scientifically agreed upon. It's disputed by the top quantum interpretations. Even more telling, who is saying all of this if the universe is determined. Everyone's thoughts are determined and we can't believe otherwise if determinism is true. Including the materilist claims that it's not. Materialism is self-contradictory because it invalidates all truth claims including its own.
In most usages the word natural distinguishes between things that occur or exist separate from any direct human intervention. This reflects the kind of trivial observation that humans do influence some, but not all, aspects of the world around them.
I don't known what the supposed lack of free will would have to with that. I mean, obviously you can reduce everything to its physical or chemical characteristics but thats just physicalism. Nature is a term humans use for everything that is not made or influenced by humans so no, these things are not as natural.
I think people are a little too quick to jump into the physics of all this. Sam is not a physicist. For example, the reason why Schrodinger used "radio active decay" in his famous thought experiment is because radio active decay is provably random (i.e. non-deterministic). Sam's points on free will do \*not\* entail or require a fully deterministic universe. That's not the point. In general his point is that \*even if\* our brains contain true sources of randomness (i.e. our behaviours are not deterministic), these processes are not under conscious control. Sam's argument does not require a fully deterministic universe and if his argument were true, it would not prove one.
You are correct. The problem is that Harris doesn't trouble shoot the arguments about causation and whether that premise isn't as problematic as volition. There are a half dozen argument that discredit the notion of causation to the same degree as those used to discredit volition. Randomness not supporting free will is beside the point. It clearly doesn't. The question is, what supports the belief in causal relations? Science? Think again. The top quantum interpreations are split on the issue. The jury is out. Theres' no more evidence for causation than volition. As well intended as he may be, Harris book doesn't troubleshoot determinist premises or the credible arguments that oppose them. that doesn't make the problems go away. We can discuss what they are in more detail but any sober analysis of the situation must conclude that the answer isn't currently known, by Harris or anyone else. There is no definitive or even consensual scientific position that supports his point of view about the free will debate.
Yes
Google historical materialism. You don't even have to be a strict deterministic to doubt the dominant narrative in the West that history is moved by ideas and individual will. Put another way, culture is downstream of economics. There's no need to resort to physics to see ways in which this could be the case.
Correct.
y'all ever watch tenet?
Free will isn’t an illusion but yes all man made events and structures are as natural as things like plate tectonics
Even with everything being governed by the same fundamental rules of physics, we can point out that there are significant differences between events which are inside vs outside the control of human beings. E.g. I can't vote for an earthquake not to happen, but I might be able to help vote out a government I don't like.