Unpacking the Illusion of Free Will - with Sam Harris
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 май 2023
- Do we really have free will? Rational mystic, Sam Harris, shares his perspective on free will vs destiny.
___________
Watch the Full Episode:
• Sam Harris: A Rational...
___________
Know Thyself
Main RUclips Channel: / andreduqum
Instagram: / knowthyself
Website: www.knowthyself.one
Listen to all episodes on Audio:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4FSiemt...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
André Duqum
Instagram: / andreduqum
Meraki Media
merakimedia.com
/ merakimedia
"He told you to be free, and you obeyed." -faust 1971
The consciousness, that’s the one who he’s talking about❤ that’s who you are and also that’s the less that’s in control
Where do thoughts come from?
Nothing comes from nothingness, or you are where you supposed to be. Even the secondary person action is still directed. Luck as we know it is not truth. My directed thinking a interacting all encompassing energy that effects and can be effected.
Are you high
Believers in hard determinism - in the Universe and humans - logically must also believe in pantheism. I don't have a problem with this. But they should at least acknowledge it.
They also MUST believe in PSI phenomena (in particular precognition -- see Klein, in press, Psychology of Consciousness: Theory...).
Why is that the case? I don't follow, tbh.
@@MozDivision Firstly I shouldn't have said pantheism because pantheism is the belief in a universe that has consciousness - and hard determinism does not lead necessarily to that conclusion - though it could be forced there. It does however lead to the conclusion that the universe itself is the ultimate source of everything - which is very god like.
To reach this conclusion you just have to follow the causal chain argument for something like human creativity. What is often discussed is whether in a hard determined universe a person is either blameworthy for their crimes and alternatively praiseworthy for their creativity.
Take creativity. Was Mozart the ultimate creator of his music? He was just doing what was determined that he would do by the causal chain. His genetics were all determined. as was his environment. So who can claim responsibility for the musical creations? Was it his teachers, those around him? But they are also just part of the causal chain - still not the creators. Was it the whole of the human race? No - again just happened as part of the causal chain. So continue to follow this logic - the creativity of Mozart's music - and everything else - is traced back to the big bang and the rest of the Universe. If hard determinism applies.
Holy shyt ... Sam Harris speaks regular for 11 mins. 😊 Im teasing. I wonder why there is interest about the soul?
Because unless you are a theologian or stuck in the 15th century, the soul is shorthand for consciousness in relation to personal being.
This is a lot of unnecessary jargon, unfortunately from Sam. Yes, we can differentiate between natural phenomena and free will. How much power we have over our choices versus predetermined genetics or "automatic" outcomes can be debated, but the correct way to look at it is that we always (always) have a choice. This seems to be the best way to think about it and the best method we have to create a better existence.
We *do* always have a choice. Good and bad choices still exist but where do those choices come from? Someone’s choice of chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream comes from a wilderness of prior causes that they had no control over.
Why are people nitpicking over this concept of free will? Don't people have anything better to do?
Because we're not as wild animals are to where everything is breeding and eating. We can choose to rob a bank or to put in hard work and slowly better ourselves. And so on.
And you think you had a choice whether to watch this video and write your comment lol
@@kingsantino4179 Yes. Why not. I knew what he was like with past talks with Peterson.
He doesn't exercise humility. If I make a grand claim, I give the power to the creator. He gives power to himself by claiming everything is an accident.
I can't help but feel like semantics is at play here. I don't think the free will he describes is the same kind of free will most of us think of. His claim that "at no point do we make ourselves" is a bold claim implying that we are at the mercy of our past experiences, our physical configuration including our brain, our genes, etc. It certainly is an interesting thing to think about, but practically, it's useless. Even if we theoretically don't have freewill, regardless of its definition, believing that doesn't really help anyone. In fact, it's a dangerous thought because it means everyone is, in a way, exempt from accountability. Discussions of philosophy can certainly lead to worldviews that can be helpful, but it can also lead down to rabbit holes that lead nowhere.
Obviously you haven’t watched the whole clip. Personally, the only consequence of me realizing that free will is an illusion is that it’s impossible for me to hate other people. Vindictiveness is a completely useless concept.
@@Fransjosefsland I did watch the whole clip, and I was trying very hard to understand Sam here. But compared to his other orations on other topics, here, not only was his explanations somewhat vague and hard to completely comprehend; he seemed to be having some difficulty verbalizing his thoughts clearly. Or maybe that latter part was just a result of the former... or the other way around.
One thing I don't understand about your comment; what do you mean when you said the part about it being impossible for you to hate other people if you accept that freewill is an illusion? I honestly don't get that. Mind clarifying?
@@friedrichkingston9923 I see! So to be clear, you believe in a way that everything is fate, and in thinking that way, you don't have to blame or hate anyone. But wouldn't that mean that you shouldn't be grateful about anything or to anyone at all?
"...impossible for ME to hate other people."
There is NO "me" (i.e., "you"). If you had Both listened and comprehended, the moron being interviewed made that clear in the first minute.@@Fransjosefsland
Sam reads a book or two and then draws on his neuroscientist expertise (LOL: I am a neuroscientist and can assure you no one within the field has heard of Harris other than via his public presence.) and makes sweeping, poorly considered assertions.@@jeremygonzal8603
talks like he knows...
I believe it is by way of my free will that I chose to comment on this thread thereby proving the fact the free will is not an illusion and that those peddling such nonsense are not the brightest individuals in the world 😂
Oh, Sam. So if you conclude or admit a single person has free will. Then that might lead to that free will is a gift and that gift comes from the "God" word. And we can't mention that.
So then every act, emotion, and so on is random and meaningless. Because every factor is an outside electrical reaction maybe?
Maybe you're not saying we have no individual power? You're just saying we can't call it free will. . .
Then the big question. . . Why are we listening to you at all? If everything is a result of current or past action or surroundings; again why are we listening to you? Is the broad constantly firing brain of Sam Harris not connected to the rest of existence? Are his actions exempt from mans' law let's just say?
So your feelings towards killing baby Hitler is a standard of Hmm? Not morality? But its ok to kill adult Hitler? Not very consistent .
How about people just do and believe what's right for them?
Our freewill is how we react to the input
He sounds nice but I have still not heard a convincing argument against free will
Yeah, it's far from convincing. I'm not even sure if he knows exactly what his definition of free will is. Because if he did, I imagine he'd have his sentences arranged clearer. He keeps hesitating and pausing and restarting his explanation from another angle.
@@jeremygonzal8603 if we rewind that movie of our lives…are we free to do differently. That is what he means. Libertarian free will
@@bobbyboywonder12 Yes, exactly. Maybe he wants to be on the free will side but are too anxious to tell us his real arguments. His premises seems to be biased in the first place.
@@bobbyboywonder12 I tried looking up what libertarian free will is as well as reductive/non-reductive physicalism, but whoah this is really couched in a lot of terms I have never heard of before and I'm really having a hard time understanding it.
Okay, so, let's look at what a lot of us think freewill to be
Usually we think it means 'we have a choice', that is 'We can do A and we can do B'
But the reason you think you can do A or you can do B, is because you're brain is in the process of deciding wether to do A or B, and you will do what makes sense to you, or whatever overwhelms you with temptation or something else
For example
Maybe that pizza looks really nice, but you know that not eating it and exercising instead is better, and you also have that motivation to workout, and there you have it, you workout
Given your thought process, and your convictions at that point in time, you could not have possibly chosen to eat pizza, the reason you thought you had a choice was because you were not aware of the result of the calculation your brain was making, if you *were* aware of the result prior to that calculation, you wouldn't have to do this thing called 'thinking'.