"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper." ~ Excerpt from Einstein's 1932 "My Credo" speech given to the German League of Human Rights a few weeks before he fled to the US.
NOTE: this is a new version of a video already published on the channel. We are improving the quality of the images and audio. New videos are also on the way. Thank you all for the support.
Do NOT confuse (to yourself an the others) the FREE WILL with the ALMIGHTYNESS of your Creator. Are you, by any chance, Almghty??? NO, you aren't!!! Then you could be humble, conform yourself and THANK, to the REAL Almighty, that great gift of your Free Will... always using, of course, your intelligence, which is under His and His Almighty Power. But allways you free will will be untouched. Don't be so dumb, CREATURE. You are not an espontaneous accident.
@@estebansantana8838 Keep drinking the kool aid bro! Any god in any shape or form doesn't exist. Get over your ideologue of accepting something with no evidence.
Our nervous system is conditioned when we are but months old and in that sense, we are for life (unless we work to change it) bound to behave in certain ways in certain situations. But, how to explain that I choose to buy chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla if not thanks to my free will? I say we come and go in and out of free will. Unless our subconscious alerts us to to a danger, we have free will.
You chose chocolate ice cream because you do what you want. Don't confuse doing what you want with freedom though. Our wants are determined by our genetic predispositions and our environment. Our environment can encompass: early childhood experiences which put a subconscious liking of chocolate over vanilla, to watching others choose chocolate ice cream ahead of you in the line (research mirror neurons).
There is freedom in our choices. No, we do not choose what we are from birth, and we do not choose what the world was like when we got here. And we didn't choose who else is here, or who arrives after. The chaos present in a single life forms the options in our freedom. And then there is time. Each moment, in its minute sequence, through our memory of it, forms a deeper and broader options list. When to move, when to speak, when to eat icecream are options. Shift in your seat. Feel the option to shift again. Don't. Do. When? Wiggle a finger. Grab your gun. Pull the trigger. Or not. The smaller the choice, the more freedom we feel. And it is this temporal freedom, the momentary mulligan of our choices, that creates this important and painful human freedom. It is not deep scientific/philosophical freewill. But it is important. Not just to believe it, but to understand the suffering it brings us, even against our will to be relieved of that suffering. Our options, no matter their origins, overwhelm us. Our thoughts run in parallel. And when we cannot seem to weigh the costs and benefits we have yet another choice: to find a way to choose on merits or simply choose. We search, sometimes. Sometimes we don't. We delay. We fret. We suffer. We act. We suffer. We live in the moment and we suffer censure from others. We wall ourselves off and we suffer loneliness. We harden our hearts, we break another. Our awareness of our unweighted options weigh heavily upon us. To think you can, or ever will decree this suffering away is a choice in one's thinking. But not a very helpful one, Sam. Sam suffers from that smart guy's ancient affliction: knowing the price of everything and value of nothing. It is perhaps commendable to believe that Sam believes he can bring peace and unity to the suffering masses, but it is not clear from this little feel-good speech of his that he has much appreciation for the unsolicited and aweful options that are presented to the mostly unsuspecting and unprepared vast majority of people in their lives. How many bad options can one gaze upon before the option of To be or not to be" enters the option list? Where is freedom? Still there. Still bringing with it that old unavoidable suffering. There seem to be a lack of mercy in Sam's presentations (books or speeches). He speaks to men in lofty places and tells them what they want to hear so that they can forget about the suffering they have spread while they heap up royalties on their choices built on their advantages. But Sam tries. And what other option does he have? Probably a few better ones than making pablum for the privaleged. But maybe he just can't see all his options. But there is time...
U admitted we don’t have free will. You then said we should believe in free will despite sams reasons it’s actually good not to, atleast once in a while. Also criticising Sam like he’s villainous for exposing this truth. Not even sarcastically… but tell me what I misunderstood about your comment
What I am critical of is Sam's promotion of the idea that once we all accept that we really have no way to be genuinely free, we will also all be able to live in eternal peace (or at least be less judge-y). I would like a nicer world too. The problem is that in order for him to believe that this is even possible he would somehow need to forget that he is choosing to promote this idea. So which is it, Sam, are you the only one who is free or are you the new deterministic savior of the world (because this idea just came to You out of the sum total of all the history of the universe)? Free will is one of those fun philosophy puzzles. It's "fun" because it involves both scientific determinism and our feelings about our personal ability to choose our path in life. It is a thorny debate because both sides have strong evidence and support. Is every choice that every person makes always out of his hands? Is our brain really just another billiard ball on a universe sized pool table? Maybe? I doubt it. Do people really never choose? Did everyone who ever changed their opinion on something just flip-flop at the tail end of a long string of historical cause and effect chains? Did my choice to respond to your comment originate at Washington crossing the Delaware? And which butterfly flapping it's wing in the fall of 2007 contributed to the housing collapse of 2008? Not only is this sort extreme scientific determinism not possible to sustain on a practical level, as a theory it doesn't help in the way Sam would like us to believe. Yes, if more people took the view that not everyone else's bad actions made them a monster perhaps we might be nicer. But if we take Sam's idea, that we ought to forgive others for they "know not what they choose", how would we choose to be this way if we didn't already? In the video Sam says we are born with talents and shortcomings and it is "up to us" if we use those talents or work on those shortcomings. So now we have free will on those points, Sam? Or is it only Sam who has free will and it is his message about what we should do that will make us all better doggies? And, finally, if this deep scientific lack of free will is already true, why do we need to believe it for it to be of any benefit? Do we only have "free belief", and all we need to do is believe Sam about our lack of free will to solve all our problems? I don't believe so...
@@moesizlac2596 Sam's argument and rationale is very convincing unlike your own "word salad" that only convinced me that you struggle to explain why you, yourself ..feel sure he is wrong . I'd imagine that subconsciously you have an objection due to the same character that interferes in many of our opinions ..our old friend the Ego.
As I listen to this piece I think of Ayn Rand and her cult followers. One of the core principles of their worldview is free will which includes the idea that individuals alone make the decisions outside of the influences of their environment. That, when examined honestly, is the feet of clay of her philosophy.
Lee Russell that’s a sensible reaction by others who are not interested because this subject goes against common logic and as Sam said, it’s a deeply depressing notion...
v2. Post 64. May 24th 2021. Why is Sam Harris and Sabine wrong? Man has a mind with free will. But how? And what are the implications? Who is correct - them or me? The mind of man is "sui generis" [unique entity] that pertains to the identity homo sapiens sapiens [you the reader]. The evidence is because: "consciousness is an identity which engages free will in the identification of the preceding identity called existence. This implies Aristotle's law of identity is part of existence, so there is truth. And using reason and logic man can find the truth". The above implies consciousness is therefore separate (to existence as it identifies it), AND potent (as man must exercise free will to distinguish no-thing-ness from something if you are a rational man). The most sophisticated A.I/ computer, animal or mental patient can Not do this. The "brain" can Not even do that as the brain is "algorithmic" based upon causality (cause and effect) so there is no room for free will. Instead the mind can do it as it is perpetual first cause (the effect is your thought and/or actions). But below I will go further with "life" [not just the mind]. ___________________________________ 1. Physicists like to think that physics is the foundation and applies to everything [Horseman Dennet has a pyramid that is oft used to demonstrate this fiction]. Paul Davies (physicist) shows that physics is part of a web of relation with other subjects and is Not at all at the bottom of a pyramid (nor is math). The pyramid is a mere convenient structure but its a fiction and therefore fall foul when you dig deeper. For example: biology is a wholly independent subject; and although dependent upon physics, in contrast physics can NOT penetrate biology! In "Evolution" [biology] there is exaptation (pre-adaptation). Here, "functions" (not mere features) are abstracted and used for lateral evolution before vertical (refining) evolution . For example, the wings of a bird evolved for warmth but were useful for escaping predators by gliding (gliding birds still exist). This "function" was selected and the species of this type propated it's genes successfully - and the bird continued to evolve into wings for flying. Evolution can do in other directions as well of course and Penguins have no wings! It took the incisive application of reason and logic to deduct the penguin is interestingly a bird . [SIDE NOTE: And why should such "identity" even be considered real? Because Aristotle's law of identity can NOT be proven but it was validated in METAPHYSICS; just like the mind. Indeed it is THE MIND that must use reason and logic to categorize and identify truths. END OF SIDE NOTE]. Your body is filled with functions (like the fact the heart pumps blood and its pericardial sac has fluid that makes a heart sound) - which were selected by evolution in the above way. Your lungs were a function that was selected from the "lung fish" (!) ; your ear drums selected from the jaws of another fish. Main point and conclusion: Physics is about prediction. There is absolute no way whatsoever to predict "Exapation/exaptation" in biology; no way therefore to predict evolution in sum totality. This means biology (the science of life) is wholly different to physics as a "Strong emergent property of nature" ; even though biology is dependent upon physics. The "mind with free will" of man is (most likely) also a "strong emergent" property of nature that pertains only to man. __________________________ IN fact all other species have consciousness (awareness but with No free will) such as a single cell bacterium! All species including man: take in sense datum, such as bacteria senses the density of nutrients in a petri-dish and then using its motor engine to move forwards in a random direction BUT thereafter OPTIMIZING its journey to take it closest to the most dense region of nutrients! Amazing ! Bacteria and all species including man: takes in sense datum (like light photons that bounce off a red rose, even though the photons have no colors and are a wave/particle duality that hits the back of the eyes. The "information" is extracted from the photons in a quantum operation that causes the un-twisting of rhodopsin proteins - and in that instance information cascades at incredible speeds via the electro-chemical pathway of neurons throughout the brain on relevant highways to be processes into a binding (yet unknown how this is done in an exact way) and thereafter you re-project the perception of reality constantly and fairly instantly back "out there" with depth perception (even though the back of your eyes are 2D screens nevertheless you see in 3D-esque mode!) So Sense Datum (information) self organizes into percepts (units of information) stored as memory (how is memory stored in the long term? Yet unknown! What is known is short term memory with synaptic changes: but such molecules dissipate within days). The above enables all animal species to "react" in order to survive and propagate their genes. Man however instantly and constant turns percepts (units of information) and self organizes into concepts. Concepts happen with the mind of man. Only man has this property called concepts. Only man has a mind. Science can NEVER find the mind. Man can INDUCT the mind through introspection. Further to remind you : consciousness is the identification of existence . No other species nor A.I/Computation can do this. This means the mind (with free will) is real for reasons shown earlier in this post. How does man form concepts? A growing baby sees a small yellow plastic baby chair, a large antique and expensive wooden chair; a mirror; a dog; a rug and their mother. [MEMORIZE THIS PARAGRAPH below - AND READ IT SEVERAL TIMES ] Instantly the baby's mind takes in "two or more" existents of existence that are similar (the chairs above) and "abstracts similar properties" whilst differentiating other properties , dropping out the measurement characteristic between the existents. The baby's mind performs integration and differentiation [reminds me of calculus!] So the baby abstracts the "Essence" of the chair (even if it does not label it ; nevertheless it exists as a pattern: a perceived regularity). The baby drops the facts between the chairs: old vs new; expensive vs cheap; wooden vs plastic; large vs small ; yellow vs wooden color; AND the baby differentiates the concept "Chair" from other existents in the room: dog, mother, mirror, rug, door and so forth. Over time the growing baby builds up a colossal conceptual hierarchy and gets to label them with words pertaining to the baby's language. All the above is AUTOMATIC. AND UNIQUELY HUMAN. So four chairs around a table in the kitchen for example, becomes a higher level concept "furniture". The kitchen itself is a unique concept consisting of furniture, pots and pans, cooker and microwave; refrigerator and so forth. [Not all these have to be in a kitchen. In fact the marvel of man is that in an empty house man can label the room as a kitchen AS AN ADULT because of grasping and understand the "concept" called Kitchen. This is a uniquely human capacity]. Each room of the house: kitchen, living room (with fixtures and fittings- more concepts); bedrooms, bathroom, corridors, one's own residence and belongings, even family make up the concept "home". But the wider concept is "house". Houses in the vicinity, along with gardens, public footpath , roads and so forth make up the concept "neighborhood". Many neighborhoods amongst other concepts - make up the concept district then "town" > towns> city> State > states > Nation (e.g. U.S.A ) , nations > continent > continent + oceans > "world" > biospheres : hydrosphere, geosphere, and world make up the "earth" planet > planets and sun make up the galaxy> galaxies and other entities (e.g. stars, moons, dark energy , dark matter, space, etc.) makes up the universe. There are many concepts up and down the hierarchies that I have left out to make a simple model of how "concepts" are created and exist in a hierarchy in the mind of man. Both mind and therefore concepts are unique to man. BUT WAIT! Man's mind makes up INCORRECT CONCEPTS as the child grows up: the earth seems flat; and ego-centric biased with the sun rising and falling around you! It takes the scrupulous use of reason and logic (which must be learned, practice and mastered just like reading, writing , driving, typing , math and other man-made skills) to grasp concepts fully and properly Scientists have NOT grasped the above and have denied the mind of man - a illogical error as all science is dependent upon metaphysics; and there is no science-or-math without the use of reason and logic to interpret it. further there is no "reason and logic" withOut the "mind with free will to exercise the mind". Also remember a A.I. or computer can do the fastest and most brilliant use of logic yet it does not have the twin engines unique to man : reason and logic - therefore - it can not "Think" and replace man in many tasks! Also remember computers (and the brain) are intrinsically algorithmic whereas man's mind is non computational and non-algorithmic , a distinct property belonging only to man. So "plank time" and concepts of science does Not apply to the mind.
Sit back, relax, enjoy, and suffer. We are only witnesses of whatever we think and want, and therefore of what we consciously chose to do. What we do matters but what's the point in trying to convince others, if they cannot influence their actions? Maybe I will begin to practice mindfulness through meditation, but it will not be the result of a free choice. I am a spectator, I wish I was more than that 😂😂😂
v2. Post 64. May 24th 2021. Why is Sam Harris and Sabine wrong? Man has a mind with free will. But how? And what are the implications? Who is correct - them or me? The mind of man is "sui generis" [unique entity] that pertains to the identity homo sapiens sapiens [you the reader]. The evidence is because: "consciousness is an identity which engages free will in the identification of the preceding identity called existence. This implies Aristotle's law of identity is part of existence, so there is truth. And using reason and logic man can find the truth". The above implies consciousness is therefore separate (to existence as it identifies it), AND potent (as man must exercise free will to distinguish no-thing-ness from something if you are a rational man). The most sophisticated A.I/ computer, animal or mental patient can Not do this. The "brain" can Not even do that as the brain is "algorithmic" based upon causality (cause and effect) so there is no room for free will. Instead the mind can do it as it is perpetual first cause (the effect is your thought and/or actions). But below I will go further with "life" [not just the mind]. ___________________________________ 1. Physicists like to think that physics is the foundation and applies to everything [Horseman Dennet has a pyramid that is oft used to demonstrate this fiction]. Paul Davies (physicist) shows that physics is part of a web of relation with other subjects and is Not at all at the bottom of a pyramid (nor is math). The pyramid is a mere convenient structure but its a fiction and therefore fall foul when you dig deeper. For example: biology is a wholly independent subject; and although dependent upon physics, in contrast physics can NOT penetrate biology! In "Evolution" [biology] there is exaptation (pre-adaptation). Here, "functions" (not mere features) are abstracted and used for lateral evolution before vertical (refining) evolution . For example, the wings of a bird evolved for warmth but were useful for escaping predators by gliding (gliding birds still exist). This "function" was selected and the species of this type propated it's genes successfully - and the bird continued to evolve into wings for flying. Evolution can do in other directions as well of course and Penguins have no wings! It took the incisive application of reason and logic to deduct the penguin is interestingly a bird . [SIDE NOTE: And why should such "identity" even be considered real? Because Aristotle's law of identity can NOT be proven but it was validated in METAPHYSICS; just like the mind. Indeed it is THE MIND that must use reason and logic to categorize and identify truths. END OF SIDE NOTE]. Your body is filled with functions (like the fact the heart pumps blood and its pericardial sac has fluid that makes a heart sound) - which were selected by evolution in the above way. Your lungs were a function that was selected from the "lung fish" (!) ; your ear drums selected from the jaws of another fish. Main point and conclusion: Physics is about prediction. There is absolute no way whatsoever to predict "Exapation/exaptation" in biology; no way therefore to predict evolution in sum totality. This means biology (the science of life) is wholly different to physics as a "Strong emergent property of nature" ; even though biology is dependent upon physics. The "mind with free will" of man is (most likely) also a "strong emergent" property of nature that pertains only to man. __________________________ IN fact all other species have consciousness (awareness but with No free will) such as a single cell bacterium! All species including man: take in sense datum, such as bacteria senses the density of nutrients in a petri-dish and then using its motor engine to move forwards in a random direction BUT thereafter OPTIMIZING its journey to take it closest to the most dense region of nutrients! Amazing ! Bacteria and all species including man: takes in sense datum (like light photons that bounce off a red rose, even though the photons have no colors and are a wave/particle duality that hits the back of the eyes. The "information" is extracted from the photons in a quantum operation that causes the un-twisting of rhodopsin proteins - and in that instance information cascades at incredible speeds via the electro-chemical pathway of neurons throughout the brain on relevant highways to be processes into a binding (yet unknown how this is done in an exact way) and thereafter you re-project the perception of reality constantly and fairly instantly back "out there" with depth perception (even though the back of your eyes are 2D screens nevertheless you see in 3D-esque mode!) So Sense Datum (information) self organizes into percepts (units of information) stored as memory (how is memory stored in the long term? Yet unknown! What is known is short term memory with synaptic changes: but such molecules dissipate within days). The above enables all animal species to "react" in order to survive and propagate their genes. Man however instantly and constant turns percepts (units of information) and self organizes into concepts. Concepts happen with the mind of man. Only man has this property called concepts. Only man has a mind. Science can NEVER find the mind. Man can INDUCT the mind through introspection. Further to remind you : consciousness is the identification of existence . No other species nor A.I/Computation can do this. This means the mind (with free will) is real for reasons shown earlier in this post. How does man form concepts? A growing baby sees a small yellow plastic baby chair, a large antique and expensive wooden chair; a mirror; a dog; a rug and their mother. [MEMORIZE THIS PARAGRAPH below - AND READ IT SEVERAL TIMES ] Instantly the baby's mind takes in "two or more" existents of existence that are similar (the chairs above) and "abstracts similar properties" whilst differentiating other properties , dropping out the measurement characteristic between the existents. The baby's mind performs integration and differentiation [reminds me of calculus!] So the baby abstracts the "Essence" of the chair (even if it does not label it ; nevertheless it exists as a pattern: a perceived regularity). The baby drops the facts between the chairs: old vs new; expensive vs cheap; wooden vs plastic; large vs small ; yellow vs wooden color; AND the baby differentiates the concept "Chair" from other existents in the room: dog, mother, mirror, rug, door and so forth. Over time the growing baby builds up a colossal conceptual hierarchy and gets to label them with words pertaining to the baby's language. All the above is AUTOMATIC. AND UNIQUELY HUMAN. So four chairs around a table in the kitchen for example, becomes a higher level concept "furniture". The kitchen itself is a unique concept consisting of furniture, pots and pans, cooker and microwave; refrigerator and so forth. [Not all these have to be in a kitchen. In fact the marvel of man is that in an empty house man can label the room as a kitchen AS AN ADULT because of grasping and understand the "concept" called Kitchen. This is a uniquely human capacity]. Each room of the house: kitchen, living room (with fixtures and fittings- more concepts); bedrooms, bathroom, corridors, one's own residence and belongings, even family make up the concept "home". But the wider concept is "house". Houses in the vicinity, along with gardens, public footpath , roads and so forth make up the concept "neighborhood". Many neighborhoods amongst other concepts - make up the concept district then "town" > towns> city> State > states > Nation (e.g. U.S.A ) , nations > continent > continent + oceans > "world" > biospheres : hydrosphere, geosphere, and world make up the "earth" planet > planets and sun make up the galaxy> galaxies and other entities (e.g. stars, moons, dark energy , dark matter, space, etc.) makes up the universe. There are many concepts up and down the hierarchies that I have left out to make a simple model of how "concepts" are created and exist in a hierarchy in the mind of man. Both mind and therefore concepts are unique to man. BUT WAIT! Man's mind makes up INCORRECT CONCEPTS as the child grows up: the earth seems flat; and ego-centric biased with the sun rising and falling around you! It takes the scrupulous use of reason and logic (which must be learned, practice and mastered just like reading, writing , driving, typing , math and other man-made skills) to grasp concepts fully and properly Scientists have NOT grasped the above and have denied the mind of man - a illogical error as all science is dependent upon metaphysics; and there is no science-or-math without the use of reason and logic to interpret it. further there is no "reason and logic" withOut the "mind with free will to exercise the mind". Also remember a A.I. or computer can do the fastest and most brilliant use of logic yet it does not have the twin engines unique to man : reason and logic - therefore - it can not "Think" and replace man in many tasks! Also remember computers (and the brain) are intrinsically algorithmic whereas man's mind is non computational and non-algorithmic , a distinct property belonging only to man. So "plank time" and concepts of science does Not apply to the mind.
Trasncripción revisada en español: La ilusión del libre albedrío es un hecho tan cierto como la verdad de la evolución. Y a diferencia de ésta, comprender esta verdad sobre la mente humana tiene el potencial de cambiar nuestro sentido de la bondad moral y lo que significaría crear una sociedad justa. La cuestión del libre albedrío afecta a casi todo lo que preocupa a la gente; la religión, la política local y estatal, el sistema jurídico, los sentimientos de realización personal, emociones como la culpa, el orgullo y el remordimiento. Gran parte de la vida humana parece depender de que nos veamos unos a otros como agentes conscientes capaces de elegir libremente. Por eso, cuando la comunidad científica declare que el libre albedrío es una ilusión, como creo que acabará ocurriendo, creo que generará una guerra cultural mucho más enconada que la que se ha mantenido sobre el tema de la evolución. Espero dos cosas con esta charla. Espero convencerte de que el libre albedrío es una ilusión. Peor que una ilusión. En realidad es una idea totalmente incoherente. Es decir, es imposible describir el universo donde podría ser verdad. No sólo es falso, sino que es difícil incluso dar sentido a lo que se ha afirmado que es cierto. Y también espero convencerte de que comprender esta verdad sobre la mente humana realmente importa, y puede cambiar la forma en que vemos la moralidad y las cuestiones de justicia. Ahora bien, la concepción popular del "libre albedrío" parece basarse en dos suposiciones. La primera es que cada uno de nosotros es libre de comportarse de forma diferente a como lo hizo en el pasado: elegiste chocolate, pero podrías haber elegido vainilla. Ciertamente, parece que éste es el mundo en el que vivimos. La segunda suposición es que somos la fuente consciente de nuestros pensamientos y acciones: tu experiencia de querer hacer algo es, de hecho, la causa próxima de que hagas ese algo. Sientes que quieres moverte y te mueves. Tú lo estás haciendo. Tú, el testigo consciente de tu vida. Desgraciadamente, sabemos que ambas suposiciones son falsas. El primer problema es que vivimos en un mundo de causa y efecto, y no hay forma de pensar en la causa y el efecto que nos permita decir que la pelota se detiene aquí. La pelota nunca se detiene. O bien nuestras voluntades están determinadas por causas previas, una larga cadena de causas previas (y no somos responsables de ellas), o son producto del azar (y no somos responsables de ellas), o son alguna combinación de azar y determinismo, pero ninguna combinación parece darte el libre albedrío que la gente aprecia. ¿Dónde está la libertad de hacer lo que uno quiere, cuando sus deseos son el producto de causas previas que uno no pudo inspeccionar, no pudo elegir y, por tanto, no tuvo absolutamente nada que ver en su creación? Nadie elige a sus padres ni la sociedad en la que ha nacido. Nadie elige las influencias vitales que moldean el desarrollo de su sistema nervioso. En este momento no eres más responsable de la microestructura de tu cerebro que de tu estatura. ¿Estás produciendo tú glóbulos rojos en este momento? Afortunadamente tu cuerpo sí, pero si decidiera dejar de hacerlo, tú no serías responsable de ese cambio, serías una víctima de ese cambio. Decir que eres responsable de todo lo que ocurre dentro de tu propia piel porque todo eso eres tú, es hacer una afirmación que no tiene absolutamente ninguna relación con la experiencia real que ha hecho del "libre albedrío" un problema para la filosofía. La verdad es que sentimos y presumimos una autoría sobre nuestros propios pensamientos y acciones que es ilusoria. Una vez que reconocemos que incluso las personas más aterradoras tienen, en cierto sentido básico, la mala suerte de ser quienes son, la lógica de odiarlas en lugar de simplemente temerlas desaparece. Así pues, una consecuencia de ver el mundo de esta manera es que reduce el odio, lo que creo que en igualdad de condiciones es algo muy bueno. También aumenta la empatía y la compasión. Tú, como testigo consciente de tu vida interior, no tomas estas decisiones. Sólo puedes ser testigo de estas decisiones. ¿Cómo podemos ser libres como agentes conscientes si todo lo que pretendemos conscientemente fue causado por acontecimientos en nuestro cerebro, que no pretendíamos y sobre los que no teníamos ningún control? No podemos. ¿Qué significa esto? En primer lugar, esto es lo que no significa. El hecho de que nuestras elecciones dependan de causas previas no significa que la elección no importe. Sentarse a ver qué pasa también es una elección que tiene sus propias consecuencias. Así pues, las elecciones que hacemos en la vida son tan importantes como la gente cree. Pero la próxima elección que hagas saldrá de un mar de causas previas que no puedes ver y que tú no provocaste. No elegiste las interacciones o los efectos que tuvieron sobre ti cada acontecimiento, conversación y exposición a las ideas que tuviste en la vida. ¿Dónde está la libertad en esto? Sí, eres “libre” de hacer lo que quieras incluso ahora, pero ¿de dónde vienen tus deseos? Algunos pensarán que esto suena muy deprimente. Parece que nos quita algo. Y así es. Nos quita una visión egocéntrica de la vida. Pero creo que puede ser tremendamente liberador. No estamos realmente separados. Estamos vinculados unos a otros, a nuestro pasado y a la historia. Formamos parte de un sistema. Y, por tanto, lo que hacemos importa. No puedes atribuirte el mérito de tus talentos, pero importa que los utilices. No puedes atribuirte tus debilidades, pero importa que las corrijas. Así que el orgullo y la vergüenza no tienen mucho sentido en el análisis final. Pero de todos modos no eran muy divertidas. Son emociones aisladas. Lo que sí tiene sentido es el compromiso con el bienestar y con mejorar tu vida y la de los demás. El amor y la compasión tienen sentido. Pero la idea de que nosotros, como seres conscientes, somos profundamente responsables del carácter de nuestras propias mentes es simplemente imposible de mapear en la realidad. Y si queremos guiarnos por la realidad y no por la vida de fantasía de nuestros antepasados, creo que nuestros puntos de vista sobre este tema tienen que cambiar.
Change can only happen when free will is exercised, otherwise you are only repeating the past, to suggest there is no free will is limiting lifes potential.
@@Intelligentsia101 Natural, you mean governed by deterministic processes, lol. I'm just gonna keep asking what the will is, and what it is free from until you give an actual explanation instead of new age woo, like "it's our natural state of being." That doesn't tell me anything.
Determinism is NOT possible from a logical point of view. Determinism proposes that if all the laws of the universe were known to men, we would be able predict every atom’s location and momentum therefore every cells position, therefore every behaviour and tendency. However, there is no way of knowing for sure at any moment in time that we know all the laws of the universe, therefore there will always be a slight chance of uncertainty. “You don’t know what you don’t know you don’t know” Therefore rendering hard determinism not valid
Actually… There is good and I mean good precedent in science to believe that the world is indeed deterministic. The only problem is as you said, the ability to measure what’s called “hidden variables” which are all the variables we can’t account for in a model or experiment because those variables are either too small to measure, or are not closed to the environment (meaning all things in the casual universe can be considered hidden variables) Super determinism however is believed to be there. I suggest looking into the work of Steven Wolfram who has established a theory of everything where the universe is fundamentally computational, and fully deterministic (but computationally impossible to predict). Should also look up the work of Fotoni Markopoulou, who worked on a deterministic model of quantum mechanics.
In a way it’s contradictory: there’s no free will and we can chose not to hate someone else becouse he is not responsable of his acts/thoughts, so we can’t choose hate or not hate, Am I right?🤔
I get the basis of the claim. But this is just a semantic argument - based on a very restrictive definition of ‘free will’. Yes, our behaviour is the product of every preceding physical and biological event going back to the beginning of time, together with the sum total of all of our experiences. But at the present moment we can still choose between two courses of action. Otherwise the future of the universe would be mapped out already. I think quantum physics would also break down if this was the case?
v2. Post 64. May 24th 2021. Why is Sam Harris and Sabine wrong? Man has a mind with free will. But how? And what are the implications? Who is correct - them or me? The mind of man is "sui generis" [unique entity] that pertains to the identity homo sapiens sapiens [you the reader]. The evidence is because: "consciousness is an identity which engages free will in the identification of the preceding identity called existence. This implies Aristotle's law of identity is part of existence, so there is truth. And using reason and logic man can find the truth". The above implies consciousness is therefore separate (to existence as it identifies it), AND potent (as man must exercise free will to distinguish no-thing-ness from something if you are a rational man). The most sophisticated A.I/ computer, animal or mental patient can Not do this. The "brain" can Not even do that as the brain is "algorithmic" based upon causality (cause and effect) so there is no room for free will. Instead the mind can do it as it is perpetual first cause (the effect is your thought and/or actions). But below I will go further with "life" [not just the mind]. ___________________________________ 1. Physicists like to think that physics is the foundation and applies to everything [Horseman Dennet has a pyramid that is oft used to demonstrate this fiction]. Paul Davies (physicist) shows that physics is part of a web of relation with other subjects and is Not at all at the bottom of a pyramid (nor is math). The pyramid is a mere convenient structure but its a fiction and therefore fall foul when you dig deeper. For example: biology is a wholly independent subject; and although dependent upon physics, in contrast physics can NOT penetrate biology! In "Evolution" [biology] there is exaptation (pre-adaptation). Here, "functions" (not mere features) are abstracted and used for lateral evolution before vertical (refining) evolution . For example, the wings of a bird evolved for warmth but were useful for escaping predators by gliding (gliding birds still exist). This "function" was selected and the species of this type propated it's genes successfully - and the bird continued to evolve into wings for flying. Evolution can do in other directions as well of course and Penguins have no wings! It took the incisive application of reason and logic to deduct the penguin is interestingly a bird . [SIDE NOTE: And why should such "identity" even be considered real? Because Aristotle's law of identity can NOT be proven but it was validated in METAPHYSICS; just like the mind. Indeed it is THE MIND that must use reason and logic to categorize and identify truths. END OF SIDE NOTE]. Your body is filled with functions (like the fact the heart pumps blood and its pericardial sac has fluid that makes a heart sound) - which were selected by evolution in the above way. Your lungs were a function that was selected from the "lung fish" (!) ; your ear drums selected from the jaws of another fish. Main point and conclusion: Physics is about prediction. There is absolute no way whatsoever to predict "Exapation/exaptation" in biology; no way therefore to predict evolution in sum totality. This means biology (the science of life) is wholly different to physics as a "Strong emergent property of nature" ; even though biology is dependent upon physics. The "mind with free will" of man is (most likely) also a "strong emergent" property of nature that pertains only to man. __________________________ IN fact all other species have consciousness (awareness but with No free will) such as a single cell bacterium! All species including man: take in sense datum, such as bacteria senses the density of nutrients in a petri-dish and then using its motor engine to move forwards in a random direction BUT thereafter OPTIMIZING its journey to take it closest to the most dense region of nutrients! Amazing ! Bacteria and all species including man: takes in sense datum (like light photons that bounce off a red rose, even though the photons have no colors and are a wave/particle duality that hits the back of the eyes. The "information" is extracted from the photons in a quantum operation that causes the un-twisting of rhodopsin proteins - and in that instance information cascades at incredible speeds via the electro-chemical pathway of neurons throughout the brain on relevant highways to be processes into a binding (yet unknown how this is done in an exact way) and thereafter you re-project the perception of reality constantly and fairly instantly back "out there" with depth perception (even though the back of your eyes are 2D screens nevertheless you see in 3D-esque mode!) So Sense Datum (information) self organizes into percepts (units of information) stored as memory (how is memory stored in the long term? Yet unknown! What is known is short term memory with synaptic changes: but such molecules dissipate within days). The above enables all animal species to "react" in order to survive and propagate their genes. Man however instantly and constant turns percepts (units of information) and self organizes into concepts. Concepts happen with the mind of man. Only man has this property called concepts. Only man has a mind. Science can NEVER find the mind. Man can INDUCT the mind through introspection. Further to remind you : consciousness is the identification of existence . No other species nor A.I/Computation can do this. This means the mind (with free will) is real for reasons shown earlier in this post. How does man form concepts? A growing baby sees a small yellow plastic baby chair, a large antique and expensive wooden chair; a mirror; a dog; a rug and their mother. [MEMORIZE THIS PARAGRAPH below - AND READ IT SEVERAL TIMES ] Instantly the baby's mind takes in "two or more" existents of existence that are similar (the chairs above) and "abstracts similar properties" whilst differentiating other properties , dropping out the measurement characteristic between the existents. The baby's mind performs integration and differentiation [reminds me of calculus!] So the baby abstracts the "Essence" of the chair (even if it does not label it ; nevertheless it exists as a pattern: a perceived regularity). The baby drops the facts between the chairs: old vs new; expensive vs cheap; wooden vs plastic; large vs small ; yellow vs wooden color; AND the baby differentiates the concept "Chair" from other existents in the room: dog, mother, mirror, rug, door and so forth. Over time the growing baby builds up a colossal conceptual hierarchy and gets to label them with words pertaining to the baby's language. All the above is AUTOMATIC. AND UNIQUELY HUMAN. So four chairs around a table in the kitchen for example, becomes a higher level concept "furniture". The kitchen itself is a unique concept consisting of furniture, pots and pans, cooker and microwave; refrigerator and so forth. [Not all these have to be in a kitchen. In fact the marvel of man is that in an empty house man can label the room as a kitchen AS AN ADULT because of grasping and understand the "concept" called Kitchen. This is a uniquely human capacity]. Each room of the house: kitchen, living room (with fixtures and fittings- more concepts); bedrooms, bathroom, corridors, one's own residence and belongings, even family make up the concept "home". But the wider concept is "house". Houses in the vicinity, along with gardens, public footpath , roads and so forth make up the concept "neighborhood". Many neighborhoods amongst other concepts - make up the concept district then "town" > towns> city> State > states > Nation (e.g. U.S.A ) , nations > continent > continent + oceans > "world" > biospheres : hydrosphere, geosphere, and world make up the "earth" planet > planets and sun make up the galaxy> galaxies and other entities (e.g. stars, moons, dark energy , dark matter, space, etc.) makes up the universe. There are many concepts up and down the hierarchies that I have left out to make a simple model of how "concepts" are created and exist in a hierarchy in the mind of man. Both mind and therefore concepts are unique to man. BUT WAIT! Man's mind makes up INCORRECT CONCEPTS as the child grows up: the earth seems flat; and ego-centric biased with the sun rising and falling around you! It takes the scrupulous use of reason and logic (which must be learned, practice and mastered just like reading, writing , driving, typing , math and other man-made skills) to grasp concepts fully and properly Scientists have NOT grasped the above and have denied the mind of man - a illogical error as all science is dependent upon metaphysics; and there is no science-or-math without the use of reason and logic to interpret it. further there is no "reason and logic" withOut the "mind with free will to exercise the mind". Also remember a A.I. or computer can do the fastest and most brilliant use of logic yet it does not have the twin engines unique to man : reason and logic - therefore - it can not "Think" and replace man in many tasks! Also remember computers (and the brain) are intrinsically algorithmic whereas man's mind is non computational and non-algorithmic , a distinct property belonging only to man. So "plank time" and concepts of science does Not apply to the mind.
@@AmericanBrain Oh god, go take this to a forum where you can discuss this. This is not really the best place suited for such stuff. If you truly believe this as true, talk with people who're actually qualified to talk about stuff like this and don't force things like this upon ordinary people - it's manipulative.
@@sevsev4078 do you understand you have free will ? If you say no- then you are de facto wrong for how would you know If you say 10+3 = 13 and even an elementary computer or calculator can do it : it does not correlate with a human brain 🧠 or consciousness. Man and computers work very different . But it’s more than that : there no vestige of consciousness nor free will in computers . Nobelist Sir Roger gives proof how the mind is non computational and non algorithmic! I go much further , clear , easier and better : consciousness is the identification of existence . That is a choice , the correct choice in a rational person . This means you have free will . You’re responsible !
@@sevsev4078 a man complained again . I replied : you asked again “how to create a thought 💭 “ I reply : consciousness is first cause so the “you” creates the thought exercising consciousness. There is no other , further , alternative , extra , “NEURAL” answer ( because the mind is NOT neurons, brain , chemicals - but wholly different identity , entity ). Therefore your question has been answered in-depth , clearly , precisely , exactly , specifically , and properly . --- What’s really going on with you ? You want to use science 🧪 and/or Math to answer something that can’t EVER be answered using theses “sub-sets” of epistemology ( how to know things to be true ). You need metaphysics and the method to know truth is epistemology : the twin methods of reason and logic . So man can induct and also validate the above as truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth to 💯% certainty . The way to do that is using words: it is the way you come to any and all conclusions even if/when using science or math ( else you end up in mysticism like string theory with multiple dimensions beyond four ; or many worlds physics with you splitting a million times per second on each timeline !!!!!!!!) Q.E.D.
I understand the way you are thinking, but don't you think the idea of "free will" is much deeper than 'do we have a choice between two actions in this moment'? It's much more complex.
Post 63. May 24 2021. Sabine and Sam Harris is wrong. One of their "Fans" called Ray fought strongly to rationalize the religion called Scientism. They've turned a beautiful and valid methodology into a gross metaphysics that denies you even have a mind. Ray put the strawman argument to me - over and over again - "how does the mind interact with Planck time" ? He strongly argues against the mind (like his mentor Sabine) - not realizing that Planck is the wrong guy to bring up to a battle with me! I replied: " LET'S SEE WHAT PLANCK himself had to say - shall we ? The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics (1931). Max wrote "I regard consciousness as fundamental...." ______________________________ Ray said to me "Wow. So much rubbish.... rubbish metaphysics". I responded: 1. If the metaphysics is rubbish then you are saying either/or : a. there is no existence so are you saying you're a ghost ? Like a virtual particle? b. if you are saying there is no efficacious mind (with free will) then how are you even putting forward an argument in the first place? HELLO! You have a potent mind as a rational human being but you are incompetent in using it as you have not practiced using reason and logic. c. and how do you know if you're stating the truth if there is no law of identity? So your argument is once again - completely demolished using reason __________________________ You said "Plank time is a reference frame...." PLANK AGAIN? Let me tell you about the brains of an ant. -> But wait! What has the brains of an ant got to do with the "mind of man"? Analogy was used to demonstrate your strawman: what has Plank time got to do with the mind? Man has not mated Quantum with General Relativity yet here you are using Planck with the mind! Man knows there is the mega and math that pertains to that and the nano and the math (your Planck) that pertains to that. Man has NOT joined the above together in a unification BUT that does not mean the nano does NOT "therefore" exist. In analogy: it does not mean the mind does not exist. _____________________________ By the way - interestingly the NOBEL 2020 , Sir Roger Penrose - HAS - merged the Plank WITH General relativity theory [Einstein] : advocating that microtubules (organelles within each neuron) are small enough to undergo quantum wave collapse and do so 4 times a second BECAUSE OF YOUR PLANK'S formula, which he Sir Roger has formulated as e=h (bar) / t e= energy h(bar) : your PLANCK! t= time. He says the above leads to the mind. HIs partner Hammeroff says the brain (neurons, actually organelles within them) are on-board quantum computers. I put the above in a hesitating way because it is NOT my philosophy. Their philosophy involves admitting Plato at the core of the universe AND making the theory of mind into a PHYSICALIST theory. My theory (not a hypothesis like they have but validated by reason) states the mind is an independent entity with potency . HOW? No one knows: it's an axiom based upon reason; that you can validate because "Consciousness is the identification of existence" . So consciousness is a separate identity to existence (the brain) and with free will as it must differentiate something from nothing reaching the conclusion - if - a rational man that "existence exists". In other words: metaphysics (actuality-reality) : existence , mind (with free will) and identity (truth). How to know truth? Reason and logic. _________________________ In every Ray post: he wants to know the "plank time" pertaining to the mind and the (strawman) presupposition he is setting up is "if" this can be answered "then" he will buy into the "mind". I explained to him over many posts that the mind of man is "sui generis" [unique entity] that pertains to the identity homo sapiens sapiens [you the reader]. I told him the evidence is because: "consciousness is an identity which engages free will in the identification of the preceding identity called existence. This implies Aristotle's law of identity is part of existence, so there is truth. And using reason and logic man can find the truth". The above implies consciousness is therefore separate (to existence as it identifies it), AND potent (as man must exercise free will to distinguish no-thing-ness from something if you are a rational man). The most sophisticated A.I/ computer, animal or mental patient can Not do this. The "brain" can Not even do that as the brain is "algorithmic" based upon causality (cause and effect) so there is no room for free will. Instead the mind can do it as it is perpetual first cause (the effect is your thought and/or actions). The Nobel Prize winner just recently Sir Roger Penrose uses Godel's theorem to explain why your mind is non-algorithmic and non-computational using "yet unknown physics". However, my argument is wider, and better, and precise in the absolute. Further, the mind is Not the subject of physics or any math; as science is a "subset of epistemology: theory of knowledge, the second branch of philosophy" - whereas - the mind is a axiom of metaphysics (so is existence , mind-with-free-will; and identity in this sequence).
To me, this just does not make sense, it's a case of trying to 'have one's cake and eat it' as the saying goes. There are two issues I have with this. Firstly he says that no free will is a fact, he knows it. Really? It isn't a proven fact. He may believe it to be the case based on his understanding of the current state of scientific knowledge, but believing something, and knowing something to be definitely so are quite different. No-one knows definitely where consciousness and free will come from at the moment, in future we may or we may never do so, it's just not possible to say. But then he goes on to say that if we now know there is no free will, that should alter our view of others, the legal system and so on, because people never really made the choices those systems assume that they did. Well, hang on a minute. If there is no free will, we also have no freedom to make different choices about others and such systems, because if we could make those choices that would actually be a demonstration of free will, which he says we don't have. So, to me, very flawed. The first part in saying that his belief is proven fact, and the second in that if he should be right about the first the second logically cannot follow.
Sam stars with a premise that is false, the universe is not driven by cause and effect. His is a Newtonian cosmology which is suitable for many of our daily interactions but not accurate. Still, he is free to believe what he wants…ooops, no he is not.
There's a problem in thinking like Sam Harris does when he concludes on this topic. Try to follow this syllogism: Love and empathy, which Sam promotes as meaningful concepts, are on the same "coin" with hate and apathy, respectively, but on its other side. The problem is you can't have a coin with just one side, no matter how much you'd want to. The same goes for the concepts of good and evil - the one cannot make sense in the total absence of the other. So, what Sam says about eliminating hate and keeping love through interpreting determinism in the way he does seems rather paradoxical. It makes no sense because it's arbitrary and impossible. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to say that determinism does not exist but that BECAUSE it exists, it is necessary to act as if it doesn’t, in order to have the optimal results considering well-being, both at an individual and collective levels. I suggest that since determinism is a valid concept, people are determined to behave better when they know that both themselves (meaning their consciousness) and the others view them as responsible for acting well and for avoiding acting badly. Harris' view leaves no room for that and if that view somehow prevailed humanity could hardly be recognized as such anymore because the beings which it would consist of would resemble robots or ants who merely act in the way they are programmed to act and nothing more. Ultimately, in this view of determinism, a fundamental thing that defines us humans, our feelings, become irrelevant and useless, at best, and counterproductive and troublesome at worst. Because what is the point of hating anybody for whatever evil deeds they commit, or loving another for whatever altruism they possess. No one can be praised and no one can be blamed for just being the way they are and act the way they do if we merely accept that all these just happen and there's no alternative about it. So, what's the point of any emotion if there's no way to change a person's bad behavior to a better one? It seems that there's no utility in having feelings inside Sam's world of determinism that only has room for some kind of robotic rationality. In conclusion, determinism is a real concept, and because it is, interestingly enough, we act and should keep acting as if it’s not, to deterministically do better. That being said, free will is a valid concept too - odd as it may sound when one doesn’t consider the abovementioned syllogism - because determinism makes it such. In this sense, these two concepts, determinism and free will, are not actually in conflict but complementary.
Θεοδωρής Τσιαμίτας, so if I understood what you’re saying in a few words. Determinism exists so Sam is right but what’s the point of living if we act like Sam is telling us because then “life” would have no meaning, i.e. robot ant beings (relative to how little meaning it already has) and therefore we must choose to always fool ourselves into believing that free will exists and endure for as long as we’re alive; so basically the way we view life at the moment is fine as long as we remind ourselves every now and then that it’s all an illusion so why not try and be the best we can be? .......
@@Mrst3lios89 You partly got it right, my friend! My only two clarifications to the otherwise accurate analysis of yours on what I said is that a) Sam is not right because he says that accepting determinism and rejecting free will and responsibility can result in a world of love and compassion that lacks hatred or discrimination. There is no way of having concepts that make sense only within the framework of duality, without their pair. There cannot be meaning in concepts such as love without hate, or good without evil/bad. So Sam is wrong about this. b) I don't view what I suggest as "fooling" ourselves, in the sense that it is rationally accurate to say that the concepts of responsibility and free will influence deterministic creatures such as humans in a positive manner, and thus it's a true fact, not a lie that we need to force against our intelligence. Hence we don't fool ourselves here. As I said, because determinism exists, it is certain that once we decide that we hold one another responsible for behaving well or badly, this truly generates a deterministically better outcome than if we decide that responsibility and free will are of no use. In other words, determinism is an independent mechanism within us - or, as they tend to say in scientific papers, it's an independent variable, and the dependent variables in this case, meaning, the variables that we can control, are concepts such as free will and responsibility. So we throw these at the independent variable - determinism - and see what happens. Well, If you're loved, respected, and appreciated when you do good things, while you're rejected, disrespected, or hated when you do bad things, you will definitely be far more motivated to act well, and thus you will eventually act better, than if love and hate, respect and disrespect, appreciation or disapproval are taken out of the picture when determinism is interpreted as a background that makes these concepts meaningless. In this sense, I say that determinism exists, but so free will and responsibility do, not in the sense that they cancel determinism, but on the next level, in that they truly benefit deterministic beings. I hope I make this clearer than it was. In case I do not please let me know and I'll try again. And thanks for asking, by the way, cause it makes me think this through even further and that's always good. Cheers.
Dude I don’t think you fully grasped Sam Harris’ concept, he is saying that if we accept the fact that who we become and how our consciousness developed during the course of our lives wasn’t due to our own wills and all of the choices we make come from wants that we didn’t create we can collectively become a more compassionate society. He didn’t say it would eliminate hate just reduce it along with egotistical tendencies, Sams view is based on empirical evidence, and perfectly describes how people carry themselves everyday if you ask me. Also evil doesn’t exist in this line of thinking so your syllogistic thought was superfluous
@@Superqorn Hi there. I think you just didn't pay enough attention to what I have already argued. Sam and you talk about how embracing determinism will result in people becoming more empathetic. I refute that. There is no evidence to support that and it makes no sense. Instead, I argue that by embracing determinism people will become more of what they already are. In other words, if you're already empathetic because of how your brain is wired, then determinism will probably make you even more because you will interpret every wrongdoer as a victim of circumstances rather than being a perpetrator, and so your natural tendency to feel compassion for others will increase. If you're already apathetic or ruthless by nature because of the way your brain is wired, then embracing determinism will probably make you more because you will interpret every wrongdoing that you do as perfectly justified because it will merely be the product of circumstances and if you're not responsible no one can rationally blame you. So why not simply give in to your darkest desires? This is why I talked earlier that compassion is on the same coin as indifference, just on opposite sides. But you cannot have the one without the other. Not everyone will become more empathetic by embracing determinism. There will be many who will just become more nihilistic, and if no one is responsible on what grounds one has a right to stop another from doing whatever they please, even if that is directly harmful to others? The only solution I can see determinism work is under the notion that free will and responsibility must be always applied because when holding people accountable then they deterministically behave differently, and that means better. Do you maybe understand now what I'm saying and how I justify it?
It’s refreshing to see Sam has discovered what the Bible has been teaching for over 2000 years! Even the Apostle Paul says, “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” NIV Jesus basically teaches that we are a product of being born to human parents (duh, inherited genes) and our worldly experiences. Which means we will do things we have no control over no matter how hard we try. But be of Good Cheer! There is a way to over come the nature we were born with! Jesus says we must be born again. Nicodemus asks, “But how can I go back into my mother’s womb?” Jesus explains to be Born Again is to turn our mind, body and soul over to God. We then can be washed clean by the Holy Spirit, thereby, living afresh each day as we fill ourselves with the Word of God, i.e. TRUTH. If we do this, we will become more like Jesus day by day. Without this Living Hope humans become nihilistic and suicidal! By turning our lives over to a higher power we can become new beings. By praying to God asking Him to change us, the Holy Spirit will reveal to us those things that are preventing us from leading good lives. This Living Hope is available to EVERYBODY!!! Even murderers, rapists, liars, prostitutes, etc. No one is excluded. But you must admit that you are flawed (sinful) and believe that Jesus is God and has come to save us from ourselves. This hope doesn’t prevent the natural consequences we, as humans, will suffer. Murderers will still have to go to jail. There will still be hurricanes, death, and worldly tragedies. But God will strengthen us to endure no matter what we go through. The Bible has been helping people for thousands of years. Even today, it helps people overcome drug addition, alcoholism, negativity, depression, and everything else that ails humankind. I can attest to this. Jesus also teaches that we should not turn our lives over to another flawed human being, we can seek help but eventually it’s us and God. By having a personal relationship with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit we can combat our humanity because The Word addresses the HEART in addition to the mind. Sam only addresses the mind. Try teaching prisoners to have hope by explaining how their brain works! You can try….
claims free will can't be defined and then goes ahead to debunk what he doesn't even understand. then makes the leap that options are choices and choice is will. then goes on to say that choice is important. it all falls apart. just like sarcasm is lying and sam harris is completely capable of sarcasm which means he is still a liar. classic jew.
😍❣️So true and BRAVO to the BRILLIANT footages editing & music 🎉 I AM so grateful for all that I have been given so much blessings by the Grace of God (thanks Sam!). Feel the blessings & share them to light up others 🌟🙏🏼💛🌙🥂🍾✨
Sam thinks that I cannot plan for the future and thus change the path of my life. I cannot have an idea in my imagination, decide to pursue that image, and then go for it. Ideas are unreal, in other words. Interesting, then, that he is trying to persuade us of a set of ideas that will change how we think and act, i.e., ethics. Totally incoherent.
He does not think that you cannot plan for the future and change your life, but that whatever you might think will be your "organic" thinking or an original thought - it doesn't really come by your own free will, but mechanisms deep rooted in your nervous system and how the brain works. This is not too say that you cannot have an idea in your imagination and decide to pursue that, but this is more to define "where" that idea in your imagination comes from. And with all this, he is not forcing you to be limited but rather the opposite. It is quite liberating in a way!
Seeing your comments, I only understand that you totally missed the point. You can indeed change the path of your life, but what he is saying is that those multiple paths that you see ahead of you actually came into existence by a set of causes that you had not control of. An analogy he gives is... You can choose between Vanilla, Chocolate and Butterscotch... But the fact you had only those 3 choices was determined by some events in the past that you had no control of.
@@ioeluariu8267 there is not even a single atom in your body that you control, although your body is made up of nearly seven octillion atoms. Think of that for a moment. And yet, there is not even a single thought that you could think of without being capable of predicting the exact same thought we are hypothetically talking about. Why not? Well, because it is simply impossible to think before already thinking of anything in the first place.
I come back to this video every few months. Thank you for posting.
Love how he killed hate in this way. In the face of all those that claim free will makes us better.
"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper."
~ Excerpt from Einstein's 1932 "My Credo" speech given to the German League of Human Rights a few weeks before he fled to the US.
NOTE: this is a new version of a video already published on the channel. We are improving the quality of the images and audio.
New videos are also on the way.
Thank you all for the support.
Do NOT confuse (to yourself an the others) the FREE WILL with the ALMIGHTYNESS of your Creator.
Are you, by any chance, Almghty??? NO, you aren't!!! Then you could be humble, conform yourself and THANK, to the REAL Almighty, that great gift of your Free Will... always using, of course, your intelligence, which is under His and His Almighty Power. But allways you free will will be untouched.
Don't be so dumb, CREATURE. You are not an espontaneous accident.
Where is this from originally?
@@estebansantana8838 Keep drinking the kool aid bro! Any god in any shape or form doesn't exist. Get over your ideologue of accepting something with no evidence.
@@estebansantana8838 Did you watch the video?
This argument changed my outlook forever, TY Sam and Inspiration Journey.
Cosmodian Sagansfire May I ask you in what ways and why please?
Our nervous system is conditioned when we are but months old and in that sense, we are for life (unless we work to change it) bound to behave in certain ways in certain situations. But, how to explain that I choose to buy chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla if not thanks to my free will? I say we come and go in and out of free will. Unless our subconscious alerts us to to a danger, we have free will.
You chose chocolate ice cream because you do what you want. Don't confuse doing what you want with freedom though. Our wants are determined by our genetic predispositions and our environment. Our environment can encompass: early childhood experiences which put a subconscious liking of chocolate over vanilla, to watching others choose chocolate ice cream ahead of you in the line (research mirror neurons).
Simply…we are lived! By LIFE 🌀
this is the greatest channel on youtube for a reason
Brilliant editing, music selection and speech exerts. Thank you!
There is freedom in our choices. No, we do not choose what we are from birth, and we do not choose what the world was like when we got here. And we didn't choose who else is here, or who arrives after. The chaos present in a single life forms the options in our freedom.
And then there is time.
Each moment, in its minute sequence, through our memory of it, forms a deeper and broader options list. When to move, when to speak, when to eat icecream are options. Shift in your seat. Feel the option to shift again. Don't. Do. When? Wiggle a finger. Grab your gun. Pull the trigger. Or not. The smaller the choice, the more freedom we feel. And it is this temporal freedom, the momentary mulligan of our choices, that creates this important and painful human freedom. It is not deep scientific/philosophical freewill. But it is important. Not just to believe it, but to understand the suffering it brings us, even against our will to be relieved of that suffering.
Our options, no matter their origins, overwhelm us. Our thoughts run in parallel. And when we cannot seem to weigh the costs and benefits we have yet another choice: to find a way to choose on merits or simply choose. We search, sometimes. Sometimes we don't. We delay. We fret. We suffer. We act. We suffer. We live in the moment and we suffer censure from others. We wall ourselves off and we suffer loneliness. We harden our hearts, we break another. Our awareness of our unweighted options weigh heavily upon us.
To think you can, or ever will decree this suffering away is a choice in one's thinking. But not a very helpful one, Sam.
Sam suffers from that smart guy's ancient affliction: knowing the price of everything and value of nothing.
It is perhaps commendable to believe that Sam believes he can bring peace and unity to the suffering masses, but it is not clear from this little feel-good speech of his that he has much appreciation for the unsolicited and aweful options that are presented to the mostly unsuspecting and unprepared vast majority of people in their lives. How many bad options can one gaze upon before the option of To be or not to be" enters the option list? Where is freedom? Still there. Still bringing with it that old unavoidable suffering.
There seem to be a lack of mercy in Sam's presentations (books or speeches). He speaks to men in lofty places and tells them what they want to hear so that they can forget about the suffering they have spread while they heap up royalties on their choices built on their advantages.
But Sam tries. And what other option does he have? Probably a few better ones than making pablum for the privaleged. But maybe he just can't see all his options.
But there is time...
U admitted we don’t have free will. You then said we should believe in free will despite sams reasons it’s actually good not to, atleast once in a while. Also criticising Sam like he’s villainous for exposing this truth.
Not even sarcastically… but tell me what I misunderstood about your comment
What I am critical of is Sam's promotion of the idea that once we all accept that we really have no way to be genuinely free, we will also all be able to live in eternal peace (or at least be less judge-y). I would like a nicer world too. The problem is that in order for him to believe that this is even possible he would somehow need to forget that he is choosing to promote this idea. So which is it, Sam, are you the only one who is free or are you the new deterministic savior of the world (because this idea just came to You out of the sum total of all the history of the universe)?
Free will is one of those fun philosophy puzzles. It's "fun" because it involves both scientific determinism and our feelings about our personal ability to choose our path in life. It is a thorny debate because both sides have strong evidence and support. Is every choice that every person makes always out of his hands? Is our brain really just another billiard ball on a universe sized pool table? Maybe? I doubt it. Do people really never choose? Did everyone who ever changed their opinion on something just flip-flop at the tail end of a long string of historical cause and effect chains? Did my choice to respond to your comment originate at Washington crossing the Delaware? And which butterfly flapping it's wing in the fall of 2007 contributed to the housing collapse of 2008?
Not only is this sort extreme scientific determinism not possible to sustain on a practical level, as a theory it doesn't help in the way Sam would like us to believe. Yes, if more people took the view that not everyone else's bad actions made them a monster perhaps we might be nicer. But if we take Sam's idea, that we ought to forgive others for they "know not what they choose", how would we choose to be this way if we didn't already?
In the video Sam says we are born with talents and shortcomings and it is "up to us" if we use those talents or work on those shortcomings. So now we have free will on those points, Sam? Or is it only Sam who has free will and it is his message about what we should do that will make us all better doggies?
And, finally, if this deep scientific lack of free will is already true, why do we need to believe it for it to be of any benefit? Do we only have "free belief", and all we need to do is believe Sam about our lack of free will to solve all our problems?
I don't believe so...
remember people pay this man to bs them
@@moesizlac2596 Sam's argument and rationale is very convincing unlike your own "word salad" that only convinced me that you struggle to explain why you, yourself ..feel sure he is wrong . I'd imagine that subconsciously you have an objection due to the same character that interferes in many of our opinions ..our old friend the Ego.
Wow a white knight and an armchair psych major. Good for you! Sam needs all the help he can get!
Conditioning to submit to the condition. Being sovereign is know thyself, is reclaim our freedom which is self. Not control others.
As I listen to this piece I think of Ayn Rand and her cult followers. One of the core principles of their worldview is free will which includes the idea that individuals alone make the decisions outside of the influences of their environment. That, when examined honestly, is the feet of clay of her philosophy.
Great video! Thanks
I've gotten a lot of anger from people when challenging their views on free will. It can be a touchy subject
Lee Russell that’s a sensible reaction by others who are not interested because this subject goes against common logic and as Sam said, it’s a deeply depressing notion...
Danny Holland hahaha... how inconvenient and counterproductive...
v2. Post 64. May 24th 2021. Why is Sam Harris and Sabine wrong? Man has a mind with free will. But how? And what are the implications? Who is correct - them or me?
The mind of man is "sui generis" [unique entity] that pertains to the identity homo sapiens sapiens [you the reader]. The evidence is because:
"consciousness is an identity which engages free will in the identification of the preceding identity called existence. This implies Aristotle's law of identity is part of existence, so there is truth. And using reason and logic man can find the truth".
The above implies consciousness is therefore separate (to existence as it identifies it), AND potent (as man must exercise free will to distinguish no-thing-ness from something if you are a rational man).
The most sophisticated A.I/ computer, animal or mental patient can Not do this.
The "brain" can Not even do that as the brain is "algorithmic" based upon causality (cause and effect) so there is no room for free will.
Instead the mind can do it as it is perpetual first cause (the effect is your thought and/or actions).
But below I will go further with "life" [not just the mind].
___________________________________
1. Physicists like to think that physics is the foundation and applies to everything [Horseman Dennet has a pyramid that is oft used to demonstrate this fiction].
Paul Davies (physicist) shows that physics is part of a web of relation with other subjects and is Not at all at the bottom of a pyramid (nor is math). The pyramid is a mere convenient structure but its a fiction and therefore fall foul when you dig deeper.
For example: biology is a wholly independent subject; and although dependent upon physics, in contrast physics can NOT penetrate biology!
In "Evolution" [biology] there is exaptation (pre-adaptation). Here, "functions" (not mere features) are abstracted and used for lateral evolution before vertical (refining) evolution .
For example, the wings of a bird evolved for warmth but were useful for escaping predators by gliding (gliding birds still exist). This "function" was selected and the species of this type propated it's genes successfully - and the bird continued to evolve into wings for flying.
Evolution can do in other directions as well of course and Penguins have no wings! It took the incisive application of reason and logic to deduct the penguin is interestingly a bird .
[SIDE NOTE: And why should such "identity" even be considered real? Because Aristotle's law of identity can NOT be proven but it was validated in METAPHYSICS; just like the mind. Indeed it is THE MIND that must use reason and logic to categorize and identify truths. END OF SIDE NOTE].
Your body is filled with functions (like the fact the heart pumps blood and its pericardial sac has fluid that makes a heart sound) - which were selected by evolution in the above way. Your lungs were a function that was selected from the "lung fish" (!) ; your ear drums selected from the jaws of another fish.
Main point and conclusion:
Physics is about prediction. There is absolute no way whatsoever to predict "Exapation/exaptation" in biology; no way therefore to predict evolution in sum totality. This means biology (the science of life) is wholly different to physics as a "Strong emergent property of nature" ; even though biology is dependent upon physics.
The "mind with free will" of man is (most likely) also a "strong emergent" property of nature that pertains only to man. __________________________
IN fact all other species have consciousness (awareness but with No free will) such as a single cell bacterium!
All species including man: take in sense datum, such as bacteria senses the density of nutrients in a petri-dish and then using its motor engine to move forwards in a random direction BUT thereafter OPTIMIZING its journey to take it closest to the most dense region of nutrients! Amazing !
Bacteria and all species including man: takes in sense datum (like light photons that bounce off a red rose, even though the photons have no colors and are a wave/particle duality that hits the back of the eyes.
The "information" is extracted from the photons in a quantum operation that causes the un-twisting of rhodopsin proteins - and in that instance information cascades at incredible speeds via the electro-chemical pathway of neurons throughout the brain on relevant highways to be processes into a binding (yet unknown how this is done in an exact way) and thereafter you re-project the perception of reality constantly and fairly instantly back "out there" with depth perception (even though the back of your eyes are 2D screens nevertheless you see in 3D-esque mode!)
So Sense Datum (information) self organizes into percepts (units of information) stored as memory (how is memory stored in the long term? Yet unknown! What is known is short term memory with synaptic changes: but such molecules dissipate within days). The above enables all animal species to "react" in order to survive and propagate their genes.
Man however instantly and constant turns percepts (units of information) and self organizes into concepts.
Concepts happen with the mind of man. Only man has this property called concepts. Only man has a mind. Science can NEVER find the mind. Man can INDUCT the mind through introspection.
Further to remind you : consciousness is the identification of existence . No other species nor A.I/Computation can do this. This means the mind (with free will) is real for reasons shown earlier in this post.
How does man form concepts? A growing baby sees a small yellow plastic baby chair, a large antique and expensive wooden chair; a mirror; a dog; a rug and their mother.
[MEMORIZE THIS PARAGRAPH below - AND READ IT SEVERAL TIMES ]
Instantly the baby's mind takes in "two or more" existents of existence that are similar (the chairs above) and "abstracts similar properties" whilst differentiating other properties , dropping out the measurement characteristic between the existents.
The baby's mind performs integration and differentiation [reminds me of calculus!]
So the baby abstracts the "Essence" of the chair (even if it does not label it ; nevertheless it exists as a pattern: a perceived regularity). The baby drops the facts between the chairs: old vs new; expensive vs cheap; wooden vs plastic; large vs small ; yellow vs wooden color; AND the baby differentiates the concept "Chair" from other existents in the room: dog, mother, mirror, rug, door and so forth.
Over time the growing baby builds up a colossal conceptual hierarchy and gets to label them with words pertaining to the baby's language. All the above is AUTOMATIC. AND UNIQUELY HUMAN.
So four chairs around a table in the kitchen for example, becomes a higher level concept "furniture".
The kitchen itself is a unique concept consisting of furniture, pots and pans, cooker and microwave; refrigerator and so forth. [Not all these have to be in a kitchen. In fact the marvel of man is that in an empty house man can label the room as a kitchen AS AN ADULT because of grasping and understand the "concept" called Kitchen. This is a uniquely human capacity].
Each room of the house: kitchen, living room (with fixtures and fittings- more concepts); bedrooms, bathroom, corridors, one's own residence and belongings, even family make up the concept "home". But the wider concept is "house".
Houses in the vicinity, along with gardens, public footpath , roads and so forth make up the concept "neighborhood". Many neighborhoods amongst other concepts - make up the concept district then "town" > towns> city> State > states > Nation (e.g. U.S.A ) , nations > continent > continent + oceans > "world" > biospheres : hydrosphere, geosphere, and world make up the "earth" planet > planets and sun make up the galaxy> galaxies and other entities (e.g. stars, moons, dark energy , dark matter, space, etc.) makes up the universe.
There are many concepts up and down the hierarchies that I have left out to make a simple model of how "concepts" are created and exist in a hierarchy in the mind of man. Both mind and therefore concepts are unique to man.
BUT WAIT! Man's mind makes up INCORRECT CONCEPTS as the child grows up: the earth seems flat; and ego-centric biased with the sun rising and falling around you! It takes the scrupulous use of reason and logic (which must be learned, practice and mastered just like reading, writing , driving, typing , math and other man-made skills) to grasp concepts fully and properly
Scientists have NOT grasped the above and have denied the mind of man - a illogical error as all science is dependent upon metaphysics; and there is no science-or-math without the use of reason and logic to interpret it. further there is no "reason and logic" withOut the "mind with free will to exercise the mind".
Also remember a A.I. or computer can do the fastest and most brilliant use of logic yet it does not have the twin engines unique to man : reason and logic - therefore - it can not "Think" and replace man in many tasks!
Also remember computers (and the brain) are intrinsically algorithmic whereas man's mind is non computational and non-algorithmic , a distinct property belonging only to man.
So "plank time" and concepts of science does Not apply to the mind.
That music is distracting. Turn it down
Excellent:-)
Sit back, relax, enjoy, and suffer. We are only witnesses of whatever we think and want, and therefore of what we consciously chose to do. What we do matters but what's the point in trying to convince others, if they cannot influence their actions? Maybe I will begin to practice mindfulness through meditation, but it will not be the result of a free choice. I am a spectator, I wish I was more than that 😂😂😂
v2. Post 64. May 24th 2021. Why is Sam Harris and Sabine wrong? Man has a mind with free will. But how? And what are the implications? Who is correct - them or me?
The mind of man is "sui generis" [unique entity] that pertains to the identity homo sapiens sapiens [you the reader]. The evidence is because:
"consciousness is an identity which engages free will in the identification of the preceding identity called existence. This implies Aristotle's law of identity is part of existence, so there is truth. And using reason and logic man can find the truth".
The above implies consciousness is therefore separate (to existence as it identifies it), AND potent (as man must exercise free will to distinguish no-thing-ness from something if you are a rational man).
The most sophisticated A.I/ computer, animal or mental patient can Not do this.
The "brain" can Not even do that as the brain is "algorithmic" based upon causality (cause and effect) so there is no room for free will.
Instead the mind can do it as it is perpetual first cause (the effect is your thought and/or actions).
But below I will go further with "life" [not just the mind].
___________________________________
1. Physicists like to think that physics is the foundation and applies to everything [Horseman Dennet has a pyramid that is oft used to demonstrate this fiction].
Paul Davies (physicist) shows that physics is part of a web of relation with other subjects and is Not at all at the bottom of a pyramid (nor is math). The pyramid is a mere convenient structure but its a fiction and therefore fall foul when you dig deeper.
For example: biology is a wholly independent subject; and although dependent upon physics, in contrast physics can NOT penetrate biology!
In "Evolution" [biology] there is exaptation (pre-adaptation). Here, "functions" (not mere features) are abstracted and used for lateral evolution before vertical (refining) evolution .
For example, the wings of a bird evolved for warmth but were useful for escaping predators by gliding (gliding birds still exist). This "function" was selected and the species of this type propated it's genes successfully - and the bird continued to evolve into wings for flying.
Evolution can do in other directions as well of course and Penguins have no wings! It took the incisive application of reason and logic to deduct the penguin is interestingly a bird .
[SIDE NOTE: And why should such "identity" even be considered real? Because Aristotle's law of identity can NOT be proven but it was validated in METAPHYSICS; just like the mind. Indeed it is THE MIND that must use reason and logic to categorize and identify truths. END OF SIDE NOTE].
Your body is filled with functions (like the fact the heart pumps blood and its pericardial sac has fluid that makes a heart sound) - which were selected by evolution in the above way. Your lungs were a function that was selected from the "lung fish" (!) ; your ear drums selected from the jaws of another fish.
Main point and conclusion:
Physics is about prediction. There is absolute no way whatsoever to predict "Exapation/exaptation" in biology; no way therefore to predict evolution in sum totality. This means biology (the science of life) is wholly different to physics as a "Strong emergent property of nature" ; even though biology is dependent upon physics.
The "mind with free will" of man is (most likely) also a "strong emergent" property of nature that pertains only to man. __________________________
IN fact all other species have consciousness (awareness but with No free will) such as a single cell bacterium!
All species including man: take in sense datum, such as bacteria senses the density of nutrients in a petri-dish and then using its motor engine to move forwards in a random direction BUT thereafter OPTIMIZING its journey to take it closest to the most dense region of nutrients! Amazing !
Bacteria and all species including man: takes in sense datum (like light photons that bounce off a red rose, even though the photons have no colors and are a wave/particle duality that hits the back of the eyes.
The "information" is extracted from the photons in a quantum operation that causes the un-twisting of rhodopsin proteins - and in that instance information cascades at incredible speeds via the electro-chemical pathway of neurons throughout the brain on relevant highways to be processes into a binding (yet unknown how this is done in an exact way) and thereafter you re-project the perception of reality constantly and fairly instantly back "out there" with depth perception (even though the back of your eyes are 2D screens nevertheless you see in 3D-esque mode!)
So Sense Datum (information) self organizes into percepts (units of information) stored as memory (how is memory stored in the long term? Yet unknown! What is known is short term memory with synaptic changes: but such molecules dissipate within days). The above enables all animal species to "react" in order to survive and propagate their genes.
Man however instantly and constant turns percepts (units of information) and self organizes into concepts.
Concepts happen with the mind of man. Only man has this property called concepts. Only man has a mind. Science can NEVER find the mind. Man can INDUCT the mind through introspection.
Further to remind you : consciousness is the identification of existence . No other species nor A.I/Computation can do this. This means the mind (with free will) is real for reasons shown earlier in this post.
How does man form concepts? A growing baby sees a small yellow plastic baby chair, a large antique and expensive wooden chair; a mirror; a dog; a rug and their mother.
[MEMORIZE THIS PARAGRAPH below - AND READ IT SEVERAL TIMES ]
Instantly the baby's mind takes in "two or more" existents of existence that are similar (the chairs above) and "abstracts similar properties" whilst differentiating other properties , dropping out the measurement characteristic between the existents.
The baby's mind performs integration and differentiation [reminds me of calculus!]
So the baby abstracts the "Essence" of the chair (even if it does not label it ; nevertheless it exists as a pattern: a perceived regularity). The baby drops the facts between the chairs: old vs new; expensive vs cheap; wooden vs plastic; large vs small ; yellow vs wooden color; AND the baby differentiates the concept "Chair" from other existents in the room: dog, mother, mirror, rug, door and so forth.
Over time the growing baby builds up a colossal conceptual hierarchy and gets to label them with words pertaining to the baby's language. All the above is AUTOMATIC. AND UNIQUELY HUMAN.
So four chairs around a table in the kitchen for example, becomes a higher level concept "furniture".
The kitchen itself is a unique concept consisting of furniture, pots and pans, cooker and microwave; refrigerator and so forth. [Not all these have to be in a kitchen. In fact the marvel of man is that in an empty house man can label the room as a kitchen AS AN ADULT because of grasping and understand the "concept" called Kitchen. This is a uniquely human capacity].
Each room of the house: kitchen, living room (with fixtures and fittings- more concepts); bedrooms, bathroom, corridors, one's own residence and belongings, even family make up the concept "home". But the wider concept is "house".
Houses in the vicinity, along with gardens, public footpath , roads and so forth make up the concept "neighborhood". Many neighborhoods amongst other concepts - make up the concept district then "town" > towns> city> State > states > Nation (e.g. U.S.A ) , nations > continent > continent + oceans > "world" > biospheres : hydrosphere, geosphere, and world make up the "earth" planet > planets and sun make up the galaxy> galaxies and other entities (e.g. stars, moons, dark energy , dark matter, space, etc.) makes up the universe.
There are many concepts up and down the hierarchies that I have left out to make a simple model of how "concepts" are created and exist in a hierarchy in the mind of man. Both mind and therefore concepts are unique to man.
BUT WAIT! Man's mind makes up INCORRECT CONCEPTS as the child grows up: the earth seems flat; and ego-centric biased with the sun rising and falling around you! It takes the scrupulous use of reason and logic (which must be learned, practice and mastered just like reading, writing , driving, typing , math and other man-made skills) to grasp concepts fully and properly
Scientists have NOT grasped the above and have denied the mind of man - a illogical error as all science is dependent upon metaphysics; and there is no science-or-math without the use of reason and logic to interpret it. further there is no "reason and logic" withOut the "mind with free will to exercise the mind".
Also remember a A.I. or computer can do the fastest and most brilliant use of logic yet it does not have the twin engines unique to man : reason and logic - therefore - it can not "Think" and replace man in many tasks!
Also remember computers (and the brain) are intrinsically algorithmic whereas man's mind is non computational and non-algorithmic , a distinct property belonging only to man.
So "plank time" and concepts of science does Not apply to the mind.
Trasncripción revisada en español:
La ilusión del libre albedrío es un hecho tan cierto como la verdad de la evolución. Y a diferencia de ésta, comprender esta verdad sobre la mente humana tiene el potencial de cambiar nuestro sentido de la bondad moral y lo que significaría crear una sociedad justa.
La cuestión del libre albedrío afecta a casi todo lo que preocupa a la gente; la religión, la política local y estatal, el sistema jurídico, los sentimientos de realización personal, emociones como la culpa, el orgullo y el remordimiento. Gran parte de la vida humana parece depender de que nos veamos unos a otros como agentes conscientes capaces de elegir libremente. Por eso, cuando la comunidad científica declare que el libre albedrío es una ilusión, como creo que acabará ocurriendo, creo que generará una guerra cultural mucho más enconada que la que se ha mantenido sobre el tema de la evolución.
Espero dos cosas con esta charla. Espero convencerte de que el libre albedrío es una ilusión. Peor que una ilusión. En realidad es una idea totalmente incoherente. Es decir, es imposible describir el universo donde podría ser verdad. No sólo es falso, sino que es difícil incluso dar sentido a lo que se ha afirmado que es cierto. Y también espero convencerte de que comprender esta verdad sobre la mente humana realmente importa, y puede cambiar la forma en que vemos la moralidad y las cuestiones de justicia.
Ahora bien, la concepción popular del "libre albedrío" parece basarse en dos suposiciones. La primera es que cada uno de nosotros es libre de comportarse de forma diferente a como lo hizo en el pasado: elegiste chocolate, pero podrías haber elegido vainilla. Ciertamente, parece que éste es el mundo en el que vivimos.
La segunda suposición es que somos la fuente consciente de nuestros pensamientos y acciones: tu experiencia de querer hacer algo es, de hecho, la causa próxima de que hagas ese algo. Sientes que quieres moverte y te mueves. Tú lo estás haciendo. Tú, el testigo consciente de tu vida.
Desgraciadamente, sabemos que ambas suposiciones son falsas.
El primer problema es que vivimos en un mundo de causa y efecto, y no hay forma de pensar en la causa y el efecto que nos permita decir que la pelota se detiene aquí. La pelota nunca se detiene. O bien nuestras voluntades están determinadas por causas previas, una larga cadena de causas previas (y no somos responsables de ellas), o son producto del azar (y no somos responsables de ellas), o son alguna combinación de azar y determinismo, pero ninguna combinación parece darte el libre albedrío que la gente aprecia. ¿Dónde está la libertad de hacer lo que uno quiere, cuando sus deseos son el producto de causas previas que uno no pudo inspeccionar, no pudo elegir y, por tanto, no tuvo absolutamente nada que ver en su creación? Nadie elige a sus padres ni la sociedad en la que ha nacido. Nadie elige las influencias vitales que moldean el desarrollo de su sistema nervioso.
En este momento no eres más responsable de la microestructura de tu cerebro que de tu estatura. ¿Estás produciendo tú glóbulos rojos en este momento? Afortunadamente tu cuerpo sí, pero si decidiera dejar de hacerlo, tú no serías responsable de ese cambio, serías una víctima de ese cambio.
Decir que eres responsable de todo lo que ocurre dentro de tu propia piel porque todo eso eres tú, es hacer una afirmación que no tiene absolutamente ninguna relación con la experiencia real que ha hecho del "libre albedrío" un problema para la filosofía.
La verdad es que sentimos y presumimos una autoría sobre nuestros propios pensamientos y acciones que es ilusoria. Una vez que reconocemos que incluso las personas más aterradoras tienen, en cierto sentido básico, la mala suerte de ser quienes son, la lógica de odiarlas en lugar de simplemente temerlas desaparece.
Así pues, una consecuencia de ver el mundo de esta manera es que reduce el odio, lo que creo que en igualdad de condiciones es algo muy bueno. También aumenta la empatía y la compasión. Tú, como testigo consciente de tu vida interior, no tomas estas decisiones. Sólo puedes ser testigo de estas decisiones.
¿Cómo podemos ser libres como agentes conscientes si todo lo que pretendemos conscientemente fue causado por acontecimientos en nuestro cerebro, que no pretendíamos y sobre los que no teníamos ningún control? No podemos.
¿Qué significa esto? En primer lugar, esto es lo que no significa. El hecho de que nuestras elecciones dependan de causas previas no significa que la elección no importe. Sentarse a ver qué pasa también es una elección que tiene sus propias consecuencias.
Así pues, las elecciones que hacemos en la vida son tan importantes como la gente cree. Pero la próxima elección que hagas saldrá de un mar de causas previas que no puedes ver y que tú no provocaste. No elegiste las interacciones o los efectos que tuvieron sobre ti cada acontecimiento, conversación y exposición a las ideas que tuviste en la vida. ¿Dónde está la libertad en esto? Sí, eres “libre” de hacer lo que quieras incluso ahora, pero ¿de dónde vienen tus deseos?
Algunos pensarán que esto suena muy deprimente. Parece que nos quita algo. Y así es. Nos quita una visión egocéntrica de la vida. Pero creo que puede ser tremendamente liberador.
No estamos realmente separados. Estamos vinculados unos a otros, a nuestro pasado y a la historia. Formamos parte de un sistema. Y, por tanto, lo que hacemos importa. No puedes atribuirte el mérito de tus talentos, pero importa que los utilices. No puedes atribuirte tus debilidades, pero importa que las corrijas.
Así que el orgullo y la vergüenza no tienen mucho sentido en el análisis final. Pero de todos modos no eran muy divertidas. Son emociones aisladas. Lo que sí tiene sentido es el compromiso con el bienestar y con mejorar tu vida y la de los demás. El amor y la compasión tienen sentido. Pero la idea de que nosotros, como seres conscientes, somos profundamente responsables del carácter de nuestras propias mentes es simplemente imposible de mapear en la realidad. Y si queremos guiarnos por la realidad y no por la vida de fantasía de nuestros antepasados, creo que nuestros puntos de vista sobre este tema tienen que cambiar.
I choose free will even if it is an illusion.
Change can only happen when free will is exercised, otherwise you are only repeating the past, to suggest there is no free will is limiting lifes potential.
Where is your will and what is it free from?
@@cameron339 The Will is in the moment, when it is completely Free of the fragmentation of thought.
@@Intelligentsia101 how can you have a will free of thought?
@@cameron339 Iit is our natural state of being, one needs to recognize this, then the process can begin.
@@Intelligentsia101 Natural, you mean governed by deterministic processes, lol. I'm just gonna keep asking what the will is, and what it is free from until you give an actual explanation instead of new age woo, like "it's our natural state of being." That doesn't tell me anything.
Determinism is NOT possible from a logical point of view. Determinism proposes that if all the laws of the universe were known to men, we would be able predict every atom’s location and momentum therefore every cells position, therefore every behaviour and tendency. However, there is no way of knowing for sure at any moment in time that we know all the laws of the universe, therefore there will always be a slight chance of uncertainty. “You don’t know what you don’t know you don’t know” Therefore rendering hard determinism not valid
Actually…
There is good and I mean good precedent in science to believe that the world is indeed deterministic. The only problem is as you said, the ability to measure what’s called “hidden variables” which are all the variables we can’t account for in a model or experiment because those variables are either too small to measure, or are not closed to the environment (meaning all things in the casual universe can be considered hidden variables)
Super determinism however is believed to be there. I suggest looking into the work of Steven Wolfram who has established a theory of everything where the universe is fundamentally computational, and fully deterministic (but computationally impossible to predict). Should also look up the work of Fotoni Markopoulou, who worked on a deterministic model of quantum mechanics.
In a way it’s contradictory: there’s no free will and we can chose not to hate someone else becouse he is not responsable of his acts/thoughts, so we can’t choose hate or not hate, Am I right?🤔
Interesante :O
I get the basis of the claim. But this is just a semantic argument - based on a very restrictive definition of ‘free will’. Yes, our behaviour is the product of every preceding physical and biological event going back to the beginning of time, together with the sum total of all of our experiences. But at the present moment we can still choose between two courses of action. Otherwise the future of the universe would be mapped out already. I think quantum physics would also break down if this was the case?
v2. Post 64. May 24th 2021. Why is Sam Harris and Sabine wrong? Man has a mind with free will. But how? And what are the implications? Who is correct - them or me?
The mind of man is "sui generis" [unique entity] that pertains to the identity homo sapiens sapiens [you the reader]. The evidence is because:
"consciousness is an identity which engages free will in the identification of the preceding identity called existence. This implies Aristotle's law of identity is part of existence, so there is truth. And using reason and logic man can find the truth".
The above implies consciousness is therefore separate (to existence as it identifies it), AND potent (as man must exercise free will to distinguish no-thing-ness from something if you are a rational man).
The most sophisticated A.I/ computer, animal or mental patient can Not do this.
The "brain" can Not even do that as the brain is "algorithmic" based upon causality (cause and effect) so there is no room for free will.
Instead the mind can do it as it is perpetual first cause (the effect is your thought and/or actions).
But below I will go further with "life" [not just the mind].
___________________________________
1. Physicists like to think that physics is the foundation and applies to everything [Horseman Dennet has a pyramid that is oft used to demonstrate this fiction].
Paul Davies (physicist) shows that physics is part of a web of relation with other subjects and is Not at all at the bottom of a pyramid (nor is math). The pyramid is a mere convenient structure but its a fiction and therefore fall foul when you dig deeper.
For example: biology is a wholly independent subject; and although dependent upon physics, in contrast physics can NOT penetrate biology!
In "Evolution" [biology] there is exaptation (pre-adaptation). Here, "functions" (not mere features) are abstracted and used for lateral evolution before vertical (refining) evolution .
For example, the wings of a bird evolved for warmth but were useful for escaping predators by gliding (gliding birds still exist). This "function" was selected and the species of this type propated it's genes successfully - and the bird continued to evolve into wings for flying.
Evolution can do in other directions as well of course and Penguins have no wings! It took the incisive application of reason and logic to deduct the penguin is interestingly a bird .
[SIDE NOTE: And why should such "identity" even be considered real? Because Aristotle's law of identity can NOT be proven but it was validated in METAPHYSICS; just like the mind. Indeed it is THE MIND that must use reason and logic to categorize and identify truths. END OF SIDE NOTE].
Your body is filled with functions (like the fact the heart pumps blood and its pericardial sac has fluid that makes a heart sound) - which were selected by evolution in the above way. Your lungs were a function that was selected from the "lung fish" (!) ; your ear drums selected from the jaws of another fish.
Main point and conclusion:
Physics is about prediction. There is absolute no way whatsoever to predict "Exapation/exaptation" in biology; no way therefore to predict evolution in sum totality. This means biology (the science of life) is wholly different to physics as a "Strong emergent property of nature" ; even though biology is dependent upon physics.
The "mind with free will" of man is (most likely) also a "strong emergent" property of nature that pertains only to man. __________________________
IN fact all other species have consciousness (awareness but with No free will) such as a single cell bacterium!
All species including man: take in sense datum, such as bacteria senses the density of nutrients in a petri-dish and then using its motor engine to move forwards in a random direction BUT thereafter OPTIMIZING its journey to take it closest to the most dense region of nutrients! Amazing !
Bacteria and all species including man: takes in sense datum (like light photons that bounce off a red rose, even though the photons have no colors and are a wave/particle duality that hits the back of the eyes.
The "information" is extracted from the photons in a quantum operation that causes the un-twisting of rhodopsin proteins - and in that instance information cascades at incredible speeds via the electro-chemical pathway of neurons throughout the brain on relevant highways to be processes into a binding (yet unknown how this is done in an exact way) and thereafter you re-project the perception of reality constantly and fairly instantly back "out there" with depth perception (even though the back of your eyes are 2D screens nevertheless you see in 3D-esque mode!)
So Sense Datum (information) self organizes into percepts (units of information) stored as memory (how is memory stored in the long term? Yet unknown! What is known is short term memory with synaptic changes: but such molecules dissipate within days). The above enables all animal species to "react" in order to survive and propagate their genes.
Man however instantly and constant turns percepts (units of information) and self organizes into concepts.
Concepts happen with the mind of man. Only man has this property called concepts. Only man has a mind. Science can NEVER find the mind. Man can INDUCT the mind through introspection.
Further to remind you : consciousness is the identification of existence . No other species nor A.I/Computation can do this. This means the mind (with free will) is real for reasons shown earlier in this post.
How does man form concepts? A growing baby sees a small yellow plastic baby chair, a large antique and expensive wooden chair; a mirror; a dog; a rug and their mother.
[MEMORIZE THIS PARAGRAPH below - AND READ IT SEVERAL TIMES ]
Instantly the baby's mind takes in "two or more" existents of existence that are similar (the chairs above) and "abstracts similar properties" whilst differentiating other properties , dropping out the measurement characteristic between the existents.
The baby's mind performs integration and differentiation [reminds me of calculus!]
So the baby abstracts the "Essence" of the chair (even if it does not label it ; nevertheless it exists as a pattern: a perceived regularity). The baby drops the facts between the chairs: old vs new; expensive vs cheap; wooden vs plastic; large vs small ; yellow vs wooden color; AND the baby differentiates the concept "Chair" from other existents in the room: dog, mother, mirror, rug, door and so forth.
Over time the growing baby builds up a colossal conceptual hierarchy and gets to label them with words pertaining to the baby's language. All the above is AUTOMATIC. AND UNIQUELY HUMAN.
So four chairs around a table in the kitchen for example, becomes a higher level concept "furniture".
The kitchen itself is a unique concept consisting of furniture, pots and pans, cooker and microwave; refrigerator and so forth. [Not all these have to be in a kitchen. In fact the marvel of man is that in an empty house man can label the room as a kitchen AS AN ADULT because of grasping and understand the "concept" called Kitchen. This is a uniquely human capacity].
Each room of the house: kitchen, living room (with fixtures and fittings- more concepts); bedrooms, bathroom, corridors, one's own residence and belongings, even family make up the concept "home". But the wider concept is "house".
Houses in the vicinity, along with gardens, public footpath , roads and so forth make up the concept "neighborhood". Many neighborhoods amongst other concepts - make up the concept district then "town" > towns> city> State > states > Nation (e.g. U.S.A ) , nations > continent > continent + oceans > "world" > biospheres : hydrosphere, geosphere, and world make up the "earth" planet > planets and sun make up the galaxy> galaxies and other entities (e.g. stars, moons, dark energy , dark matter, space, etc.) makes up the universe.
There are many concepts up and down the hierarchies that I have left out to make a simple model of how "concepts" are created and exist in a hierarchy in the mind of man. Both mind and therefore concepts are unique to man.
BUT WAIT! Man's mind makes up INCORRECT CONCEPTS as the child grows up: the earth seems flat; and ego-centric biased with the sun rising and falling around you! It takes the scrupulous use of reason and logic (which must be learned, practice and mastered just like reading, writing , driving, typing , math and other man-made skills) to grasp concepts fully and properly
Scientists have NOT grasped the above and have denied the mind of man - a illogical error as all science is dependent upon metaphysics; and there is no science-or-math without the use of reason and logic to interpret it. further there is no "reason and logic" withOut the "mind with free will to exercise the mind".
Also remember a A.I. or computer can do the fastest and most brilliant use of logic yet it does not have the twin engines unique to man : reason and logic - therefore - it can not "Think" and replace man in many tasks!
Also remember computers (and the brain) are intrinsically algorithmic whereas man's mind is non computational and non-algorithmic , a distinct property belonging only to man.
So "plank time" and concepts of science does Not apply to the mind.
@@AmericanBrain Oh god, go take this to a forum where you can discuss this. This is not really the best place suited for such stuff. If you truly believe this as true, talk with people who're actually qualified to talk about stuff like this and don't force things like this upon ordinary people - it's manipulative.
@@sevsev4078 do you understand you have free will ? If you say no- then you are de facto wrong for how would you know
If you say 10+3 = 13 and even an elementary computer or calculator can do it : it does not correlate with a human brain 🧠 or consciousness.
Man and computers work very different . But it’s more than that : there no vestige of consciousness nor free will in computers .
Nobelist Sir Roger gives proof how the mind is non computational and non algorithmic!
I go much further , clear , easier and better : consciousness is the identification of existence . That is a choice , the correct choice in a rational person . This means you have free will . You’re responsible !
@@sevsev4078 a man complained again . I replied :
you asked again “how to create a thought 💭 “
I reply : consciousness is first cause so the “you” creates the thought exercising consciousness.
There is no other , further , alternative , extra , “NEURAL” answer ( because the mind is NOT neurons, brain , chemicals - but wholly different identity , entity ).
Therefore your question has been answered in-depth , clearly , precisely , exactly , specifically , and properly .
---
What’s really going on with you ?
You want to use science 🧪 and/or Math to answer something that can’t EVER be answered using theses “sub-sets” of epistemology ( how to know things to be true ).
You need metaphysics and the method to know truth is epistemology : the twin methods of reason and logic .
So man can induct and also validate the above as truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth to 💯% certainty .
The way to do that is using words: it is the way you come to any and all conclusions even if/when using science or math ( else you end up in mysticism like string theory with multiple dimensions beyond four ; or many worlds physics with you splitting a million times per second on each timeline !!!!!!!!)
Q.E.D.
I understand the way you are thinking, but don't you think the idea of "free will" is much deeper than 'do we have a choice between two actions in this moment'? It's much more complex.
Post 63. May 24 2021. Sabine and Sam Harris is wrong. One of their "Fans" called Ray fought strongly to rationalize the religion called Scientism. They've turned a beautiful and valid methodology into a gross metaphysics that denies you even have a mind. Ray put the strawman argument to me - over and over again - "how does the mind interact with Planck time" ? He strongly argues against the mind (like his mentor Sabine) - not realizing that Planck is the wrong guy to bring up to a battle with me! I replied:
"
LET'S SEE WHAT PLANCK himself had to say - shall we ?
The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics (1931). Max wrote
"I regard consciousness as fundamental...."
______________________________
Ray said to me "Wow. So much rubbish.... rubbish metaphysics". I responded:
1. If the metaphysics is rubbish then you are saying either/or :
a. there is no existence so are you saying you're a ghost ? Like a virtual particle?
b. if you are saying there is no efficacious mind (with free will) then how are you even putting forward an argument in the first place? HELLO!
You have a potent mind as a rational human being but you are incompetent in using it as you have not practiced using reason and logic.
c. and how do you know if you're stating the truth if there is no law of identity?
So your argument is once again - completely demolished using reason
__________________________
You said "Plank time is a reference frame...."
PLANK AGAIN?
Let me tell you about the brains of an ant.
-> But wait! What has the brains of an ant got to do with the "mind of man"?
Analogy was used to demonstrate your strawman: what has Plank time got to do with the mind?
Man has not mated Quantum with General Relativity yet here you are using Planck with the mind! Man knows there is the mega and math that pertains to that and the nano and the math (your Planck) that pertains to that.
Man has NOT joined the above together in a unification BUT that does not mean the nano does NOT "therefore" exist.
In analogy: it does not mean the mind does not exist.
_____________________________
By the way - interestingly the NOBEL 2020 , Sir Roger Penrose - HAS - merged the Plank WITH General relativity theory [Einstein] : advocating that microtubules (organelles within each neuron) are small enough to undergo quantum wave collapse and do so 4 times a second BECAUSE OF YOUR PLANK'S formula, which he Sir Roger has formulated as e=h (bar) / t
e= energy
h(bar) : your PLANCK!
t= time.
He says the above leads to the mind. HIs partner Hammeroff says the brain (neurons, actually organelles within them) are on-board quantum computers.
I put the above in a hesitating way because it is NOT my philosophy. Their philosophy involves admitting Plato at the core of the universe AND making the theory of mind into a PHYSICALIST theory.
My theory (not a hypothesis like they have but validated by reason) states the mind is an independent entity with potency . HOW? No one knows: it's an axiom based upon reason; that you can validate because "Consciousness is the identification of existence" .
So consciousness is a separate identity to existence (the brain) and with free will as it must differentiate something from nothing reaching the conclusion - if - a rational man that "existence exists".
In other words: metaphysics (actuality-reality) : existence , mind (with free will) and identity (truth). How to know truth? Reason and logic.
_________________________
In every Ray post: he wants to know the "plank time" pertaining to the mind and the (strawman) presupposition he is setting up is "if" this can be answered "then" he will buy into the "mind".
I explained to him over many posts that the mind of man is "sui generis" [unique entity] that pertains to the identity homo sapiens sapiens [you the reader]. I told him the evidence is because:
"consciousness is an identity which engages free will in the identification of the preceding identity called existence. This implies Aristotle's law of identity is part of existence, so there is truth. And using reason and logic man can find the truth".
The above implies consciousness is therefore separate (to existence as it identifies it), AND potent (as man must exercise free will to distinguish no-thing-ness from something if you are a rational man).
The most sophisticated A.I/ computer, animal or mental patient can Not do this.
The "brain" can Not even do that as the brain is "algorithmic" based upon causality (cause and effect) so there is no room for free will.
Instead the mind can do it as it is perpetual first cause (the effect is your thought and/or actions).
The Nobel Prize winner just recently Sir Roger Penrose uses Godel's theorem to explain why your mind is non-algorithmic and non-computational using "yet unknown physics".
However, my argument is wider, and better, and precise in the absolute.
Further, the mind is Not the subject of physics or any math; as science is a "subset of epistemology: theory of knowledge, the second branch of philosophy" - whereas - the mind is a axiom of metaphysics (so is existence , mind-with-free-will; and identity in this sequence).
To me, this just does not make sense, it's a case of trying to 'have one's cake and eat it' as the saying goes. There are two issues I have with this.
Firstly he says that no free will is a fact, he knows it. Really? It isn't a proven fact. He may believe it to be the case based on his understanding of the current state of scientific knowledge, but believing something, and knowing something to be definitely so are quite different. No-one knows definitely where consciousness and free will come from at the moment, in future we may or we may never do so, it's just not possible to say.
But then he goes on to say that if we now know there is no free will, that should alter our view of others, the legal system and so on, because people never really made the choices those systems assume that they did. Well, hang on a minute. If there is no free will, we also have no freedom to make different choices about others and such systems, because if we could make those choices that would actually be a demonstration of free will, which he says we don't have.
So, to me, very flawed. The first part in saying that his belief is proven fact, and the second in that if he should be right about the first the second logically cannot follow.
Music is distracting and the video imagery is too. Great otherwise!
Sam stars with a premise that is false, the universe is not driven by cause and effect. His is a Newtonian cosmology which is suitable for many of our daily interactions but not accurate. Still, he is free to believe what he wants…ooops, no he is not.
There's a problem in thinking like Sam Harris does when he concludes on this topic. Try to follow this syllogism: Love and empathy, which Sam promotes as meaningful concepts, are on the same "coin" with hate and apathy, respectively, but on its other side. The problem is you can't have a coin with just one side, no matter how much you'd want to. The same goes for the concepts of good and evil - the one cannot make sense in the total absence of the other. So, what Sam says about eliminating hate and keeping love through interpreting determinism in the way he does seems rather paradoxical. It makes no sense because it's arbitrary and impossible. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to say that determinism does not exist but that BECAUSE it exists, it is necessary to act as if it doesn’t, in order to have the optimal results considering well-being, both at an individual and collective levels. I suggest that since determinism is a valid concept, people are determined to behave better when they know that both themselves (meaning their consciousness) and the others view them as responsible for acting well and for avoiding acting badly. Harris' view leaves no room for that and if that view somehow prevailed humanity could hardly be recognized as such anymore because the beings which it would consist of would resemble robots or ants who merely act in the way they are programmed to act and nothing more. Ultimately, in this view of determinism, a fundamental thing that defines us humans, our feelings, become irrelevant and useless, at best, and counterproductive and troublesome at worst. Because what is the point of hating anybody for whatever evil deeds they commit, or loving another for whatever altruism they possess. No one can be praised and no one can be blamed for just being the way they are and act the way they do if we merely accept that all these just happen and there's no alternative about it. So, what's the point of any emotion if there's no way to change a person's bad behavior to a better one? It seems that there's no utility in having feelings inside Sam's world of determinism that only has room for some kind of robotic rationality. In conclusion, determinism is a real concept, and because it is, interestingly enough, we act and should keep acting as if it’s not, to deterministically do better. That being said, free will is a valid concept too - odd as it may sound when one doesn’t consider the abovementioned syllogism - because determinism makes it such. In this sense, these two concepts, determinism and free will, are not actually in conflict but complementary.
Θεοδωρής Τσιαμίτας, so if I understood what you’re saying in a few words. Determinism exists so Sam is right but what’s the point of living if we act like Sam is telling us because then “life” would have no meaning, i.e. robot ant beings (relative to how little meaning it already has) and therefore we must choose to always fool ourselves into believing that free will exists and endure for as long as we’re alive; so basically the way we view life at the moment is fine as long as we remind ourselves every now and then that it’s all an illusion so why not try and be the best we can be? .......
@@Mrst3lios89 You partly got it right, my friend! My only two clarifications to the otherwise accurate analysis of yours on what I said is that a) Sam is not right because he says that accepting determinism and rejecting free will and responsibility can result in a world of love and compassion that lacks hatred or discrimination. There is no way of having concepts that make sense only within the framework of duality, without their pair. There cannot be meaning in concepts such as love without hate, or good without evil/bad. So Sam is wrong about this. b) I don't view what I suggest as "fooling" ourselves, in the sense that it is rationally accurate to say that the concepts of responsibility and free will influence deterministic creatures such as humans in a positive manner, and thus it's a true fact, not a lie that we need to force against our intelligence. Hence we don't fool ourselves here. As I said, because determinism exists, it is certain that once we decide that we hold one another responsible for behaving well or badly, this truly generates a deterministically better outcome than if we decide that responsibility and free will are of no use. In other words, determinism is an independent mechanism within us - or, as they tend to say in scientific papers, it's an independent variable, and the dependent variables in this case, meaning, the variables that we can control, are concepts such as free will and responsibility. So we throw these at the independent variable - determinism - and see what happens. Well, If you're loved, respected, and appreciated when you do good things, while you're rejected, disrespected, or hated when you do bad things, you will definitely be far more motivated to act well, and thus you will eventually act better, than if love and hate, respect and disrespect, appreciation or disapproval are taken out of the picture when determinism is interpreted as a background that makes these concepts meaningless. In this sense, I say that determinism exists, but so free will and responsibility do, not in the sense that they cancel determinism, but on the next level, in that they truly benefit deterministic beings. I hope I make this clearer than it was. In case I do not please let me know and I'll try again. And thanks for asking, by the way, cause it makes me think this through even further and that's always good. Cheers.
Dude I don’t think you fully grasped Sam Harris’ concept, he is saying that if we accept the fact that who we become and how our consciousness developed during the course of our lives wasn’t due to our own wills and all of the choices we make come from wants that we didn’t create we can collectively become a more compassionate society. He didn’t say it would eliminate hate just reduce it along with egotistical tendencies, Sams view is based on empirical evidence, and perfectly describes how people carry themselves everyday if you ask me. Also evil doesn’t exist in this line of thinking so your syllogistic thought was superfluous
@@ZGM2013 Beautiful. Thank you! Although it still lacks the conclusion I mentioned above, in my opinion.
@@Superqorn Hi there. I think you just didn't pay enough attention to what I have already argued. Sam and you talk about how embracing determinism will result in people becoming more empathetic. I refute that. There is no evidence to support that and it makes no sense. Instead, I argue that by embracing determinism people will become more of what they already are. In other words, if you're already empathetic because of how your brain is wired, then determinism will probably make you even more because you will interpret every wrongdoer as a victim of circumstances rather than being a perpetrator, and so your natural tendency to feel compassion for others will increase. If you're already apathetic or ruthless by nature because of the way your brain is wired, then embracing determinism will probably make you more because you will interpret every wrongdoing that you do as perfectly justified because it will merely be the product of circumstances and if you're not responsible no one can rationally blame you. So why not simply give in to your darkest desires? This is why I talked earlier that compassion is on the same coin as indifference, just on opposite sides. But you cannot have the one without the other. Not everyone will become more empathetic by embracing determinism. There will be many who will just become more nihilistic, and if no one is responsible on what grounds one has a right to stop another from doing whatever they please, even if that is directly harmful to others? The only solution I can see determinism work is under the notion that free will and responsibility must be always applied because when holding people accountable then they deterministically behave differently, and that means better. Do you maybe understand now what I'm saying and how I justify it?
It’s refreshing to see Sam has discovered what the Bible has been teaching for over 2000 years!
Even the Apostle Paul says, “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” NIV
Jesus basically teaches that we are a product of being born to human parents (duh, inherited genes) and our worldly experiences. Which means we will do things we have no control over no matter how hard we try.
But be of Good Cheer! There is a way to over come the nature we were born with! Jesus says we must be born again. Nicodemus asks, “But how can I go back into my mother’s womb?”
Jesus explains to be Born Again is to turn our mind, body and soul over to God. We then can be washed clean by the Holy Spirit, thereby, living afresh each day as we fill ourselves with the Word of God, i.e. TRUTH. If we do this, we will become more like Jesus day by day. Without this Living Hope humans become nihilistic and suicidal! By turning our lives over to a higher power we can become new beings. By praying to God asking Him to change us, the Holy Spirit will reveal to us those things that are preventing us from leading good lives.
This Living Hope is available to EVERYBODY!!! Even murderers, rapists, liars, prostitutes, etc. No one is excluded. But you must admit that you are flawed (sinful) and believe that Jesus is God and has come to save us from ourselves.
This hope doesn’t prevent the natural consequences we, as humans, will suffer. Murderers will still have to go to jail. There will still be hurricanes, death, and worldly tragedies. But God will strengthen us to endure no matter what we go through.
The Bible has been helping people for thousands of years. Even today, it helps people overcome drug addition, alcoholism, negativity, depression, and everything else that ails humankind. I can attest to this. Jesus also teaches that we should not turn our lives over to another flawed human being, we can seek help but eventually it’s us and God. By having a personal relationship with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit we can combat our humanity because The Word addresses the HEART in addition to the mind.
Sam only addresses the mind. Try teaching prisoners to have hope by explaining how their brain works! You can try….
Wistful *
claims free will can't be defined and then goes ahead to debunk what he doesn't even understand. then makes the leap that options are choices and choice is will. then goes on to say that choice is important. it all falls apart. just like sarcasm is lying and sam harris is completely capable of sarcasm which means he is still a liar. classic jew.
So we have no free will, but listening to Sam talk about it should change our ethical choices. Oblivious to his own contradictions. Amazing.
😍❣️So true and BRAVO to the BRILLIANT footages editing & music 🎉 I AM so grateful for all that I have been given so much blessings by the Grace of God (thanks Sam!). Feel the blessings & share them to light up others 🌟🙏🏼💛🌙🥂🍾✨
Terrible music choice. Not suited for the subject and utterly distracting.
The Charlie Brown background music has got to go
Sam thinks that I cannot plan for the future and thus change the path of my life. I cannot have an idea in my imagination, decide to pursue that image, and then go for it. Ideas are unreal, in other words. Interesting, then, that he is trying to persuade us of a set of ideas that will change how we think and act, i.e., ethics. Totally incoherent.
He does not think that you cannot plan for the future and change your life, but that whatever you might think will be your "organic" thinking or an original thought - it doesn't really come by your own free will, but mechanisms deep rooted in your nervous system and how the brain works.
This is not too say that you cannot have an idea in your imagination and decide to pursue that, but this is more to define "where" that idea in your imagination comes from. And with all this, he is not forcing you to be limited but rather the opposite. It is quite liberating in a way!
Seeing your comments, I only understand that you totally missed the point.
You can indeed change the path of your life, but what he is saying is that those multiple paths that you see ahead of you actually came into existence by a set of causes that you had not control of.
An analogy he gives is... You can choose between Vanilla, Chocolate and Butterscotch... But the fact you had only those 3 choices was determined by some events in the past that you had no control of.
Utter complete bullsh*t ! I didn’t HAVE/NEED to write this comment. I CHOSE to.
Of course you had a "need": trying to disprove him. Your belief in free will is stronger than the effort of writing the comment, so here you are.
@@BySkat . And I could say the EXACT same thing about you. So what’s your point ?
You chose, yes, because you have no choice but to chose what you want.
@@ioeluariu8267 there is not even a single atom in your body that you control, although your body is made up of nearly seven octillion atoms. Think of that for a moment. And yet, there is not even a single thought that you could think of without being capable of predicting the exact same thought we are hypothetically talking about. Why not? Well, because it is simply impossible to think before already thinking of anything in the first place.
I was forced to write this comment, pls send help