Disagreement with Sam Harris about Free Will | Lee Cronin and Lex Fridman 

But more specifically, it's about biological idiosyncrasy. That's a vector for novelty, too. The vast majority of people experience life mediated through narrative, and that's the mechanism that deserves more focus. Narrative - story - has structure. It requires that certain roles be filled. This is where non-conscious ideation and macro-level ideology has to be rooted in a way that continues into present tense. If people realize they are selecting from pre-scripted narratives, and that those narratives exert pressure on a social scale, then they can both learn to see themselves participating from the outside looking in but will be unable to change their own behavior. That awareness is off-putting and is avoided. Why? It doesn't comport with our self-narratives. :) Consciousness is social. It's a fraud, too. We are evolved to be deluded, and our delusions are our self-narratives and how we make things hang together, inasmuch as we do that. We are to fear things and want things and in our desperation to belong, be motivated to make change. Emotional discomfort is the engine of change. Desire for social rank (which doesn't even really exist), fear of social exclusion, etc. They consume our "consciousness". Meanwhile, the superorganism is using this monkey stuff to get us to solve its problem of distributing RNA to other worlds since these meat bodies can't hack interstellar travel. But we have stories about how what we're busy doing is for us. Lol.

I don’t believe you and I choose not to

@@Drogers8675 when I first learned free will is an illusion it disturbed me for awhile aswell. But then I realized it didn't fundamentally change how I can enjoy my life. In fact it made me both much more empathetic to other individuals, and stoic in my daily life.

@@redmen2822 it sounds to me like you made a decision that made the most sense to you. I’m happy for you

@@Drogers8675 Man believe themselves to be free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined.

You’re Chuckie!😁

Since we know next to nothing about consciousness, it’s overly simplistic to try to boil its functions down to a simple binary. Scientific hubris always proclaims its discoveries are complete, but that has never been the case… possibly never will be. But yes indeed, the question of “who am I” is worth pursuing!

I've been thinking about this. With randomness, isn't randomness also determined? As in, let's say that randomness occurs by where atoms happen to be in space - at the most fundamental level. Where atoms are in space is defined by their trajectories set in motion long ago at the big bang and in the hearts of ancient stars. Thus, randomness isn't really random at all. Does that make sense or am I completely wrong? I am open to the possibility that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

@@olkid there is the concept of true randomness, mainly described by quantum mechanics. In that particles have probabilities of being in certain states or positions, rather than certanties. My (limited) understanding is that reality at the subatomic level is essentially random/quantum, but determinism emerges at the macro level. At least reality appears to be deterministic at macro levels. So fundamentally reality is actually random, or probabilistic.

@@chuckie5358 that's so interesting. So that would suggest that there's a duality in reality, whereby the reality we experience as human beings (with brains giving rise to subjective experience - even though brains are based on atoms and thus on quantum mechanics) is a different type of reality to what reality is at baseline. Makes me wonder if there would ever be a reasonable viewpoint from which quantum randomness could also be viewed as determined - if that makes any sense at all.

Glad you pointed this out!

Yes. Very true.

If he is the leaf or the river makes no difference at all. In the case of the leaf, it's path is determined by the river. In the case of the river, it's path is determined by the landscape. In both cases they have no other choice than to obey that which is determined.

​@@erikrullestad6709Exactly, the metaphor is still the same.

I was thinking exactly the same. I don't understand how people can't see that the point being made is that, whatever choices you make, you don't choose what you choose. Him saying about dropping it all and becoming a rapper is excalty Harris' point. Why did he say rapper and not painter? He doesn't know. And even if he offers up a reason as to why he said rapper and not painter, he didn't pick that reason - it just occurred to him and he said it. Also, I can understand why people don't understand because the whole point of free will being an illusion (which is an illusion in and of itself) is that, if I were them, with their genes and experiences, I would literally do exactly the same as them.

But you're misunderstanding too. The point that is lacking is that both sides are talking about different versions of free will. Personally, I think the no free will argument is reductionist which is making an assumption that people who argue for it are saying we are somehow supernatural beings. That level of free will is impossible to satisfy. I don't think any person making the argument for free will are arguing against that notion

DFW Arboeals - I had an edible and watched this and trust me when I tell you I could totally follow this brilliant conversation fully, and I am not of this mental caliber sober…

Nothing happens before it occurs. What a lazy argument.

@@Chris-wm7zt Precisely, so therefore there is no one composing the thought, the thought just comes. So where is the agency to author our thoughts, as many believe they have. So the point is we experience thought, rather then construct it.

I think something you may be missing is you didn't choose to be self reflective either. That is a product of what it is to be in your body at that particular time and place.

​@@wilsonj9753 I'm addressing the bigger issue that if self reflection is not one of your own, then what hope does one have in claiming responsibility? Plus I don't think you can prove that self examination is exclusively to responses to body functions. That's like saying the only reason you're arguing with me because your body is triggered. They are many aspects and factors when it comes to one decision including the problem of consciousness.

@@teravega Are you implying there is some non-physical (metaphysical perhaps) reason for making choices and being self reflective? Because that's the only way it's possible to have free will

@@turkeylegs5431 All I'm saying is that there's nothing convincing to be free from all responsibilities. Let alone proving it. You can call it whatever you want but at the end of the day, someone is responsible at a certain point.

@@teravega Free will =\= responsibility. You're using a definition of responsibility that assumes free will. We don't consider animals as self reflective, but their mechanisms are responsible. The biological machine is "responsible", it doesn't matter if it did it through pure free will or not. A murderer doesn't choose the path to become a murderer, but alas they murder.

This guy was not suggesting that Harris posits that his unconsciousness has free will, though I do think he was suggesting that Harris inherently knows this and it annoys him.

​@@Maffmatix Lee said he thinks that's what Sam realized. but what Sam actually says seems to suggest Sam has realized the exact opposite of what Lee "thinks" Sam realized. Sam's words and arguments are pertinent to the discussion of what Sam has "realized" because most of the time people resonate with the logical consistency of their own ideas. as someone who has also "realized" there is no true free will myself (way before Sam ever published a book) i would be quite annoyed by people saying i've actually realized something that i find totally illogical. so yes, anyone can imagine that anyone else has realized the exact opposite of their spoken words, but it just reminds me of the same way religious people argue (nevermind what you say.. deep down you've realized God is real) that sort of thing.

i wish sam was actually in the room for this conversation, strawmans are always lame

I agree with most of this but how I understand Sam's argument is that he doesnt even think we have a "feeling" of free will. At least in the exact moment a decision is made. We maybe afterwards think about how "free" our choise was but that is just another though that appears in consiousness. The exact moment we make a decision or think a thought is absolutely mysterious but we have become used to it because it is the only way anything can appear in consciousness.

I think the free will - quantum physics talk is mixing of 2 different layers of talking about the world.

Can you recommend the most complete Sam Harris vid/talk where he fully explains the “No Free Will” theory he has adopted? I’ve heard a smattering of his take on not having Free Will and they’ve never been entirely convincing. It seems the reason there’s such a debate on this topic is because the definitions aren’t fully ironed out and agreed to. To an addict, striving for Free Will is simply having the power to do the things you tell yourself you’re going to do, or to be free of the addiction -which is experientially the best analog to being able to say “I have free will”. Or put another way, you absolutely know you have something when you’ve experienced it’s lack. As the WestWorld quote goes “Free Will exists, it’s just fucking hard.”

@@OneTribe.Community Hey Max! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pCofmZlC72g.html

I agree and do not understand it either. It especially surprises me when it is done by obviously VERY smart people.

Maybe it’s because Sam’s definitions are flawed from the get go.

@@Chris-wm7zt Like what?

yeah very weak proposal

@@jaysonp9426 we do but Nihilistic views sometimes enter my thoughts that never existed before discovering determinism, I like determinism because it helped me not regret the past knowing I always did my best in a way because I had no other option but sometimes trying at life seems pointless, theres a temptation to always just go with the flow - sounds good if the flow always leads to something positive but it's not always the case. Determinism is something sometimes I think is not always good to know, sometimes its better to enjoy the magic trick without knowing how its done.

I think the connection between Nihilism & Determinism is interesting, because the adoption of the DeterminismTheory (and it IS only just a theory-not all theories ever theorized have ended up true btw) does tend to lead one to think their actions/decisions don’t really matter. IF it was true that Free Will didn’t exist, and if you actually believed to your core that it didn’t exist, then you would only put 1% of your energy into decision-making and be indifferent about the outcome ie) go with the flow, because wouldn’t it all be the same either way? It’s because we actually know there’s weight in our decision-making, and the outcome DOES matter to our life, that we actually have to grind out a decision with the limited info and processing power we have to make a decision. We’re not robots as Harris and most materialist scientists would like to believe … Free Will is an emergent phenomena and therefor is limited, it also syncs up nicely with the evolution of all things.

@@jaysonp9426 when I first believd it to be true yes the first couple of weeks It actually helped me deal with regret and blaming myself for things in the past, then a week of feeling it was all pointless about everything and now mostly not....... I was going through some deep issues at the time so although I am quite philosophical & self reflective generally this was a particularly acute analysis I was putting myself through. I do think of it occasionally but no not often.

Nihilism has literally nothing to do with free will. Is a movie meaningless because it’s already written? The two have zero relation.

I agree with you and that's why I think it is so sad to be an atheist. You have to accept that you are nothing more than a complex machine with a finite service life.

@@mknow1 Why is that sad? And what is the happy alternative?

@@mknow1 Nothing sad about that. You can still feel and experience. Live to enjoy your life. Work towards positivity in your life. Die happy. There doesn't need to be meaning to anything to be happy, just enjoy the ride, while you still can.

@@arhael3594 What is sad is that lack of free will diminishes the value of humans and puts them closer to animals. A cat can be happy with a ball of string. Is a tree happy when the sun shines on it? And happiness itself can be simulated with drugs, easily. So no free will removes a lot of value from what it means to be human. Also with no free will you remove a lot of personal respinsibility from life...just remove the defective machines. Morality then becomes fluid, a product of democracy or autocratic supervision. Grim.

@@iannovak5223 For me the happy alternative is that human beings have souls that are the true essence of us. This soul has free will and can make choices. That's just my belief. I cannot accept that I am nothing more than a slow organic chemical reaction.

the irony

I think what he argues is that - you are the causal chain. Also causality does not necessarily flows only from part to the whole, it also can flow from the whole to the part after establishing the pattern. Check the work of Michael Levin for example and also Karl Friston.

Pretty good analogy. You have no choice on how impulsive you are, how strongly you can feel, how much empathy you have. But you are free to make choices based on your personality.

Humans aren't machines, we are organisms, so we are the little person.

Amen Baby Yoda! I agree… the mystery of Consciousness, that it’s still a black box, seems intertwined with Free Will. How can we claim to be absolutely certain about Free Will when it rides along with something we know little about. Also, I see both Consciousness and Free Will as emergent phenomenon… both are outcomes of evolution. Dolphins, some apes, have a sense of self -an evolved state of conscious awareness, that other animals don’t possess. At one point we didn’t possess self-consciousness, now we do. How is it not then the case that our FreeWill exists along a spectrum, sure it’s limited, but it’s being born in all of us to a differing degree. That’s the theory I subscribe to anyways. And yeah … Sam doesn’t seem to have had a new thought in a long long time.

It baffles me how this ass-backwards view on consciousness is held my so many people.

@@Chris-wm7zt you could expand on that. With reason.

@@Chris-wm7zt Didnt think so

Jesus is my nigga comes to mind.

True, but it frees you from thinking or worrying about it too much. That's why I believe in free will and don't really worry that I may be completely wrong. If I am wrong, no worrying is going to change it. Therefore I continue to live my life as if I have it, knowing I may not, fascinated by the fact that so many people consider their perception of it (whether they assert or deny it) as infallible.

Free will is an easily observable natural phenomenon. Just because you can't work out a coherent concept doesn't negate the very thing on which the concept is based.

@@caricue exactly lmao. When something doesnt align with your worldview, you should maybe change your worldview. Materalists are doing exactly what theists do in trying to fit everything into the worldview

becuz you don't have the access to my mind, you [can only guess] what's going on in my mind and becuz I also don't have the access to your mind, I also [can only guess] what's going on in your mind and becuz neither of us has the access to Lee's and Sam's mind, both of us [can only guess] what's going on in their mind if every single one of us is exactly doing the same [guessing game] have you ever wondered... what are we trying [to guess] from the first place? not to mention every thought that we have and every action that we undertake always derives from our own subconscious selves so you could say that even conscious people are essentially playing [guessing game] with their own subconscious selves it goes on and on at infinitum who am I really? what exactly am I doing here on youtube?

Sam Harris takes an hour lecture to tell you that in order to have free will you have to be able to choose "who you are" and "what you want." That's his whole shpeel. If you understand that free will is there so that you can try to "get what you want" then it isn't really so complicated. You generate behaviors that you predict will bring about a favorable outcome depending on the situation.

You’re on the wrong side of every single thing you brought up in this reply lmao

I agree his stance on covid vaccines are the only thing that I've ever disagreed with Sam on.

@@paullampl1 The worst part is that the whole mandate was based on the belief that the jab would keep you from spreading it to others who couldn't get one. This was not true, and once all the science was in and it was proven untrue definitely, they still kept saying it as if it was true, to this day.

@@caricue you mentioned “they” kept stating it prevented transmission, though it didn’t… but did Harris ever correct himself on that position? Or is he unable to update his worldview as I suspect is the case? Think he’s suffering from a touch of Scientific hubris.

Thank you for stating the obvious. Morality is the stumbling block for arguing the absence of free will. Sin and evil is seen as a blockchain phenomenon and people like Sam Harris are building castles out of sand.....

Sam has always held the position that the Self is illusory. And I think to him it wasn't as much of a Thinking matter as it was an Experiential one. Certain things can only be experienced. You can't logically get to Yellow, you can only experience it.

Your mostly spot on

just because you don't like the implications of something doesn't mean it's false

@@CptVein To you...not to me. I've met Jesus. Yes, there are Bible Believers who actually meet Jesus, but, not all. Why He chooses some and not others, I don't know. As for Jesus, absolutely every belief system, religious or humanist, believe Jesus is created. Only pure unadulterated New Testament Christians believe He is "begotten" of God and not created. I suppose it's a bit like David and Goliath??? A whole earth filled with humans who do not believe Jesus is created and they keep trying always to diminish His status and glory...while a small group of Christians resist those Luciferian lies. As God says "the path to destruction is broad (many people) while the path that leads to life is narrow and few there are who find it. May Holy Uncreated Jesus, through Whom all things are made, make His presence known to you sooner than later.

@@CptVein What part? If it's the part where I wrote "...whole earth filled with people who do not believe Jesus is created"? I'd meant to say "uncreated"...not created. Does that help at all?

@@CptVein Maybe this could help...if an earthly physical human father can also be a son, brother, husband, father, nephew, uncle, employer, employee, sportsman, hobbyist, perhaps a king too....each role having a different perspective and a slightly different 'personality' in each separate relationship (e.g. the man doesn't treat his mother like an employee nor does his relate to a daughter like a spouse)...how much more so in the spirit realm can Holy God be Almighty Sovereign Majestic and Omnipotent etc...as well as "Abba" ("Dad") or Only Begotten Son (named Jesus) and King (over all other kings) or a Helper and Comforter known as the Spirit of God? Mainly so He can communicate with all His people...and they, too, can more easily relate to Him. As well, and most Christian Church Goers do not believe this...the first 2000 years of Bible history is about God creating a People for himself (flesh, culture, dependent, only a few special people got to hear from God), then the next 2000 years God created a nation for Himself (soul, civil, independent, now a group of people Israel who could hear or refuse to hear from God) and THEN (for 2000 years) God revealed and still reveals Himself as the Son (perfect sacrifice, inherits all) and the Returning King (to rule over all) and it's this last revelation of God, as Son, Inheritor and King, which is the glory and culmination of God's 6000 year Plan of Salvation, first, for "all Israel" (not the False Jews Jesus condemned, nor False Christians) and, second, for all humanity. Whereby, each individual soul (not just special people like Abraham, nor a special group like OT Israel) can now each interdependently "walk and talk with Jesus" if he or she and God are so inclined. Also, I think the first 4000 years of the Holy Scriptures (Old Testament) reveals the masculine "law & order" (governance) expression of Holy God...while the last 2000 years (New Testament) reveals the more feminine "grace & mercy" (compassion) expression of Holy God. No!...God is NOT " two spirited", God is NOT "gay", and God is not "three separate gods" or supernatural entities or beings, but, in the Only Begotten (not created like angels, humans) Son of Jesus (God in the flesh) can we find the perfect and full expression of both justice and mercy, both law and grace, both masculine and feminine, and the latter not to be confused with the deviated beliefs of the Deviant Community. As for us humans in general...basically, God's masculinity is deposited into the male (to govern, guard, protect,p and labor on behalf of the female, children and human community) and His feminine expression is deposited in the female (to offer all people and relationships empathy, intuition, wise counsel and, especially, to support godly, good or decent men as they typically battle their way through life...unlike the female who can remain at home, by the hearth, if she so desire...but, I tell you no lie! the man who is hostile, disdainful of or indifferent to the feminine and the female is in serious trouble with God. Equally, the woman who doesn't support and encourage the masculine and the male is also in deep trouble...we have less than 100 years to figure out Who is Holy God and what does He want from His human creation. For me 😇 the Holy God Creator IS Jesus Christ. If you 🙃 don't agree...take it up with Holy God on Judgement Day. Well, I could go on, but, I'm old, tired and sick...can only do so much now and, CptVein, if all you do next is tell me I'm "wrong!"...I'll likely consider that intellectual laziness your "third strike" and will stop playing this 'game' with you... PS I don't find in the Holy Bible half of what I hear taught by Christian Church Goers these days (and for sure not in Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism or Jehovah Witnesses and other such worldly or fleshly, or Phariseeical 'cults' and they, in turn, are often horrified or unsettled by my questions and comments. In fact, after 12 years trying to fit into Churched Christendom, I had to leave and go it alone...almost companionless...but never without Jesus!

There's something refreshing at that kind of laugher in the middle of such weighty conversations. It's like a little peek at the fact that both sides are missing a bigger truth waiting for us all.