@@DANIELlaroqustar well why dont u choose to be constantly happy u have to go trough experience in ur life to feel it but if u control ur brain u wouldnt need to do that mate just think it trouglhy and trough^
@@neverstopaskingwhy1934 haha i had probably written that as a joke not a very good one now that i re-read it sober lol but i understand what you mean and that is quite impossible my friend you can't expect to be constantly happy all your life. Life is hard and we need to go through hard times to experience life , what we can change is how we look at those hard times when they come :)
@@DANIELlaroqustar im glad u understand what i mean because surprisingly a lot of people replying to me dont i dont know how to explain it in other words mate..
@@stylekat there is nothing to misrepresent he talks in circles. I’ve read all of his books. His claim for where morality came from is no better than the claim it came from God. In fact I’d say it’s worse off due to his own sample bias. His argument for there not being God is even more weak scientifically than his claim for morality, but both are flawed on multiple fronts. EDIT: this isn’t a claim that there is a God. I’m just calling it like it is. There is no evidence even on neurological level that there it’s no God. There is no indisputable evidence known or observed that can be provided there is a God either. Science doesn’t hold claims that can’t be disproved.
@@OfficialNattyOrNot that's not even close to my point. You can disagree with anything Harris says, but I'm saying people misrepresent his statements. For example, Harris could says morality doesn't come from religion, and some people would say "Harris says religious people are evil". My point was more a comment on the previous comment, I hope I've made myself clearer.
@@stylekat what I’m saying is how is he expressing himself clearly when he talks in circles? That’s just a waste of time and brings no clarity is my point.
People shouldn’t be depressed by learning they have no free will. When you watch a movie it’s still exciting even though the beginning middle and end is already set in stone. Having no free will doesn’t change the fact that you don’t know what will happen next in your life
depression is a short term feeling you get, acting like a mechanism telling you theres stuff going on that isn't good for you. It's not a disease you catch. Same thing as love being a verb, not a state
@@alejandramarquez6804 I totally understand. I did the best with my two girls, and I had no idea what I was doing. They are wonderful adults now and found guys that are a lot like dear old dad, so I couldn't have been too far out there. I also take total credit for their success, not because I did anything in particular, but because I would definitely get blamed if they turned out badly. I'm sure you are a fine mom. Only a truly good mom could feel that guilty already!
@Sam K You constructed that comment in a very peculiar way Sam. "my largest mistakes" is about you and your choices, but "if literally one thing didn't happen" is something outside of you and your choices. Are you saying that you chose badly because of outside events or that you chose correctly, but outside events thwarted your efforts? Or something altogether different?
@Sam K Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The fact that you have to live your life as if you had free will does make it kind of useless to say there is no free will, true or not. I used to point out to my kids that you cannot guarantee success in any endeavor. You can do everything right and chance can smack you down, but if you do your best, things will probably be OK. On the other hand, you absolutely can guarantee failure. There are tried and true methods that work every time. I think 22 years old is a little early to write yourself off as a loss. Your choices today are what define you, not your past. Good luck.
Free will is when you decide for yourself what you WILL do, FREE of coercion (e.g., a gun to the head) or other undue influence (e.g., hypnosis, mental illness). It is not "freedom from causation". That's an irrational concept. (see marvinedwards.me/2019/03/08/free-will-whats-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/ )
@Stephanie Mujan Sorry, but causation is not the same as coercion. Coercion is when someone holds a gun to your head forcing you to subjugate your will to his. It makes a meaningful and relevant distinction that we use to establish responsibility for your actions. Causal necessity, on the other hand, applies equally to all events, making no meaningful or relevant distinctions between any two events.
Free will is not about choosing what we are. It is about choosing what we "will" do. Free will is literally a freely chosen "I will". And that choosing operation actually happens in physical reality. Free will is not "freedom from ourselves", but only freedom from coercion and other forms of undue influence. And that is sufficient for moral and legal responsibility.
@@marvinedwards737 - The thing is, Marvin, that what we will do is not freely chosen. Our subconscious mind decides what we will do, and our conscious mind takes the credit. Free will is a very persuasive illusion.
@@holyworrier I don't know why people think that free will is some kind of subjective experience. Free will is an empirical distinction. Either I am a sane adult that made the choice myself, or that choice was imposed upon me by someone or something else. Free will is literally a freely chosen "I will". Now there are some things that my choice cannot be free of. It cannot be free of me, because if it was them it would be someone else's choice. Nor can it be free of reliable cause and effect, because every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires (and thus subsumes) a world of reliable causation. So, what is "free will" free of? It is free of coercion and other forms of undue influence, such as a mental illness, hypnosis, authoritative command, and other factors that compromise my control over my choice. And these are precisely the things that are assessed when assigning moral or legal responsibility for one's actions. It shouldn't matter whether my subconscious or my conscious mind is making the decision. They are both me. And if my subconscious is going to decide to rob a bank, then it had best coordinate the affair with my conscious mind, because they will both end up in prison. Right?
@@marvinedwards737 If you dig down deep enough into a determinist position, it requires that free will be metaphysically free from any influence, of any kind, even of yourself, with total knowledge of all past and future entanglements, plus unlimited power to do any action whether physically possible or not. This is the freedom of a god, but they insist it is the only freedom that matters. I think they are secretly afraid of eternal damnation and so can't allow themselves even the simplest preference of ice cream without letting the great fear loose inside.
@@caricue Hmm. Then I'd say that no one except the hard determinist would hold such a position about free will. Most people consider free will to be simply a choice that they make for themselves free of coercion and other forms of undue influence (mental illness, etc.). There have been many studies about what most people think "free will" is. Here are a few: www.brown.uk.com/brownlibrary/nahmias.pdf www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027714001462 And most recently this one: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-009-0010-7
Is that soul crushing? & Do you have more or less faith in the governments, politics, rulers? What is the first thing you would improve for daily life where you live?
@@nickolas.vicenteyou choosing to eat steak because you WANT TO . Can you control the want? Can you tell that you WANT icecream instad? No. You can eat icecream instad but that is already determined by xyz factors such as , you are lazy to cook steak , there is no steak in your possession and so on. The urge in your brain is still that you WANT steak. You can say that you want x but you will pick vegetables instad because you WANT to be healthier. The urge never changes. The justification does but the path is leading you straight every time.
@@jonathanwiggins5366.... and that is the problem. We have an internet filling with debating celebrities. Being articulate and eloquent should not be confused with being right. However, the fans of these celebrities do it all the time. That's why I dislike "A" v "B" debates. Truth had nothing to do with who "won" the debate.
He's getting the movies confused. One is about everyone being in a machine controlled fake reality called the "matrix" and the other is about a disobedient whale.
Imagine watching Free Willy and coming away with the impression that it was about a 'disobedient whale'. Let's hope Sam finds that psychopathy cure soon.
Thank you Sam. I have felt this way since my early 20s. In 30 years I haven't been able to have this conversation with anyone in my circle of influence. So very nice to see someone else on this line of logic, right or wrong.
Same here. People REALLY REALLY REALLY love their idea of free will. Almost every argument I hear for free will involves some serious mental hoops being jumped through.
@@leocarbaugh5074 "Almost every argument I hear for free will involves some Almost every argument I hear for free will involves some serious mental hoops being jumped through. being jumped through." Yea? what are those serious mental hoops? *Why do you chose to believe you are just a preprogramed robot.* Let me read about the hoops you are jumping though.
@@williamwhitten7820 You may have a glitch in your programming. Anyways, I don't believe it's PRE-programmed as in being set ahead of time but we don't choose where we are born, our genetics, how we are raised, or the people we grow up around, and those things seriously effect our disposition on things. There is a sense in which we can choose but it's not the type of choice most people think we have. For example, I can go to the ice cream store and I'm offered either chocolate or vanilla ice cream. So let's say I choose chocolate. Well when did I choose to like chocolate more than vanilla? I didn't. Also neuroscience has pretty much proven that free will doesn't exist in the ordinary sense. In a particular experiment, they were able to see the brain activity associated with a person's reaction before that person even knew what they were going to do. Sorry if I offended your idealism, no need to be triggered by it, which by the way, almost every person who argues for free will to me seems to act just like you did. Your question, "Why do you choose* to be a preprogrammed robot" is a question already based on your bias, it begs the question, so I don't even know why I replied to you because it seems clear you will deny everything I say, no matter how much it makes sense. Also, don't think about a pink elephant, let me know how that worked out for ya.
@@leocarbaugh5074 says, "Also neuroscience has pretty much proven that free will doesn't exist in the ordinary sense." Is that right Carbaugh? Science conveniently stops progressing at the moment it tells you that "free will doesn't exist"? This is a very new bandwagon. What is Free Will? *Free Will* ;the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. Similar: volition, independence, self-determination, self-sufficiency, autonomy Consider the political implications for the principles of unalienable rights. These principles are already under attack by the Neo-Marxist leftists and their Wokist secular 'religion'. So now add to this the bullshit from so-called neuroscientists like Sam Harris. Sam Harris is an atheist...with no ethical standards, no moral limits. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NsSlobq8aoc.html Sam Harris: *"it was warranted to bury the Hunter Biden laptop story'... I don't care if Hunter had the corpses of children in his basement, I would not have cared...that does not answer the people who say it's completely unfair to have not have looked at the laptop in a timely way and to have shut down the New Your Posts Twitter account, that is a left wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump, absolutely it is, but I think it was warranted."*
Whether or not you agree with the full extent of Sam's perspective, this is a fascinating point of view and a good exercise in increasing your empathy for strangers.
Not about empathy. It's about being rational vs emotional. Emotional people want to punish criminals just to feel right, rational ones would rather fix the people if possible.
@@infiltr80r What utter nonsense! First of all we punish people as a form of payment for their crime. This for one deters others from doing the same crime(probably the most important reason for the punishment), it brings a feeling of closure to those that were affected(would you want to live in a world where people could hurt your loved ones or you and get treated with kid gloves) and finally the person gets what he deserves. There is not a person on this planet(unless they are clinically retarded) that doesn't know that what they are doing is a crime or immoral yet they still do it. No, what we need to focus on is getting the punishment right, not too much not too little and stop overindulging on empathy and "understanding" them, leave that to psychologists. Sam Harris is a snake oil salesman, he is peddling a VERY dangerous idea out there. Whether this is his intention or not he is in effect attempting to remove the you from you and the innevitable conclusion for many will be the absolution of responsibility and trust me when I say human beings are very good at playing it up when they get handed a powerful tool like this, they will faign all sorts of things. Of course no one is against rehabilitation but this idea that i suddenly need to extend empathy to criminals and unsavory characters is utterly moronic. This doesn't mean that I will hate them till the end of time or hate them at all but I think someone forgot to tell this douchebag that there is nuance out there and a gradation and YES human beings are a tad more complicated than fucking robots.
@@justjessi7026 I'm sorry if it's hard to hear. why didnt it occur to you to not choose to do it? were you really free to do what didnt occur to you to do/think? no. I understand you have a lot of questions in your mind etc so it's hard to accept but if you listen to his talks and really think about it you will realise how it works more and your emotions will vanish.
@@drquantum6548 what a great way to get away with everything, though. "I didn't have a choice, i murdered that guy because of my environment and biology. I had nothing to do with it." Or "I'm not a total loser because i made terrible decisions, its because it was always predestined! Its not MY fault." Thats a special class of loser. YOU are not some wispy little cloud stuck somewhere in the folds of your brain. You ARE the sum of your environment and biological processes that govern your life. Thats YOU, its not something seperated from you, its you! When you end up in the chair because your best excuse for killing all those people was "it was destiny" it will be the same combination of environment and biology that dies on that chair. Just because you can predict or manipulate the behavior of other people doesnt mean choices werent being made and its not a good enough excuse. I may not be 100% responsible for my place in this world, but i am responsible for it, and i made the poor choices that got me here. Otherwise, i wouldn't even be aware enough to wonder if i made a choice, the way the gears on a clock aren't aware that they're spinning. So, yeah. My insecurity about this is my choice. I choose to take responsibility and not be an automoton. You can choose whatever you want. The chair will make sure you don't have free will either way
This is the realization I quickly came to concerning my ex-wife, who was/is a sociopath and engaged in various harmful behaviors. We tried everything to move away from this and I loved her dearly. But despite all kinds of efforts and expenses, she was unable to stop, so we parted ways. I quickly dropped my resentments for her and understood that she was her nature. All these things said, no one should tolerate harmful behaviors from their partners or friends, call it out, and move away or cut off the relationship.
If she were messing with your kids lives selfishly and unaware of her programming, you may take preventive action even if you didn’t hold her personally responsible. People misidentify taking corrective action for anger.
@@jamesppeschyou wouldn’t say this if he was dating Jeffery dharmer. Should we be nice enough to assume that they have done a brain scan and found out she has these tendencies because that’s the only solution we both have to our comments❤
And if you continue to choose the same choice that you know to bring suffering, you keep trying until you choose right. The will is a muscle that needs to be strengthened.
@@LA-jr6pt well why dont u choose to be constantly happy u have to go trough experience in ur life to feel it but if u control ur brain u wouldnt need to do that mate just think it trouglhy and trough^
well why dont u choose to be constantly happy u have to go trough experience in ur life to feel it but if u control ur brain u wouldnt need to do that mate just think it trouglhy and trough^
I've been saying this for a long time. I have severe ADHD that I can thankfully largely control through many interventions. But what about the people who can't ? When I lose control, I genuinely do not have it, I am a complete passenger to whatever is happening. How many people like me are in prison undiagnosed, locked in solitary confinement? Heavily punished for ever rather than treated?
That's why he said that, while it is unfortunate, we have to play the cards we are dealt and lock up people that put in danger other people's integrity/well being, but simultaneously continue to research and come up with better understanding, therefore better methods to deal with such events.
Well, i am suspicious since recently that i may have adhd, or BPD, and anxiety disorder. 28 years old. Rediscovering who I am and discovering that nobody knows who I am, even parents take my illness as a character trait. Years wasted being blamed, bullied physically, abused wordly, blaming myself...blah blah blah. Can you give advice? Will it get a bit better or a lot? Cause psyciatry in central asia is not developed.
@@CATDHD I have autism and because of this i have anxiety and i get overstimulated sometimes till the point that i can't think straight anymore. I have less anxiety when i exercise alot so i think that is really important. And also finding things your passionate about is great to give your mind focus. When you can't let thoughts go write them down to let things make sense for yourself. And if you have people close to you that can help you on your journey i would say be very clear about what your limits and struggles are but also tell them your goals and things you think you can and want to do. A little self doubt is healthy though so if people close to you think differently about you than you do yourself try to see where they are coming from and change your perspective if appropriate. But try not to worry about things you can't control and don't try to explain yourself to people that are not with you on your journey. Even to people close to you i would not endlessly try to explain myself if i feel that they don't understand me. Say the most important things that you need to say in a very direct and clear manner and keep it at that. I myself also really had to learn how, how much and to who i should give particular information. I hope this helps and take care of yourself.
Find peace within yourself at the present, and seek purpose in its many forms. Some things are indeed beyond our control environmentally, and we all have experienced “going along for the ride”. Society has established a moral code through religion and cultural practices, which we all have morals but morals confines us into categories; when life is dynamic and not fixed to a single path. Making peace with the present and progressing forward with purpose is all we can do. Cheers and all the best
Free Willy, Free Will and Finally Free Will, the third instalment of the trilogy. The third movie is not a typo, while the second movie was still about liberation, the third movie was about reality setting in, and the liberators deciding that Will was being wasted in the open ocean, and should instead be made free for the Japanese.
I've tormented by such thoughts for years now. Everytime I hear of someone that did something bad, I want to judge him, I want to despise him, but then I'm revisisited by the same thought; that person was a baby at one point that in no way thought they would do such bad things and just became misguided at one point in their lives.
He's on point 👌 This sort of realization is what developes the deepest empathy. This doesn't excuse wrong actions, but makes them more understandable, and takes the personal hard feelings between others out of your life.
@@Mishkola no thats still wrong, weither or not i can empathize and understand how someone ended up at such a poor belief system in this day and age is not the same as actually agreeing with their actions or supporting them...... In fact youd probably have to kill a person who did actions against others based on his beliefs (like killing an "inferior"race w/e that means) but you can still morn for the lost of a human being regardless......
@@technomage6736 The action of taking on a deterministic mindset allows you to have empathy for those that violate your ethics, since they had no option to do otherwise. The same deterministic mindset gives us liberty to engage in eugenics (psychopathy is significantly heritable, for instance), and genocide (there are racial differences in IQ, and IQ has ramifications for criminality). If we are to be deterministic, we can reason that we'd be doing humanity a service by eliminating those predisposed toward antisocial behaviour.
That equation is not quite correct and there actually should not be a reason to talk about nature and nurture in the first place. The reason you talk about it is to sell the idea of cause and effect. So yes your thoughts and decisions have a cause but those are certainly not limited to what you mentioned. In fact the "real" cause is way more complicated than a human mind could ever explain with categories. All one needs to do tho is to ask the question of determinism. And independent on the answer (like Sam mentioned, putting randomness in the equation doesn't change a thing on your "free will"-question), the concept of a free will is flawed no matter what. So that's the cool part of it, you ask a question and even tho you will never know the answer, you can still draw conclusions and view other people from a different perspective
Free Will is a mental construct. We can either attribute our thoughts emotions and actions to Free Will or not. There may even be a combination of both.. The reality is we can't prove or disprove either.
Joe Rogan doesn't have it quite right. When you understand the concept of free will you know that criminals became criminals because they were pawns in their world of genetics and a stream of outside factors. So technically punishment would be for actions outside of their control. But rehabilitation and positive change would be due to those same factors. So accolades are sort of the other side of the coin of punishment.
Rehabilitation requires free will. The point of rehab is to change how a person makes their decision's in the future. Making one's own choices is the operational definition of free will. The philosophical definition "freedom from reliable causation" is an irrational concept. But the operational definition: "deciding for yourself what you will do, free of coercion and undue influence" is meaningful and relevant. It requires nothing supernatural. I makes no claims to being "uncaused". And yet it is sufficient for both moral and legal responsibility.
@Marvin Edwards One of the problems with discussing free will is the term "free will" is confusing. There is a free will that comes when someone is free to choose chocolate or vanilla ice cream. That isn't exactly what Sam Harris is talking about. He is talking about all of the many thousands of factors that go into those decisions with perhaps the most significant aspect being that none of those factors are of the person's doing. We are pawns, or perhaps more accurately, our behavior and psyche are pawns to outside influences.
@@randallanderson1632 But the idea that we "are pawns to outside influences" is empirically false. Most of the causes of our choices are found within us. The interest in the outcome of our choice is owned by us. So, the many figurative ways that hard determinists typically use to communicate our lack of control turn out to be literally false. I go into many of the deceptive suggestions that create the "free will versus determinism" paradox here: marvinedwards.me/2019/03/08/free-will-whats-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/ If you're curious about another way to view this problem, take a look.
@Marvin Edwards What causes of free will are found exclusively within us that have no outside influences? You wrote "The interest in the outcome of our choice is owned by us." What constitutes "us"?
@@randallanderson1632 Well, you have inanimate matter that responds passively to physical forces. Then you have biological organisms that are animated to survive, thrive, and reproduce. They exhibit "purposeful" or "goal-directed" behavior. Then you have intelligent species, with an evolved neurology that enables imagination, evaluation, and choosing. They display "deliberate" behavior, caused by calculation and reason. They can choose the specific means of achieving their biological purpose. And this is what we call free will. We happen to be physical objects that are also biological organisms of an intelligent species. We are sources of all three levels of causation: physical, biological, and rational. Our choices are never free of causation (nothing is ever free of causation, it is an irrational concept). So that's not what free will is actually about. Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, free of coercion (e.g., "a gun to the head") and other forms of undue influence (mental illness, hypnosis, and any other extraordinary influence that effectively removes our control of our choices). Our choices are NOT free of ordinary ("due") influences. From the moment we're born we are negotiating with our physical and social environment (e.g., the 2AM feeding) for control. Do you have any issues regarding what a "self" is?
I have heard exactly zero arguments in favor of free will that aren't already consistent with the idea that there is no free will. One example is that it's pointless to have criminal justice if we have no free will and aren't at fault for our actions. The answer to that is criminal justice will influence our behavior in a positive way in society so that we don't suffer, which therefore makes it useful. I don't really see a downside to accepting free will is an illusion. If anything it can cause us to have more empathy and forgiveness rather than being full of hate when hate is not useful.
Exactly. I think people are reluctant to think too deeply into our lack of free will because they want to take credit for everything they’ve accomplished and they want to blame other people for their own shortcomings. Praise and punishment still have a place in a society that understands its lack of free will. They are just two sensory inputs that manipulate future behavior in the individual praised/punished as well as those who are aware of said praise/punishment
I have felt similarly to Liam. When someone you love it hurt by another, your initial rage could be easily misplaced onto another individual of similar description. Rage can be extremely dangerous and toxic and harmful. It’s to his credit, and my own that we did not act upon this feral animal impulse and hurt someone not even affiliated with the original tragedy. However, these are issues humans have to discover and deal with. We are animals and are constantly evolving and overcoming our basic psychological issues. Nobody should be attacked for admitting to those feelings. It is more of a teaching moment. Not a time to scrutinize and judge.
as the doctor of my brother with bipolar said, free will and responsibility aren't the same. Some people have free will and drink and drive. Some people don't take their medication and spend all their money and end up homeless.
Freedom from reliable cause and effect is an illusion. Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, free of coercion or other undue influence. Philosophers have managed to confuse a simple operational definition with an irrational abstraction.
@Survivalist395 I decided to have a Whopper at the Burger King at the airport for lunch. No one held a gun to my head. I was not under hypnosis. I'm neurotic, but that didn't decide my choice. So, yeah, I'm pretty sure my choice was free of coercion and undue influence. It would make no sense to view reliable cause and effect as coercive or undue. I couldn't live, much less choose, without it. Each of us is a collaborative collection of reliable causal mechanisms that keep our hearts pumping and our brains thinking. Causation isn't some external force acting upon me. Only specific causes, like a guy holding a gun to my head, or a brain tumor, or other extra-ordinary influence can remove my control over my choices. And, if Harris thinks otherwise, then he's mistaken. You may find this post interesting: marvinedwards.me/2019/09/15/why-determinism-doesnt-matter/
People who say we don’t have free will, say so because it is psychologically comforting to relinquish effort and responsibility and drift on a cloud of fatalism.
Relinquishing effort is closer to Nihilism. Fatalism is accepting Fate, but after the fact. There is a two paths problem with all of this, and we cannot predict the future with any certainty, so we have to live our lives as if we are the agent of change. Some have said they have Freewill, but they couldn't have done otherwise. It's all about looking at the past and learning, and moving forward.
nailed it mn, same with “there is no absolute truth” it’s an excuse to not contemplate the truth very hard. to never have to stand up for anything. the only thing they ever quarrel over is people not letting them just be hedonistic wastes of life. look at them. sapolsky and harris couldn’t function in an engineering office, drive a rig, operate a skid steer, split kindling, stack a chord of wood, please a woman, carry an injured comrade… they truly have no will. their only mistake is that they project it onto real people who do.
@@richtomlinson7090 Both Nihilism and fatalism to me are flawed ideas, and they facilitate the same thing though different means, nihilism says there is no meaning so why bother. Fatalism says its all pre-set so why exert yourself when its all already laid out for you. Both seem like excuses to relinquish the effort, the responsibility a person has for there own life and actions. I do think life as outcomes that your destined to have, because you are a certain way and will inevitable respond to situations according to your nature. But what irritates me about determinists is that they encourage an unhealthy belief system.
@@alexapostu1001 it was just a joke about how not understanding a very complex concept like free will makes it seem like there is not a problem at all because I still feel like I decided to write this comment. It's like: Me and Sam in the bar: Sam Harris: Free Will doesn't exists because every action has a cause... Me: lol but look I just decided to buy coke instead of a beer Sam harris: yes but those decisions were caused by forces out of your control and... Me: no no look, I am now changing my mind and buying beer, I decided that just now! Sam Harris no that's not what I mean- Me: look now I am deciding to make the fornite dance Sam harris: noooo you can't just say you decided something! Me: hahaha free will goes brrrr
@@Prisoner You completely missed the point, the reason why you hold these attitudes is because of ideas (memes) that were formed over a long time before you were born. If you with your exact same brain was born in Medieval Europe or Imperial China your perspective on these things would have been vastly different. The reason why you even chose to purchase these things is because you have an innate preference for those flavours.
Becoming an addict myself gave me these ideas before I had ever heard of Sam Harris or this conversation in general. People in that industry/life even use the “like diabetes” analogy. Still though, it’s very difficult to think of an addict not making the free choice to use and continue that self harm, especially when you’re the person behind it
What? It is literally called a disease at this point. Making the free choice to use is not the same for everyone. Drug Of Choice is common place amongst drug and alcohol therapists. Meaning that people with different brain chemistry have different reactions because of said drugs. Sounds like you take social stigmas very seriously. Being an addict is a terrible thing while the U.S. is the obesity capital of the world. Don't call them fat and hurt their feelings but call addicts junkies every chance that you get. They use the term like diabetes because people over eat and become diabetic. Using the substance is not the problem. The addiction is the problem. Eating doesn't cause diabetes. Over eating does. Using drugs is not the problem the addiction is. Maybe you should actually seek counceling and you would learn these very basic things.
@@Onthebrink5 what I learned from 5 years of counseling is that I am an empowered chooser, addiction was a label I hid my choices behind to make me feel better about the damage I caused by choosing happiness from the bottle over happiness in other ways... Addiction and recovery are (mostly) lies told to us by the grandiose and pervasive recovery culture in the West. I have the power to choose, whether it is truly an illusion or not doesn't matter so much if I fully believe I have the power to make new and different choices (the same way but in reverse that Anonymous programs force you to believe you are "powerless"). Sure, brain chemistry plays a role. But most people have relatively normal brains and while drug use may change pathways or structure to an extent, imaging studies show the brain returns to normal after about a year off substances. The outliers, like people with brain damage or other factors that predispose then to addiction are a more difficult case to apply these principle to, hopefully with advances in neuroscience identifying and treating those cases will become more commonplace. However, this does not mean that those same people wouldn't be far better off believing that addiction is a lie told by people who want to make money off of addicts. Even if people with broken brains could come to believe in their own neuroplasticity and epi-genetic processes and abilities, as opposed to being told they are powerless and doomed to death if they use substances, maybe we would see more people choose a pattern of use or abstinence that led them to increased happiness. Why do you think more people get sober without treatment and the highest rates of relapse are after inpatient rehabs? And if free will does not exist everything we are both saying doesn't so much matter... We just have to enjoy the discussion and the ride and live life to the fullest we possibly can under the predetermined circumstances.
@@thisisgettingold If free will doesn't exist it still matters. Nothing changes. People just need better outside influences. An addict doesn't change on their own. They need a push in some way. It might not be a complete cutoff but they do not change on their own. Nobody gets sober on their own. I could give two shits about being sober. Most addicts that become sober are miserable for the rest of their lives. Counting every single day, Going to meeting after meeting. Tons end up using religion to fill that that void. You yourself seem to believe that relapsing is a negative thing. I do not. Some people need drugs to be happy in this world and others tell them they are scum because of it. I do not believe being sober is some great thing. I have met so many miserable ex addicts. It is similar to mental health problems. An ssri might not work. Some people do not create the right amount of endogenuous opiod peptides. Similar to people with low dopamine or serotonin. Using selective mu 2 opiod agonists can create a much happier life for these people or a positive allosteric modulation of the mu opiod receptor could be fantastic for depression.
I also independently came to this conclusion before I knew it was a recognized philosophy as the result of trying to explain the state of my life in addiction
I think he did talk about "higher" (what is that supposed to mean?) consciousness. He does a lot of meditation and does talk about spirituality and the bottom line is that there is no ego/entity and that the feeling of "i" really just is an illusion (which already negates the concept of a free will since there is no one to have it).
@@s1nnl0s Many scientists reject the sort of reductionism that is often mistakenly associated with science. There are rational arguments in support of the view that free will exists. Agency, choice, and control are emergent, higher-level phenomena, like cognition in psychology and institutions in economics. When we understand human beings as intentional agents, they shouldn’t be viewed as determined.
@@esteemedscholar5969 Free will as it is understood by the majority is in itself paradox, this is just a result of simple logic. So there certainly are no logical arguments in support of the existence of a paradox concept like free will
It's interesting to hear culture and upbringing described as an operating system. All your life choices, whom you choose to love, whom you choose to hate and any annoying quirks people develop over time may not have anything to do with free will according to this theory.
@@epicbehavior Because people think that at some point in life that you start making choices. Like free-will develops and matures as the person gets physically older. Therefore choosing love, career etc is the persons decision. Funny thing about that is that people just say "The heart wants, what the heart wants" so most acknowledge love isn't choice, it just happens.
I wish they went the full way. When you put this together with the fact that 90+% of crimes are related to finance in some way, you begin to see the economic system is the root of all our problems.
"You are the totality of what brought you here" I love that. Its not robotic it gives weight to our choices and actions. Because what we choose influences the environment and totality of what got the person you love most to where they are for egs.
It’s evolution, it has to go through stages. For example: internet. The human race didn’t just decide one day that they wanted internet.. we probably never even thought something like that would EVER be possible. We had to grow and develop so many other things before we could accomplish that. So even if we don’t have “free will” there will always be a learning curve and the unique thing about humans is our ability to communicate complex thoughts and emotions with almost no limitations since we are still discovering things about ourselves and our world each and every day
@@AloeHahh you can’t properly explain why you like your favorite food or favorite movie buddy. You don’t get to pick what you like and don’t like, you just do and don’t.
I've been listening to Sam Harris for literally years and it's so funny that he's become more relaxed about the language he uses now. 3:01 I mean that may not seem like a big deal to people who just became familiar with him because of Bill Maher. But he used to be squeaky clean when the Four Horseman were still a thing.
I remember the first time Sam went on the JRE and Joe was swearing and stuff, I think Sam even swore. I had no clue who Joe Rogan was but I hated him for posting a video with Sam swearing because you're right, he never used bad language anywhere else lol.
He's being a social chameleon and trying to fit in with Joe's level of thinking and most of his audience, in tossing in certain cuss words here and there. At a consciousness symposium he will not speak that way.
This is a very meta subject. By looking at past events we see how cause and effect dictated the outcome of how things are now. Moving forward we can foresee different possibilities for how things will turn out. We feel that we have choices as we move towards what we desire through willpower and sustained focus. Our desires are a resulting effect from a previous cause. The human animal is a machine but is also an illusion. In reality you are something more fundamental - A process of Subject and Object that is expressed as the present moment. Beyond the illusive distinctions within "objective reality", this is where free will exists - The first cause. Be mindful and present in the moment and choose your focus.
I'm beginning to become astounded by how many of his followers can't see the contradiction and paradoxical nature of his argument and reasoning. Seduced by the ASMR voice...
I think free will is one of those dualities of the universe we cant get rid of. We can choose to do whatever tf, but we cant choose to do what we cant, just like light is both a particle and a wave
well why dont u choose to be constantly happy u have to go trough experience in ur life to feel it but if u control ur brain u wouldnt need to do that mate just think it trouglhy and trough^
I think that’s conflating two different meanings of the word free. Sam is denying the freedom to act or think in a way not determined by things beyond your control but isn’t denying the ability to act or think in a way that’s that isn’t restricted by authoritarian governments or institutions or cultural conformity etc. His argument if true would allow for ppl to think freely in the sense that there are cultural taboos or legal penalties for having certain thoughts but not for thinking freely in a way that wasn’t wholly the outcome of things beyond the thinkers control such a environment genes etc
@@ataraxia7439 Incorrect. Let me put it to you this way: Without free will, Sam is biologically and environmentally DETERMINED to hold this view on free will. So therefore he had no choice or free will in the matter. Therefore he has no freedom of truly thinking through what is most reasonable and rational, since he is determined to come to a certain conclusion and pattern of thought anyway. Free will is an all-encompassing mechanism that touches all aspect of life, not just the things we “choose” to act on. It includes our “choice” of what to think about, what to feel, what to enjoy or not enjoy. All of this is determined without free will. This brings up the question: If Sam really believes that he has no free will, and that you and I have no free will, then why is he going on talk shows and podcasts trying to convince me that I have no free will? Under his view, I am determined to either agree with him or not, regardless of the facts.
@@willdaugherty2842 I don't think being determined to do something is the same as not having choice. Having a choice just means you could have done differently had your intention been different, not that your intention was undetermined by things beyond your control. Even in a purely deterministic view of the universe, there's still a difference between me choosing chocolate icecream over vanilla and me being forced to have chocolate icecream over vanilla regardless of what I want or try to do. I think Sam Harris is going onto talk shows and arguing his views because it'll influnce some people towards what he sees as positive even if whether or not ppl have that reaction is determined by things beyond their control.
@@ataraxia7439 Unfortunately, it seems like you have a skewed view of scientific and philosophical determinism. It is logically impossible to be determined yet to have free choice. I appreciate your desire to find a way to have both, but it’s irrational. Why deny free will when you yourself are recognizing that you have the choice between different things? There’s a difference between what sounds good and what is actually true. You can’t combine determinism and free will.
There is still the implication of action through the use of tools. I would concede that we have conditional will, there are unseen forces that have tremendous weight on our character, our temperament, and how we look, however, you still have to make choices. One can say, you dont have a choice but to make choices. You have to play this game, whatever style. Even inaction is an action. I like looking at it as an Operating system that we live in, but even computers have programs and functions that arent automatic and need activation.
@@bens.664 what does that mean for living? Does matter if it exists or not? How does that affect policy or how we view others? How does the knowledge of this not tinge into nihilism?
Fierypickles that’s a question i’ve thought long and hard about. my answer is that although we are not actually free in reality, we do have experiential freedom-that is to say we feel free and take ourselves to be free and furthermore all conscience agents have this sort of experiential freedom and on that grounds it’s just to have concepts like punishment and desert as a priori functional constructs. they serve a purpose in our illusory world of freedom-in other words they become part of the equation that produces the “output” we call human behavior, that although a mere chemical reaction in reality, is nonetheless important to regulate. so in essence, we are all comprised of atoms atoms only have the ability to react. therefore actual reality is one big chain reaction that no individual atom or even group of atoms “controls” as the current state of any atom is determined by its prior state. that is the “reality” of existence. but illusions are necessary for conscious beings to make sense and bring meaning to their experienced existence. but - by knowing that ultimately our moral frameworks and value judgements are illusions we should seek to ascribe unjust or unwanted behavioral outcomes to their approximate causal origins (instead of arbitrarily to decontextualized individuals) in the ways that cause the least pain and suffering and are the most just. as a matter of moral reason.
This guy makes it so positive....I'm just frustrated everyday by people who can't understand Determinism and that free will is a social/psychological construct. Case in point: Did you start your life handpicking your genes? Where you were born? Who would be your family or substitute there of? Exactly. You never earned shit in your life, you earned under given circumstances.
@@chadsimmons4496 na, you can use the phrase in any context, it will still mean the same thing. It's only a 'trojan horse' to you because you're unnecessarily tryna correlate unrelated events. It's literally just a movie reference, you probably judged this video and the guy talking before you even watched it, just because he said the same phrase as some white supremacist dude you saw on the Internet, think about it
I can understand the idea that free will is an illusion, but when I get to thinking about it, when you say something like "I cannot help myself, I am a product of my brain" ... or ... "I did not do that terrible thing, the pathways within my brain caused me to do it", what you are actually doing there is splitting yourself into two entities. There's the you, and then there's your brain. But if you are not two, if you are just one, if you ARE that brain that did the terrible thing, then is it not YOU who did it? Can you say "It was the pathways in my brain, not me" when you ARE those pathways? And if we ARE all the causes and effects that are the processes of our brain, does that not mean we DO have free will? Cannot free will only be challenged if there is more than one entity involved? If we are just the one entity i.e. a brain, then where is the conflict with free will? I suppose the conflict is that we did not make our brains. It is a very confusing subject and I do not claim to have the answers.
Great comment. The problem that you have encountered is that of causality versus responsibility. If you are just one entity - the brain - then you are the thing that is causing everything. You cause the actions you take, the words you speak, the thoughts you think, the emotions you feel etc. Because you cause all this, you are responsible for it. So responsibility still exists. However, if you analyze the chain of causality, you discover that the only reason why you cause your actions, thoughts, emotions etc. is because of causes that existed before you were born. Causes led to more causes that led to more causes that led to more causes etc. This is highly problematic because if the causes that are in effect in the present are a product of the causes from the past then you don't have free will because you didn't choose the initial cause that kicked everything off at the beginning of time. So the conclusion is that you don't have free will but you are responsible. This conclusion is what trips up so many people and makes them think that Sam's view is incoherent but in reality it's a very sophisticated and rational view. People don't have free will but they are responsible. There is no contradiction anywhere in that statement because responsibility does not require free will. Responsibility is just an emotional state. And emotions don't require free will, they just happen. People like responsible people because they are in a particular emotional state that allows them to solve problems. If you feel responsible for the work you do at your job, you will do better than the person who does not feel responsible for their work. People are aware of how powerful the emotional state of feeling responsible is and they react positively to it, whereas they react negatively to people who don't feel responsible. The same is true for intelligence for example. People react positively to people who are intelligent and negatively to people who are stupid. Because responsibility just like intelligence is useful and tends to lead to good outcomes and problems being solved.
It really just depends on what you define as "free will." You always have the freedom to make choices, that part isn't an illusion. However, those choices will always be based on how you've been shaped as a person up to that point, and is out of your control. It feels like free will because you have the freedom to choose to do what you want to do... but what you actually *want* is out of your control. In other words, you can do as you will, but you can't will as you will.
@@honeydruidYes, there are always multiple options but that's really beside the point. The point is that you are going to choose the one that your current psychology dictates to be the most favorable. And you don't choose your psychology. Your mind is ultimately developed through interactions with the world around you. The thing is though that what people value about the concept of "free will" is NOT actually having infinite choices. Rather, I think it's simply the power to make the choice that you WANT to make. You don't actually choose what your brain wants, but do you actually care about choosing what your brain wants? I think to most people, that's not what's important.... you are who you are, and what you ultimately want is merely the power to follow the path that you want to take.
It takes a certain level of intellectual maturity to understand what Sam is saying.I believe I'm lucky to have it and so are the people who do understand him.
No free will because everything is based on causality but he is effectively telling us that we can chose to recognize this and become more tolerant and calm. So how do we choose to recognize this without exercising free will as he is inviting us to do?
He’s not defining free will as the ability to make choices (he believes people can make choices and that those choices can be meaningful and important), he defining free will as the ability to make choices in a way that’s not determined by things out of your control.
Blaming people for their behavior makes no sense is a profoundly deep realization. Though his brief conclusion of no punishment is an extreme. I guess he was coming from compassion.
@@saranghak7724 Same still struggling. The result is a line that leads to this path of thought. Why do I wish to kick this addiction? Simple because the addiction has lead to a loss of control. Control of what? Myself. If addiction is an abnormal state than who/what is supposed to be in control during the normal state? Me. Why do you feel like pornography is an external force that pressures your conscious mind rather than an internal force that is part of your totality? Because I have put off plans for long term goals in order to satisfy my short term lust. I.e putting off going to the gym to instead watch porn. The result was that after the deed was done it felt like a piece of my ideal self was lost. Therefore porn addiction is not part of my ideal self. If porn addiction is not part of my ideal self, but it is part of my current self, to the point it affects my neuro-chemistry, then who/what desires for me to move from my current self to my ideal self? If as Sam Harris that "I" am just the emergent properties of my underlying biochemistry and neurology, and my underlying neurology desires porn, then why shouldn't "I" be comfortable with a porn addiction. My thesis is that my desire to become my ideal self is the result of higher level conscious thought. If "I" am able to overcome my porn addiction, which is held by the more basal parts of my brain, then surely "Free will" exists.
@@k_tess I don't understand what you mean by a path of thought? Do you mean a pattern of desires? I guess it is a thought before it becomes an expressed desire. So that makes sense.
@@saranghak7724 "This path of thought" it's a preface that means the following will be a somewhat logical pathway that leads to the conclusion that indeed free will exists.
@@Skibbityboo0580you can’t, it’s inconsistent. please look more into this topic and see that Sam is just flat out wrong, and his position is not scientific.
Im on acid and have to rewind every two sentences 6 times to follow what the fuck they actually mean. But it's worth it. Trust me. Yay for causality! "Do you believe in fate, Neo?" "Let me tell you why you are here." .
To the people who shut of this video to "prove their free will", why was your desire to shut off this video, in an attempt to prove your free will, greater than to watch it? You can't answer. It just was. You can control what to do with your wants, but you cannot control what it is THAT you want.
That was Schopenhauer’s claim: that you are free do act or not upon your desires, but you are not free to choose what you desire. Gurdjieff said the same thing about people as they are, but he also said that with conscious, voluntary efforts and suffering intentionally endured, some people can develop themselves to the point of being able to consciously choose to want what they want, rather than blindly being compelled. We have two parts to us: the passive consciousness and our animal organism. We are all passive slaves to our animal, and it takes a long time of intense, conscious struggle to free ourselves from our animal and to make it subordinate to our demands.
Yeah I can answer, it is because I wanted to. As to how it is that the "want" is born, we are going to need a lot more of quantum research to see how it happens. Maybe we can start having a discussion once the data is in. At the moment, however, to claim we don't have free will is nothing but mental gymnastics. We all believe ourselves to have free will. Even if you claim you don't have free will, you will still act as if you do. Is akin to claiming tables don't really exist, that the only thing that exists is "wood" or "tree". It is just absurd argumentation done to continue to receive PHd funding as a philosopher...
@@mpcnotnpc That's demonstrably false. People can feel the urge to jerk off, but can choose not to. You can counter and say the brain didn't want you to jerk off then, but this would be incorrect. A person can take a pill to influence brain chemistry and force him as much as possible into "releasing", but the person can still choose to not do it. Even if it means hills balls will blow up. A strong will can act against all biological urges. Other examples include people who starve themselves to death or light themselves up in fire. The brain and nervous system will fight to stop you, but you still can will it as you please.
@@DanielCPTrader then why do anything at all? you can choose to do nothing at all with your life... But you do stuff because your brain needs the satisfaction or a need to release Your brain controls everything and you can't stop it
@@ArturoGarzaID its illusion of free will, illusion of making decisions, rewind your life back to beginning and think of every decision you made that influenced your life, then think how much of a choice you had in making that decision
@@ArturoGarzaID you get born and you didnt choose genetics and environment and you get molded by those 2, and then every decision you make comes from it. Your looks, character or environment and you didnt choose neither of those
Your entirety a product of your past events, just as your heart beats without anyone's approval, your mind acts without anyone's approval, so your body acts without anyone's approval
Was there an argument? More like a seething unintelligible dumpster fire of inarticulated incomprehensible babbling with the word "right" added every 15th word No free will? Cool He should be arguing for the abolishment of all judicial systems
@@simonlennartz1556 I think we have free will all the time, we just don’t operate on it all the time. It’s inefficient to always consider our decisions at the level of free will, when the impact of those decisions is low.
I agree.. I've felt this for a long time. I didn't choose to think it, it came from nowhere. Ever since I've not really met anyone that feels the same way. I believe this is why spiritual awakening occurs. It then begins to allow us to see who we have been being our whole lives without realising or being able to be any other way. Before awareness there is no freewill. Just as awareness cannot be given, learned, bought or taught, it has to be experienced by the person individually. What happens afterwards is awareness of who you have been, who you are and why.
I've never believed in FW since first studying philosophy; it's such an incoherent idea. Harris's simple thought experiments demonstrate nicely that people don't control their own thoughts and if you don't control your own thoughts, then you certainly don't control your own actions.
@@XiagraBalls Yep, but in most discussions I've read about FW on youtube there's this implicit distinction between thoughts/emotions/urges that pop into mind uninvited and the ability to observe them and decide whether to act on them or not (a.k.a. metacognition). People sometimes misinterpret the existense of metacognition and executive control as an example of free will. But the ability to make deliberate conscious decisions is still subject to the same determinism as the subconscious processes of the brain. If I 'decide' to inhibit my urge to punch someone when I'm angry that doesn't make me have free will, it's just the result of another part of the brain deciding to inhibit the urge. Sorry if I'm rambling...
@@RDTRNT and then if I decide to punch him anyways just because I decide to go against all of my logical thinking and even more-so against all of my history, that was just a blip where my brain somehow decided that in this one instance throughout my entire life I would act contrary to my entire being and allow chaos to take over, it is somehow still determinism? My biggest problem with the argument is dealing in absolutes. Sure, many people have no control over their being but for those who do I think that the idea begins to sour as he acts as though a religious person would about their belief. He just has enough science and has such faith in that science that he doesn't entertain a single thought to the contrary, as a religious person would (especially monotheistic). I definitely concede he could be right, but I also strongly believe he could be wrong. Still a brilliant mind and a great viewpoint to mentally spar within yourself about.
@@Beensock well, "you" (and "I") in a materialistc worldview is a set of many neurobiological processes, and if "I" decide to punch someone against my best judgement, that just means that a particular process took over my behaviours and couldn't be inhibited by competing processes (e.g. rational). We often act against our best judgement. This is compatible with determinism.
@@RDTRNT I have a sense that I feel , so many can’t look past the I and me. The what I would do, the what I would think, I’ve always felt it’s the…. person A should act and behave a certain way, simply because of the fact that person B acts a behaves a certain way. It makes zero sense, when there is so much evidence that proves, every brain’s anatomy functions either slightly or drastically different. There is no such thing as the ideal brain, just the most commonly similar (
Essentially you have no free will until you understand free will.....and then you have what you believe to be free will. Just needed 3 more words added.
That's a cool scene, and I always took it to mean that the Merovingian knew that as a machine he didn't have freedom, and he believed that humans were the same since he could manipulate them through hormone programs that tasted like cake. In the end, Neo was able to choose something that was outside of his programming, because he was a human. The movies brought up many of these points about free will and choice. I don't know about "free will", but it does seem like humans have much more freedom to choose from available options, or even make up new ones. In any case, I really hated the Merovingian, and I don't seem to have any choice in the matter!
Does it matter if there is free will or not? If you did an action as a response to a series of past actions and stimulus or chose to do it, you still did those actions. In my opinion we have a degree of free will but it’s more like you have list of options than any choice possible. The options are determined by past experiences and are different for each person. Because of this there are a lot different choices made within a group, even when present with the same set of current stimulus.
"If you're going to punish people for things they can't control... well, that's stupid" ... "you have to punish people for things that are actually under voluntary control". That makes complete sense.... until you realise that Sam Harris is talking about freewill being something that doesn't exist. How, then, is anything VOLUNTARY? I think the topic of freewill is extremely interesting, but I think the debate is really about HOW MUCH freewill there is. I am absolutely the product of my genes, upbringing, programming, etc. but, freewill is obtained through objectivity to one's self and creating conscious distance from all the attributing factors that 'make us who we are'.
The problem is that if you use causal inevitability to excuse the guy who stole your wallet, then it also excuses the judge who cuts off his hand. This notion that dismissing free will makes everyone more compassionate is B. S. Causal inevitability has no meaningful or relevant implications. Period.
This entire explanation is the exact conclusion I came to while I was a christian and left the faith. How can someone be punished when they are a creation of their environment and perspective of life? If God exists then why does he judge us for our reaction to environments he created?
It takes someone really smart to convince themselves that something true is false. Thank god we have philosophers to convince us 1=2 when we are bored.
