I really liked how , even though they disagreed at the end about morality , there was actually no sign of tension. It wasn't uncofortable or anything. Both were calm af and stayed humorous. It was pretty cool. Can't say the same about the J.B. Peterson events.
1:16:46 Ultimately, a conversation about how things come into being should consist in complete silence - it is the appropriate language game for talking about nothing, out of which things came to be
The one thing that I haven’t understood yet is why absence of free will isn’t a potential argument by religious folks for the existence of God, who in this case could play puppet master. I’ve seen Ben Shapiro (Orthodox Jew) say that free will is the reason why he believes in God, but that argument did not make sense to me.
You are right but it is still insufficient to determine the basis of morality because suffering is part of the natural world and a vital part at that. Without pain and suffering there would be no survival instinct or it would be severly undermined. Suffering is central to the whole story of life on earth and therefore. the suffering of all "conscious creatures" is a distraction.
@@trevorwongsam8178 That seems like a design flaw rather than a neccesity. A different system that didn't result in suffering could achieve the same thing, the problem with "nature" is that it ISN'T designed, sentience is an emergent property of a system entirely careless of the resulting suffering.
@@BeardedBill86 Don't mistake me for an intelligent design proponent, I agree with you that it may have been possible to design a system without suffering if you are God but I am talking about the way things are. The bottom line for morality is not suffering but survival. Survival is the most basic of instincts for all life on earth and suffering is just one of the many incentives that ensures that instinct stays in tact. Others are fear, hunger etc, all these instinctive features assures the drive towards survial of any species. Animals have instincts, we have morals. Morals are instincts plus copious amounts of intelligence and rationality. But the foundation is the same as for all other life. Survival, reproduction and wellbeing. In that order.
@@trevorwongsam8178 I think we can all acknowledge the "reason" that suffering exists, the functions it serves in lifeforms on this planet. However, that does not mean that it cannot be rationalized as a negative for the mental states of sentient lifeforms and by extension have a system of morality address it. Suffering is by definition an unwelcome state of being. Indeed broadly speaking it is by the far the most opposed state of being, our actions can induce in others this state, it seems logical that a moral framework can be made to address this. In the future, who is the say technological advancement will not allow us to remove suffering from the state of being, is that not a goal worth working towards?
@@BeardedBill86 I certainly would not disagree with the goal of reducing suffering in the world however the point that i am making is that pleasure or pain is simply not the ground for morality in my opinion. As I said suffering is just one of the several incentives towards survival. As somebody has said somewhere on the internet if suffering is the worst possible state of affairs them if we get rid of all life, there would be no more suffering. The "worst possible suffering for everyone" in a religious context equals Hell. Which is eternal and worse than death - but in the real world the opposite to death is survival not suffering. This is I believe where the "Is, Ought" dichotomy actually also breaks down.
As smart as Sean Carroll is and yes he’s far smarter than me. I still think what he espouses is ridiculous. On his view, he believes that there is an ACTUAL universe, as real as the one we are in, where I kill my parents on live TV wearing a chicken suit. What’s more is that is true of every single person who reads this. He believes there is a real Universe where all of us are President of the United States. To me, that’s just insane and it violates Occam’s razor. I know Carol says it actually the simplest explanation but I think it’s far more likely that we haven’t found the right interpretation or other interpretations of quantum mechanics are true rather than literally everything that can happen happens. somewhere.
As funny as it is, I think it's dishonest for Sean after the 1 hour mark to start suggesting Sam needs to 'admit' something. It's a really devious tactic because by simply asking him to admit something presumes Sam is being dishonest. Sam should've called it out but it seems like he interpreted it in a friendly way. It might not have been on purpose, but it was dishonest.
I think they mostly agree on politics (for instance, they both think the radicalization within each party is problematic). They are both more similar to neoliberals instead of to people like Bernie or AOC. (I know neo-liberal tends to carry a negative connotation online). They want higher tax on the ultra wealth. They both want better healthcare system (I think both support a public option). However, they are not like Bernie Sander who propose the most extreme version of single payer. They are certainly not like SJWs. Go to sean's youtube channel and see videos like "Mindscape 129 | Solo: Democracy in America"
I have a question for Sam Harris. In his argument about free will he describes there being an "I" which does not author your thoughts which direct your concious choices. Does he believe there is any way to tap into and thus influence that deeper "I" in a way that say Echart Tolle claims he does and guides his listeners to do?
I love Sam's podcast and his sharp intellect, but on free will I go with Sean. Sam's talks about an abstract, an impossibility when it comes to free will vs determinism, we don't have a time machine to go back into the past to see if we can make different choices.
What reason would we make a different choice if the scenario were exactly the same? If you "re experience" yesterday without knowing you had already done it, then why would you do it any of it differently than you had?
@@superfarful Since it's impossible to go back to yesterday, then either your point or mine can't be tested. So in a way Sam can say that we can't make other choices that we already made, but how can we test this?...... He's just saying "take my word for it"
@@luke31ish I have to concede you are right there is no definite way to prove either way if it would be the same or not. But it seems like if you were in groundhogs day but didn't remember the repeated day, you would be like the rest of the towns people who do everything the same unless Bill Murray intervenes and changes things
@@superfarful I think groundhog day gives us the answer to our conundrum : if we know that we repeat the day we can try other choices, if we don't then we can't do different . I like Sean Carroll's point : the past is determined, but the future is open. That's something I can get behind. Sam also talks about "effort" being important, but that sounds like agency to me, which is a little bit of free will.
57:30 I often think about computers as if they "decide" to do certain things, even if I wrote the code myself. Like a program needs to make a choice based on some information, and I don't look up that information ahead of time, to me it's as if it choses to do something. I think the difference between this amd free will is huge and people should be aknowledging the fact that there is no free will in humans any more than in that computer.
Nothing in the universe "decides" anything. You have never "decided" anything in your life. You're exactly like your computer. You can NEVER decide anything because that's impossible. Things just appear in your consciousness and you have no control over anything that you think or do.
@@matttzzz2 my computer makes decisions. Look, just because people like you say "without free will you can't reason and you can't make decisions" doesn't make it so, and that is why I brought up an example of a computer making decisions. Either computer has free will, or you don't need free will to make decisions. Pick one.
@@CuteEplet incorrect. There are certain ethical rules that are discovered to be preferable because of their consequence, not just being subscribed to because they think they are in themselves good. So if you find a doctor who subscribes to doctor patient confidentiality ethic, they don't do it because they think "it's good". They subscribe to it because they know if they reveal info about their patients, it will harm them, therefore they won't trust revealing info that may be important to heal them. Therefore if they want to heal anyone, they should promise not to reveal info. Of course "if they want to heal" is an assumption, but it doesn't make the "discovery" of the logical connection between "healing" and "confidentiality" any less obvious. To say you can't discover the "confidentiality", but can only observe that doctors for some "unknown" reason subscribe to it is simply to play stupid.
@@Oilskin I think its when they talk about the ought/is conundrum, basically Sam is saying that you can derive oughts from is statements, but Sean argues that you cannot, and that Hume is correct.
Sam: Science informs or can inform our ethics in a way that there's really no distance between is and should. Sean: Science can inform our ethics, but there's no need to add the moral valence of what should be to the discussion, just call that ethics.
sean carroll, incredibly smart and probably my favorite physicist to listen to. however, i don't think he fully understood sam's argument about the non-existence of free will.
@@TactileTherapy disagree. when sam mentions how if you had the same mind, body, and upbringing/history as saddam hussein, you would BE saddam hussein, sean says 'that doesn't even make sense'......yes it does lol. that showed me that he was a bit confused by what sam was saying.
Not quite as distressing how a culture that brought about a giant such as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk can then go on to produce a maggot such as Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
@@twntwrs Ataturk was the exception. The people accepted his policies as he was seen as a liberator who fought for his people against foreigners. Otherwise I'm sure they had contempt for secular agnostics like him. But Ataturk's actions and his immense contributions to Turkey gained him respect, so much so that no one could defy him.
@@anonymous_4276 Too bad they apparently failed to see what had a much greater and longer lasting positive impact on their country: Atatürk's (sadly not completely) freeing it of what he accurately recognized as the big putrid rotting albatross around his country's neck: Islam.
Sam always talks straight to the point without any woowoo, bullshit or gobblygook. But thats a problem for other people because they aren't able to talk straight so they dont understand what Sam is trying to say
He understands that people don't want to suffer. Harris just won't admit that it's an axiom to say therefore it's something to avoid. Harris keeps trying to get around it by making the suffering example worse and worse, as if our intuition will let him off the hook.
Really interesting you came to a win/lose conclusion. Sean seemed to be being actively obtuse to me. Nobody lost here, Sean talked past Sam alot and was rather condescending. It was great to hear someone as smart as Sean try and unpick Sams ought/is breakdown but he observably wrong regarding free will, as most people who have worked hard for things are, they struggle to give up the idea their "selves" did all the work.
He didnt lose. Sean has no idea what hes talking about when it comes to free will. Sam says 2+2=/=5 and Sean says "weelllllllll for sufficiently large values of 2...." no. Sam is 100% correct in everything he said. Sean was wrong and didnt understand Sam's point. You clearly didnt understand Sam's point either.
To think there are an infinite number of universes that include oneself strikes me as the same kind of egoism that the religious think, there's a God who is watching them every second. So self absorbed.
Oh, you disagree with me? Must be because I know much more than you do, or, more likely, I must have a key insight that you are incapable of seeing. *sarcasm* let's stop this pseudo-intellectual practice of pretending that our opponents are simply dumb
@@sandrarsd7645 if you are still confused, allow me to clarify. of course, i know dumb opponents exist. It just shouldn't be people's first and only explanation as to why someone disagrees with them.
this debate proves that sean is alot smarter than we think. he schools sam with his point that you need to make an assumption to get morality off the ground
It was amazing to me that Sam, who I believe is very intelligent and observant, had such a hard time grasping what Sean was saying. This kind of dilemma in communicating with someone who holds into their convictions the way Sam did there makes discussing the nuances of anything quite difficult.
@@user-yv6xw7ns3o I agree, this is actually a limitation of language not sams brain power, he is very intelligent to a fault. all these kinds of conversations end up in an argument of semantics which is natural of philosophy and sean actually makes this point multiple times and does a great job keeping the discussion afloat
@@Drunkbobnopantss @Drunkbobnopantss I completely agree with that. It's amazing how often I see interactions between individuals and groups get hung up on matters of semantics and contextualizing language. It is one of the most pervasive difficulties I think any human society has ever dealt with. Sean was able to delicately enough handle and articulate this dynamic of communication about such fundamental concepts during the interaction with Sam without sucking the oxygen out of the room. Having recently started listening to Sean in particular, I'm very impressed at his approach to professing knowledge as well as being cognizant of how others listen, interpret, and communicate. He does a great job during these public talks of balancing his own experiences and insights with those of his conversational partners or audience.
@@user-yv6xw7ns3o its just the nature of philosophy and morality. There are no absolute truths here or else the conversations would not take hours or milennia this is nothing new .you have to make an assumption to philosophize, "what you should do" in science you don't. "what happens when you do" context matters. context IS the essence of language
I think it's unhelpful to label 'the far left' as you do. Far left in the US is medicare for all, government funded college and taking care of those more unfortunate than you. Not green hair, no difference between men and women or competing about who felt the most violated, especially on behalf of others
14:14 Poetic Naturalism 16:40 Downward Causation 18:47 Formation of Snowflakes 22:49 Philosophical Zombie Thought Experiment 30:00 Quantum Mechanics 32:29 Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics 49:40 The Platonic FOrm of a Chair 1:08:21 Ethical Questions and Meta Ethical Questions 1:12:00 POssible Worlds
What a great discussion! Two of my favorite modern intellectuals. It feels like an affront that more people haven’t watched this. Thank you for uploading these discussions.
It's very easy to see we do not make choices about anything. I did not choose to be heterosexual, I just am. I did not choose to love my wife, I just do. I did not choose to be atheist, I just am. I did not choose to be caucasian, I just am. I did not choose to like jazz, I just do. I did not choose to dislike lima beans, I just do.
as I tried I vain to explain again and again to a certain pest who had been a potential friend, I don't *choose* to be apathetic about politics, I just am (withdrawing in disgust)
When Sean mentions that we should maximize the suffering of conscious creatures, and Sam asks "who are we in this case". An interesting thought experiment and answer to this question could be; an A.I. with no subjective experience observing humans, and left to do what the laws of nature dictate it to do. Given maximal resources, it could learn everything about the physics, chemistry, biology of our world, but it could only ever differentiate between states of human existence, not prefer one over another. For example, it could tell (perhaps by analyzing our brain) that a human given an ice cream cone exhibits state "A", and a human dropped in a vat of acid exhibits state "B", but a preference for one or the other would have to be explicitly programmed in. In order for something to be science, it seems to me that it needs to be something derivable from a computational unit absent subjective experience.
Correct, but why would AI investigate the brains or do anything at all in the first place? Because you would program those goals in. When you make an autopilot for an airplane, you don't just program in the geographical information, aerodynamics, fuel consumption, etc. Let's can it physics. You don't just give it physics, you also tell it where it needs to go. Otherwise no amount of info rmation will make it go. Does it mean that physics is an assumption as a whole? Of course not. You don't expect physics to tell you where you need to go. It's not an assumption of physics, that's the input to the function. Same with AI. If it's made to car about people, then it will care, heal, etc. If it's a weponised AI, it will kil people. This is a goal that is "smuggled in" as Sam Harris says, but its nothing more than physics AI from before has to "smuggle in". Whatever science you are talking about, it's just a tool, that we then apply with some goal. The tool itself doesn't have to provide you that goal and ethics is on the same level here wirh everything else. Just as Sam pointed out. Now, I like your mental experiment about AI trying to figure out what to do, but you have to take it one step further. Think of yourself as an AI, that lives the way you live. And then tell me, what set if goals do you have?
@@Bradley_UA Ok, let's take a really simple example. A neural net tasked with observing a container and discovering the laws of physics in it ( perhaps discovering the equations of motion of a bouncing ball). In this example, the bootstrapping assumption is satisfied by just pressing the run button. This is all that is necessary to get the system to act, and after that, the system chugs along building an "is" repository of knowledge by completely observable phenomenon. This run button is also necessary for a moral system, but other assumptions are needed as well. One example of an assumption ( this one would be specific to an A.I. with no subjective experience) would be to trust the self reporting of conscious creatures that they are suffering when exhibiting certain behaviors. Another assumption would be to avoid this suffering. So you are right that physics has assumptions, and these assumptions exist also for morality, but morality also has extra assumptions, Which is essentially what Carroll was taking issue with. Even in the case of humans, where suffering is more or less self evident, choosing to avoid this suffering is still an extra assumption.
But the brain state of "preference" must also be computable. Or as Sam would say, the brain state of "suffering". That is, the computer can know what the humans prefer. That doesn't mean the computer has to have a preference itself, but it's still objectively true that the humans prefer not to suffer.
It was amazing to me in the middle of the Podcast Sean Carroll gave Sam Harris new information, that the Block Theory Of Time is the consensus theory. If it's the consensus theory how is it that no one seems to know about it but physicists? How is it that Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't laughing his way through this on late night TV?
I feel the same way. I suspect most feel this way but only a few are willing to admit it. I’ll have to listen to debate at least one more time to partially understand them.
"Some way in the back room to predict what we are going to do." Sean: "It could be done, but not by me." This seems related to me to Turing's halting problem? Like you have to play the program to know if it halts/arrives at the answer? (55:03)
Pretty annoying conversation overral. Sam tries honestly explain his views and Sean just goes "haha, you just don't want to admit it's an assumption, lol"
When the truth also is… “free will is just as much of an assumption. I definitely lean more towards there being none whatsoever, To me the science is pointing to that.
Sean is wrong, presuming everything can be described by science, which Sean fundamentaly subscribes to and fairly admittedly, leaves no room for our optimum status being described otherwise. The is ought debate is semantic. Hey now lets have a free will debate, shall we? Weak Sean
colonyofcells iamamachine ... but his point is that even those Christians are basing “better” on the assumed fact that it is the best way to avoid the eternal suffering as a conscious creature in hell, and to have this life’s suffering more than offset by the joy they will feel as a conscious being in heaven... that assumption about there being a heaven and hell may be either right or wrong, in which base that assumption of “better” is either right or wrong... even the Christians that say that and approach the Bible as beautifully true metaphor, and chose to suffer themselves for the sake of increasing the joy of those around them at the cost of their tolerable amount of suffering with no assumption of reward are STILL, just like the former case, basing that assumption for moral behavior on a principles of 1) One ought to minimize suffering and 2) where it doesn’t conflict with the first, to increase joy... Christians are a prime example for Sam’s argument, not the exception.
Give so-called Christians maximum perceptible intolerable pain and suffering for indefinite periods of time and they will break at some interval and would petition to avoid that condition, assuming they survived up to that point and are conscious to make a decision. Not many religious people in the modern world will go much beyond a day of fasting or a week without the amenities their current culture has afforded them. 'Suffering' is subjective and varies wildly.
yes, those Christians wish to suffer in this life for the increased opportunity to avoid unimaginable suffering in hell and experience bliss in heaven. So even their behavior is predicated on avoiding the greatest suffering, consistent with Sam's position.
Haven’t heard this yet but I’m betting Sam is as scalpel-like as usual but Sean has a habit of being short-sighted and tribal regarding his outlook on other various ideas. Edit: It turns out that Sean’s unable to understand Sam’s point entirely. Even I understand Sam’s POV because it’s simple 🤷♂️
Why would one assume we are the only ones with a consciousness? I think Sam alluded to it somewhere in the beginning, correct me if I'm wrong. We are able to explore the phenomenon through communication with other have the same level of communicative skills but also deductively reason other living beings have the essence of experience as well. We might be able to logically act at another level than animals or plants but they must have some form of consciousness. And to the philosophical zombie. I think this is a spot where I disagree with Sean. I think we can have AI pass the Turing test in a chat room and still have it acting without motivated reasoning or maybe I should say autonomous motivated reasoning. So I see that as a possibility. To Sean's defense, this was 5+ years ago and he might have changed his mind by now.
I feel like the whole bit on moral realism got a little too hung up on the is-ought problem. I wish Sam would have leaned more into the medicine metaphor as he has in the past, I think that's one of the most convincing examples. Like we can say medicine is an objective science, while also acknowledging that it's based around the general idea that being healthy is better than being ill. The science of medicine can still advance and develop news ways to cure diseases and make people healthier in as objective a sense as we can define. A science of morality would be largely the same thing in identifying what kind of actions, policies, laws, etc. would be best from the perspective of well-being. Just as the science of medicine doesn't require an "axiom" that being healthy is better than being sick, a science of morality would not need an axiom that we should try to minimize suffering and maximize well-being; simply acknowledging that suffering is bad and well-being is good would be sufficient.
We have free will so that we can align ourselves with Reality, or not, the choice is ours. The problem is if we do not align ourselves with Reality not just out of rebellion but out of ignorance the results and the suffering are the same. We do not get a free pass for being stupid.
I'd say it's hard to believe that this didn't kill Sam Harris's career, but I guess anyone who has a basic grasp of philosophy and formal logic already wasn't a fan.
The first thing is I think there is room for "no free will in this area" and "free will in this other area. It's not either/or but both/and. This relies on a general principle that the universe is bigger and more complex then our minds can comprehend so if we can imagine it, it's probably real on some dimension at some time. An example: Sam uses as his case-scenario "think of a movie" and then says "you don't have free will because you didn't decide which movie popped into your head... and if you don't have free will there, then how can you have free will with anything else." In this case Sam intends to disprove free will and picks an arena where the lack of it seems self-evident. However, this is where intention is a key variable: We all have intentions and these intentions govern which of the 50% of our data that our body sees our consciousness will not see and which of the 50% it will see. In this case I have an intention of demonstrating free will so I look in a different area. So in my example, sit down and open youtube. Now decide which video you will watch. You could watch this one, that one, or this other one. Now choose your first choice. Then choose your second choice. Now do which ever one you want. Now choose the third choice. Now choose to role a dice and pick which ever one. Now choose another randomizer. Now back to your choice. In the latter example free will is clear. And to some extent our intention is also free, after it is conscious. The reptilian brain has no freedom. The limbic brain has no freedom. The rational brain when free of the reptilian brain and referenced by the empathic brain has more freedom. The rational brain when conscious of polarities and the continuum between polarities has more freedom. We never have absolute freedom: Today I can't choose to create a different culture and install it in America - or in the church - even though I want to. I can decide how long to make this youtube comment. Sam can choose whether or not to respond. He can't choose which movie pops into his head. You can choose to notice your reactions to this comment but can't choose your reactions. You can then choose what to do with the reactions you notice: reply, ignore, validate or criticize etc. And you can choose the words you use. Then you can choose the words again as you review your words and choose slightly different words in editing. Another way to view this continuum of freedom/response-ability/choice is the meta-continuum: At the biological level we will have unconscious reactions we have no control over - or at least most of us are not aware of any control. In Stephen Covey's words, humanity and freedom lies in the space between stimulus and response. As we develop more ability to reflect and meditate, which is a choice, we become more aware of our choices and have more of them to consider, as well as more control over the choices we make and why. As we then think about why we reacted and what we think about why we reacted, we are moving into meta: the conversation about the conversation. Then we can have a conversation about that: What do we think and feel about the conversation about the conversation. The more layers of meta we place on top of the original reaction, the more freedom we have, including the freedom to choose how many layers of meta we want to add. Much of reality gets shaped three layers deep in meta: the conversations we are having about the conversations we are having about the conversation we are having about what we observed and the story we choose to make up about it. One of the greatest choices people can make is simply to go two more layers of meta deeper than the general cult. This completely transforms relationships. And you do have the freedom to do that.
I would say MWI gives us a philosophical clue. It says that the measurement pointer and the measured thing agree on what the outcome is. Or, that we can actually do measurements.
I found this argument completely unconvincing. The most convincing argument I've heard in defense of determinism is that all our actions are caused by our wants and that we have no control over our wants. This argument of course doesn't address quantum randomness which sean carroll seemed to always give as a caveat in that portion of the talk.
Not being able to stop an apple from falling on my head with my mind is NOT an argument against free will.One of the weakest arguments I've heard Sam make & I'm a user of his app.
As much as I respect both of these men, it is endlessly frustrating to listen to conversations on this topic that all consistently neglect to ask of the participants how they define the words should/ought. How can you defend your belief as to how you can or cannot arrive at an ought statement without defining what an ought statement is? The lack of clarity on exactly what it is we mean by the words in the discussion is the single greatest cause of confusion and disagreement on the topic.
I agree, I hate when philosophical discussions dissolve into semantical arguments. You can tell that the topic makes perfect sense in each of their heads, but they are clearly talking past each other because of an issue with communication. In the end it results in a dissatisfying talk with little common ground found between them. Other than that this discussion was fun to listen to.
But more definitely Sean Carroll... At least Sam is trying to get value to the feelings that he doesn't have.... This is exactly why all these atheist scientists are trained sociopaths... The fact that Sam could put this much effort into the word good or the word values is pretty amazing... The words good or bad are not scientific words
Every science is then applied to values. Physics tells us how to build rockets, and then we appy it to our values and go to the moon or whatever. Same with ethics. It tells you how to achieve whatever states of mind, and then you have to decide what you value and acheive it. The issue here is that many people assume significantly more things. Take christians for example. They assume homosexuality or contraception is bad, intrinsically. You can either assume that and just go with that, or you can investigate whether, lest say, abortion, causes harm to anyone, and whether that is more important than mother's freedom of choice. That's where the discussion is at, and it's no more of an assumption than in physics is an assumption that you want to get to the moon while spending the least amount of fuel. So yeah, I don't really understand why people want an ought to be derived from it is, even though it's impossible and not needed.
listening to these guys, i notice that when i try to discuss shit like this with anyone it turns into stupid arguments. these guys are portraying an unattainable standard of intellectual sincerity and i feel inadequate. i dont know how to figure out if i want to feel better about myself, or if it makes any sense to want to be better than i am.
It's ironic to see this comment under a discussion which turned into stupid arguments. If you think this is an unattainable standsrt of sincerity, you either don't know what it is or didn't see the debate.
Caroll seems to be arguing a different thing. He is talking about models of interpretation, and that includes incomplete data. Sam is talking about it from a philosophical stance and the incomplete data doesn't change anything.
W R in this case, incomplete data matters. It’s not just a set of circumstances that he is referring to, but potentially unknown models of how systems fundamentally behave. The Core Theory of physics is not complete and the ultimate model of physics might behave in a way that has different features than our current best understanding of physics. Furthermore, there are certain things we can’t know via the uncertainty principle.
@@TheJonlamb12 but Carroll isn't saying that the incomplete data means we can't be sure we don't have free will. He is saying that the incomplete data is what gives us the illusion of free will, and that because our data isn't perfect, the emergent illusion of free will is the best model we have for how humans function.
W R I listened to it again and I was incorrect about thinking his argument that incomplete data means we can’t make any conclusions about free will. However, he doesn’t seem to think free will is an illusion, in the sense that humans don’t make choices. His idea is that free will is the most useful vocabulary for describing how humans make choices. At the same time, a quantum version of Laplace’s demon could tell you what the probability of every future history will be, and no amount of human volition would be able to change it. In Carroll’s view, these two concepts can both be right and it is counterproductive to deny ourselves the vocabulary of choice when talking about human beings. Either vocabularies are legitimate, but mixing them is unreasonable. When you frame a question in terms of choices, it doesn’t make sense to bring up the deterministic nature of physics. So I still disagree with your original claim that Sam and Sean are talking about different things.
Should implies a choice between possible options. Harris is arguing that there are no other options. If you want to move away from suffering than you must do X. If you want to move toward it than you must not do X. Carrol and others are simply replacing "must" with "should" and landing themselves at the "is / ought" pseudo-problem. "Should I want to move away from suffering?", is still not a choice. Whether or not you "want" to move you hand from the scalding hot stove is not an option. Harris' argument against free will closes the loop on this. If you agree on his position about free will, then I think you just have to accept his position on the "is / ought" distinction.
Doesn’t Sean’s view of Many Worlds imply that free will doesn’t exist? Is he saying that you can pick which specific world to split into? It seems like every version of You in many worlds experiences their specific branch of the wave function without any choice. So if you can ever choose which universe to inhabit as the wave function splits, then that completely destroys the notion of choice because the wave function chooses what will happen to you. Also I wonder what Sean thinks about a robot following an algorithm and whether you could say the robot was choosing anything. And if the robot was conscious but it still acted the same following the algorithm, would the robot have free will? I don’t get why he doesn’t believe in free will while also believing that every physical process occurs with some probability in the universe.
I thought Sam was smarter, his argument is like, if a mother doesn't exist, no child, therefore it is true is not a debate, like Zulu proverb saying, a person is a person because of the other people.
1:19:54 yes. But the point is that, as a human, within the space of human experience, there's no place to stand outside of what happens to humans or what humans can do, so there's no point in this space where human behavior is not implicated. We don't *have to* talk about "should," but we can definitely talk about the consequences of that behavior! And about whether someone should do X or should want someone else to do X to them or for X to happen to them
The universe where Sam picks up a book in that auditorium 75 times is a literal impossibility. He would never make that choice when one considers every moment, from the big bang to Sam's birth, that leads into this convo in an auditorium. The fact that he didn't do it proves that he would have never done it. You can't get any more obvious than that. The convo in the auditorium could have only ever happened one way, precisely as it did. Many worlds also makes the ludicrous claim that there is a universe where Sam sits in that auditorium for 50 days and starves himself to death. This simply would never happen in a mechanistic universe. While there will be infinite universes, the "many worlds" theory is much sillier than the idea that quantum mechanics and consciousness are linked. Sean wants to say take the equations as they are... ok, then why isn't Sean taking the data as it comes? When you see an electron, its possibilities have collapsed, and its position is defined at that specific moment in spacetime. There is no second world where it is something else. One can only observe the electron because it has defined itself in spacetime. That is consciousness. Those "other possibilities" exist for an electron only inasmuch as they were never defined.
There's another part of the equation Sean normally points to that he says invalidates consciousness influencing the wave function. It's that the universe only has one wave function, in general all particles are a part of the same wave function, it's part of what makes quantum entanglement possible. That includes the particles that make us up. So the Copenhagen interpretation has the wave function observing itself, to collapse itself. That doesn't follow logically because we should be able to stop electrons from acting as waves just by observing ourselves then.
Shut your hole douchebag. Sam Harris is a serious philosopher. His views will stay in history. If you had actually paid any attetnion you'd know that he's not even claiming that you can get an ougth form an is actually
It has everything to do with science, especially neuroscience, biology, genetics and epigenetic infractions with environment. Have a sense I personally think to say otherwise denies mental illness, as real illness.
THE FREE WILL PARADOX If you were able to control what you want, you’d be capable to change wanting change what you want. And if you change wanting change what you want, you wouldn’t be capable to change what you want. But you already did it. It seems to me that, by denying us the ability to control what we want, nature is telling us: “Yes, you have free will, but every freedom has its limit, so your free will has to stop right here, because paradoxes are not allowed”.
There is probably no free will, if you look at what physics tell us. However, physics can't explain the entire human thought process, particularly at the molecular and quantum levels. So we refer to these unexplainable phenomena as "Free Will."
I think it’s possible to dislike a person and still reasonably agree with them on a variety of issues. I listened to Sam Harris on Ben Shapiro’s show and Sam still came out on top. Precisely because he makes the better argument for issues such as scientific objective morality and free will.
"There's things I could've done better" also "things I should've done differently". So much for your denial of free will, sam. His belief in the existence of free will is implicit in MANY of his statements, I've come to realize.
