User Controls
Sam Harris on the Illusion of Free Will
-
2018-11-08 at 5:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I'm free to act according to my will on the topic of philosophical circlejerks. If it was my will to not engage in circle jerking, then that's what I'd do, I'm free to act according to what I want. What I actually choose to do about jerking circularly is a consequence of my preferences and whether I'm free to act on them, both of which are physically determined (inb5 michio kaku), sure. But if your idea of choice requires being able to violate the laws of physics then you have a pretty stupid idea of choice that has no real relation to how we use the word "choice" in conversation.
Shut up lanny
Big bois are talkin' ((acollegeprofessor)))) -
2018-11-08 at 5:39 AM UTC
-
2018-11-08 at 6:45 AM UTCI think he's the one posting sploo gifs
-
2018-11-08 at 6:45 AM UTCSo shut up LannyThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-11-08 at 7:42 AM UTC
-
2018-11-08 at 11:33 AM UTCI think agency is another another topic we already have a word for: agency. We've already talked about this before, I don't see the point of writing an essay-like response to repeat what we've already discussed many times. I don't think we actually disagree about any of that, it's just not what I mean by free will, it doesn't appear to be what Harris means by free will either. You agreeing that our actions are the results of factors we have no influence over is good enough for me, I think agency is another topic and you and Dennet are unnessiarily joining the two.
-
2018-11-08 at 11:44 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-11-08 at 11:48 AM UTC
-
2018-11-08 at 12:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I think agency is another another topic we already have a word for: agency.
It is fine if you want to say agency instead of will, but that's not the argument you've been making at all: the issue you've taken is with the word "free" not being applicable if there is any antecedent cause to an action. You need to justify why that is, because I'm perfectly happy to say that that sense of the word free is just stupid, we can both agree, and you're making a rather pointless and completely semantic argumentWe've already talked about this before, I don't see the point of writing an essay-like response to repeat what we've already discussed many times. I don't think we actually disagree about any of that, it's just not what I mean by free will, it doesn't appear to be what Harris means by free will either.
The point of repeating the "essay like responses" is to show that you can't articulate why the spoopy ghost is integral to your meaning of free will, other than it being part of the "common understanding" of the term, which is not even remotely close to being true; every single person was raised by a couple parents/guardians who probably have full awareness that the upbringing they're providing is going to shape their child. So what else?You agreeing that our actions are the results of factors we have no influence over is good enough for me, I think agency is another topic and you and Dennet are unnessiarily joining the two.
No, see, this is the point: Sam Harris is unnecessarily joining the concept of ultimate self causation to free will.
When I say "you signed the contract of your own free will", no part of my statement necessarily implies that you are an ultimate causal engine. -
2018-11-09 at 12:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics It is fine if you want to say agency instead of will, but that's not the argument you've been making at all: the issue you've taken is with the word "free" not being applicable if there is any antecedent cause to an action. You need to justify why that is, because I'm perfectly happy to say that that sense of the word free is just stupid, we can both agree, and you're making a rather pointless and completely semantic argument
The point of repeating the "essay like responses" is to show that you can't articulate why the spoopy ghost is integral to your meaning of free will, other than it being part of the "common understanding" of the term, which is not even remotely close to being true; every single person was raised by a couple parents/guardians who probably have full awareness that the upbringing they're providing is going to shape their child. So what else?
No, see, this is the point: Sam Harris is unnecessarily joining the concept of ultimate self causation to free will.
When I say "you signed the contract of your own free will", no part of my statement necessarily implies that you are an ultimate causal engine.
Right, but I think most people do feel that they are ultimate cause of their intentions and decisions. I don't need you to agree. I don't believe most people associate their thought intentions and actions with the chain of cause and effect that came before, they feel like it's something they are in absolute control over, and when their bodies do something unexpected like sudden organ failure they feel like victims of their biology rather then the bosses, even though there isn't really a difference.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-11-09 at 1:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Right, but I think most people do feel that they are ultimate cause of their intentions and decisions. I don't you need to agree. I don't believe most people associate their thought intentions and actions with the chain of cause and effect that came before, they feel like it's something they are in absolute control over, and when their bodies do something unexpected like sudden organ failure they feel like victims of their biology rather then the bosses, even though there isn't really a difference.
Ok, simple questions
1) Do you think most people would agree that their parents' behaviours toward them contributed to the way they turned out?
2) Do you think that whenever people make a choice, they make it completely apropos of nothing and in a total vacuum from their past experiences?
3) Nothing about our classical understanding of gravity was retained between Newton and Einstein, except the phenomenon of "attraction" itself. And practically all scientists believer in Newtonian gravitation for a very long time. Do you condone the continued use of the word "gravity" or is your first response to it that it doesn't exist and we should call it Grangpo? -
2018-11-09 at 1:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics Ok, simple questions
1) Do you think most people would agree that their parents' behaviours toward them contributed to the way they turned out?
2) Do you think that whenever people make a choice, they make it completely apropos of nothing and in a total vacuum from their past experiences?
3) Nothing about our classical understanding of gravity was retained between Newton and Einstein, except the phenomenon of "attraction" itself. And practically all scientists believer in Newtonian gravitation for a very long time. Do you condone the continued use of the word "gravity" or is your first response to it that it doesn't exist and we should call it Grangpo?
Do you believe people don't feel responsible for when their immune systems start attacking them, but do feel responsible when they write something, even though both instances are caused by prior events they had no influence over? -
2018-11-09 at 2:33 PM UTCIs there a calcuable number of possible sequences of synapse combinations or paths?
Like taking a drug for example, if you took the exact same dose and purity and everything else, over and over, it wouldn't produce the exact same chain of chemical reactions would it?
Maybe that's what you guys were discussing on the determinism thread about random number generators.
I don't know exactly what I mean but I guess if you say we couldn't go back and do something differently, how would that play into a drug taking scenario where we went back and chose the same drug but the drug took a different path because of its random nature?
Or are you saying that it would take the same path every time? -
2018-11-09 at 3:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Do you believe people don't feel responsible for when their immune systems start attacking them, but do feel responsible when they write something, even though both instances are caused by prior events they had no influence over?
Of course, but why do you think that's a problem? You have to have some description of "had influence over" to even rationally use the contrapositive of "had no influence over". The entire point is that there is a reasonable (and very useful) bound to define that. We have a sense of responsibility that lies at the core of our social structure, and we can give you a perfectly consistent account for the rational roots of that sense (which we don't directly have intuitive access to). What other account of responsibility even matters? Certainly not the invisible dragon one you're clinging so hard to. -
2018-11-09 at 3:33 PM UTCAdditional point: imagine if I did in fact rewind time and you did something differently because of the way the glutamates in your brain underwent their quantum processes randomly, would that be free will?
-
2018-11-09 at 4:05 PM UTCI don't think there a problem, just pointing out that most people feel responsible for the words they type but not for the way their body metabolizes the foods they eat, even though they they have just as much influence over the causes of these events. Do you take responsibility for the way the "glutamates in your brain underwent their quantum processes"? Is that something you feel you freely willed?
-
2018-11-09 at 4:55 PM UTCsaying that you have freewill is just like that faggot sci-fi actor saying he has freewill because hes willfully free to engage in faggotry in a faggot sci-fi movie but the truth is everything in that sci-fi movie was already scripted.
our lives, both yours and mine are already scripted. even when you choose to kill yourself, that too has been scripted into your life. -
2018-11-09 at 5:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't think there a problem, just pointing out that most people feel responsible for the words they type but not for the way their body metabolizes the foods they eat, even though they they have just as much influence over the causes of these events.
No, that's completely false; they have just as much influence over the ultimate causes of either event (which is none). But they have completely different relations as a proximal cause to either event, and that's what simply explains their feeling of responsibility (and the utility therein). We explicitly take responsibility for things that were a result of a state of our intentionality, and not things that weren't. Most people wouldn't "take responsibility for" generating shit in their lower torso either. I'm telling you, there's a perfectly reasonable way to validate that feeling, and that feeling is consistent with science in all ways but the specific one that serves an explanatory bridge.
Do you take responsibility for the way the "glutamates in your brain underwent their quantum processes"? Is that something you feel you freely willed?
Okay good, so we agree that "doing otherwise" is completely irrelevant, and the discussion is entirely about the responsibility aspect.
Then yes! The glutamates are an important element of my neurology and my neurology is the direct proximal cause of my consciousness and decision making. Why wouldn't "I" take responsibility for it? -
2018-11-09 at 5:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics No, that's completely false; they have just as much influence over the ultimate causes of either event (which is none). But they have completely different relations as a proximal cause to either event, and that's what simply explains their feeling of responsibility (and the utility therein). We explicitly take responsibility for things that were a result of a state of our intentionality, and not things that weren't. Most people wouldn't "take responsibility for" generating shit in their lower torso either. I'm telling you, there's a perfectly reasonable way to validate that feeling, and that feeling is consistent with science in all ways but the specific one that serves an explanatory bridge.
Do you take responsibility for the way the "glutamates in your brain underwent their quantum processes"? Is that something you feel you freely willed?
Okay good, so we agree that "doing otherwise" is completely irrelevant, and the discussion is entirely about the responsibility aspect.
Then yes! The glutamates are an important element of my neurology and my neurology is the direct proximal cause of my consciousness and decision making. Why wouldn't "I" take responsibility for it?
I don't know why you would or wouldn't, but I do think most people don't feel responsible for some of the various unconscious processes our bodies perform, and do feel responsible for others, but really aren't. I feel like I'm responsible for the words I'm typing right now but whatever is going on in my brain making me think these thoughts and have this feeling is something I actually have no influence over. -
2018-11-09 at 6:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics No, that's completely false; they have just as much influence over the ultimate causes of either event (which is none). But they have completely different relations as a proximal cause to either event, and that's what simply explains their feeling of responsibility (and the utility therein). We explicitly take responsibility for things that were a result of a state of our intentionality, and not things that weren't. Most people wouldn't "take responsibility for" generating shit in their lower torso either. I'm telling you, there's a perfectly reasonable way to validate that feeling, and that feeling is consistent with science in all ways but the specific one that serves an explanatory bridge.
Do you take responsibility for the way the "glutamates in your brain underwent their quantum processes"? Is that something you feel you freely willed?
Okay good, so we agree that "doing otherwise" is completely irrelevant, and the discussion is entirely about the responsibility aspect.
Then yes! The glutamates are an important element of my neurology and my neurology is the direct proximal cause of my consciousness and decision making. Why wouldn't "I" take responsibility for it?
Responsibility implies fault as well as action.
There is no fault in digesting a taco. (the right taco)
Other tacos may be more prone to fault digesting
