[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will / Sam Harris Once Again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Sam Harris has posted a second follow up to his post on his own blog about free will (the link to which tartbrain originally posted on this forum). In this post he takes a slightly different tack on the subject: You Do Not Choose What You Choose Many readers continue to find my position on free will bewildering. As I have suggested about other believers in the lack of free will here (and that they have failed to reply to), if they are so convinced that there is no free will, WHY are they working so hard to convince others (whom they insist have no free will) to change their minds and embrace the no free will position? If Harris is correct, his thoughts on this matter and his ability to decide for free will or against it are not his own. The decision was made for him. He at no point had the ability to choose what he chose. If he is correct, all of the people he seems a bit perturbed with for not understanding or agreeing with his position *also* have no free will. Just like him, they also at no point had the ability to choose what they chose. So why is he continuing to argue, as if they (or *anyone* reading what he writes) had the free will to choose to change their minds as a result of reading it? Something in this scenario doth not compute. Most of the criticism Iâve received consists of some combination of the following claims: 1. Your account assumes that mental events are, at bottom, physical events. But if the mind is distinct from the brain (to any degree), this would allow for freedom of will. 2. You admit that mental eventsâlike choices, efforts, intentions, reasoning, etcâcause certain of our actions. But such mental states presuppose free will for their very existence. Your position is self-contradictory: Either we are free to think and behave as we will, or there is no such thing as choice, effort, intention, reasoning, etc. 3. Even if my thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious causes, they are still my thoughts and actions. Anything that my brain does or chooses, whether consciously or not, is something that I have done or chosen. The fact that I cannot always be subjectively aware of the causes of my actions does not negate free will. All of these objections express confusion about my basic premise. The first is simply falseâmy argument against free will does not require philosophical materialism. There is no question that (most) mental events are the product of physical eventsâbut even if the human mind were part soul- stuff, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious operations of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of your brain does. Continues: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/you-do-not-choose-what-you-choose/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will / Sam Harris Once Again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Sam Harris has posted a second follow up to his post on his own blog about free will (the link to which tartbrain originally posted on this forum). In this post he takes a slightly different tack on the subject: You Do Not Choose What You Choose Many readers continue to find my position on free will bewildering. As I have suggested about other believers in the lack of free will here (and that they have failed to reply to), if they are so convinced that there is no free will, WHY are they working so hard to convince others (whom they insist have no free will) to change their minds and embrace the no free will position? If Harris is correct, his thoughts on this matter and his ability to decide for free will or against it are not his own. The decision was made for him. Really? (as in SNL Really!!??) Are you suggesting that its only one of two discrete possibilities. Either: 1) one is totally independent of any outside or internal sub conscious forces makes decisions or 2) some entity makes the decisions and then tells him what to do? (I know mother is at home, but is she calling all the shots? (Cut to old aspirin commercial Mother! I would rather do it myself!!)) Do you consider your culture, family, education, training, career, to have any effect in molding, shaping or filtering your, or anyone's, thoughts as to what the best thing to do in any moment is? Are you, or anyone, conscious of every single normally (in we mere mortals) subconscious process that shapes our thoughts, impulses, motivations and desires? If not, then I suggest we do not have full free will -- and yet there is no entity that has made our decisions for us. Is it not true that some posters have no free in that they have not choice but to respond to your proddings? The degree of freewill that we have appears to be the issue: a) some, b) a little or c) none. Total Free will is not an option, IMO. Given that the intellect is generally the inner deciding mechanism (perhaps along with gut or intuition) are what we normally perceive to be the agents of free will. But how free is the intellect? It has been uber trained, conditioned, programmed and pavloved to act in specific, complex ways (of and for which we are no longer fully conscious of the inner processes). Personally, I don't see huge amounts of ACTUAL free will -- though I concede its very easy to see a lot of imaginary free will i our decisions and actions. Perhaps you have transcended all outer and inner conditioning, training, programming, influences, culture, etc and make each decision in totally fresh and independent ways, free of any axioms or postulates as to how the world works, looking at each new problems and its solution outside the context of any history or other events. I have not achieved that state -- and frankly, not sure I care for it. I do agree with your attachment theme. With less attachment, and the ability to go with what is happening in each moment, not tied to needed, desired, or out to be outcomes, one is freer. However, even that is not real Free Will, IMO. (Did I get that right mother/god/dictating entity? I seem to be hard of hearing this morning as you dictate my every word and impulse.) :) He at no point had the ability to choose what he chose. If he is correct, all of the people he seems a bit perturbed with for not understanding or agreeing with his position *also* have no free will. Just like him, they also at no point had the ability to choose what they chose. So why is he continuing to argue, as if they (or *anyone* reading what he writes) had the free will to choose to change their minds as a result of reading it? Something in this scenario doth not compute. Most of the criticism Iâve received consists of some combination of the following claims: 1. Your account assumes that mental events are, at bottom, physical events. But if the mind is distinct from the brain (to any degree), this would allow for freedom of will. 2. You admit that mental eventsâlike choices, efforts, intentions, reasoning, etcâcause certain of our actions. But such mental states presuppose free will for their very existence. Your position is self-contradictory: Either we are free to think and behave as we will, or there is no such thing as choice, effort, intention, reasoning, etc. 3. Even if my thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious causes, they are still my thoughts and actions. Anything that my brain does or chooses, whether consciously or not, is something that I have done or chosen. The fact that I cannot always be subjectively aware of the causes of my actions does not negate free will. All of these objections
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will / Sam Harris Once Again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Sam Harris has posted a second follow up to his post on his own blog about free will (the link to which tartbrain originally posted on this forum). In this post he takes a slightly different tack on the subject: You Do Not Choose What You Choose Many readers continue to find my position on free will bewildering. As I have suggested about other believers in the lack of free will here (and that they have failed to reply to), if they are so convinced that there is no free will, WHY are they working so hard to convince others (whom they insist have no free will) to change their minds and embrace the no free will position? If Harris is correct, his thoughts on this matter and his ability to decide for free will or against it are not his own. The decision was made for him. Really? (as in SNL Really!!??) Are you suggesting that its only one of two discrete possibilities. Either: 1) one is totally independent of any outside or internal sub conscious forces makes decisions or 2) some entity makes the decisions and then tells him what to do? (I know mother is at home, but is she calling all the shots? I wonder if we are meaning the same thing by the term free will. I would venture that if, generally speaking, someone could only conceive of the above two discrete options, then they have very little actual free will -- though perhaps scads of imaginary free will. If there are 100 options and one is only aware of, or can only conceive of, two of them, he has very little free will IMO. EVEN if he can freely choose among the two options. He is so bound up in his limited world, he has no idea how much free will he doesn't have. I don't think that you are necessarily looking at a micro set of all possible options (though we all are to a degree). We don't know what we don't know. For example, say a guy has boiled it down to three things: eating , sleeping and f*ing. And he has total free will to chose what he wants to do in this and each moment: eat, sleep or F. I don't think this guy has much free will at all but he is going to think that he has total free will. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. We all don't know what we don't know. And then, even if we are fully aware of all options (an impossible or terribly rare state, IMO) do we really chose among them in a totally free, unbiased, untrained, culture-free way? I think not (but that is probably just my cultural, educational, and life experience bias speaking). Let me ask some questions that may clarify some of the points I have been attempting to make. *Does someone who has worked full time, full heart into it, for TMO for 20 years, an has no just left, do they have total free will to see things as they are? (Not if FFL is representative, IMO). *Someone who has large unfulfilled ego needs and thus bashes everyone insight to make them feel better about themselves. Does this person have much free will? *Someone sees a post and just HAS to respond. Do they have much free-will? *Two high school chums go in different directions. One goes to Harvard, the other goes lives in a small cabin high in the Rockies and explores and rejoices in nature each and every minute. After 4-5 years, does each enjoy the same free will? I would suggest that any free will they do experience (or feel that they do) will be of quite a different type, two barely intersecting sets of free-will. Each has taken a path that has opened up lots of options and also has closed off a lot of options. Each has quite different sets of (perceived) free will (if any or much at all in reality). *A sports fan during playoffs. Do they have much free will NOT to watch them? *Eva Greene walks into a bar, alone, an sits next to you at the bar. do you have ANY free-will at that moment? Do you really have the free will to get up and walk away. (Cut to old aspirin commercial Mother! I would rather do it myself!!)) Do you consider your culture, family, education, training, career, to have any effect in molding, shaping or filtering your, or anyone's, thoughts as to what the best thing to do in any moment is? Are you, or anyone, conscious of every single normally (in we mere mortals) subconscious process that shapes our thoughts, impulses, motivations and desires? If not, then I suggest we do not have full free will -- and yet there is no entity that has made our decisions for us. Is it not true that some posters have no free in that they have not choice but to respond to your proddings? The degree of freewill that we have appears to be the issue: a) some, b) a little or c) none. Total Free will is not an option, IMO. Given that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will / Sam Harris Once Again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: As I have suggested about other believers in the lack of free will here (and that they have failed to reply to), if they are so convinced that there is no free will, WHY are they working so hard to convince others (whom they insist have no free will) to change their minds and embrace the no free will position? If Harris is correct, his thoughts on this matter and his ability to decide for free will or against it are not his own. The decision was made for him. He at no point had the ability to choose what he chose. If he is correct, all of the people he seems a bit perturbed with for not understanding or agreeing with his position *also* have no free will. Just like him, they also at no point had the ability to choose what they chose. So why is he continuing to argue, as if they (or *anyone* reading what he writes) had the free will to choose to change their minds as a result of reading it? Something in this scenario doth not compute. Really? (as in SNL Really!!??) Are you suggesting that its only one of two discrete possibilities. Either: 1) one is totally independent of any outside or internal sub conscious forces makes decisions or 2) some entity makes the decisions and then tells him what to do? (I know mother is at home, but is she calling all the shots? (Cut to old aspirin commercial Mother! I would rather do it myself!!)) Do you consider your culture, family, education, training, career, to have any effect in molding, shaping or filtering your, or anyone's, thoughts as to what the best thing to do in any moment is? Are you, or anyone, conscious of every single normally (in we mere mortals) subconscious process that shapes our thoughts, impulses, motivations and desires? If not, then I suggest we do not have full free will -- and yet there is no entity that has made our decisions for us. Is it not true that some posters have no free in that they have not choice but to respond to your proddings? The degree of freewill that we have appears to be the issue: a) some, b) a little or c) none. Total Free will is not an option, IMO. Cool. I have no desire to argue with you or to try to convince you of anything. I merely commented on the seeming disparity between the title of Harris' blog post (You Do Not Choose What You Choose) and his behavior, which it seems to me consists of trying to convince readers to *choose* the position he's advo- cating. Bzzzt. Does not compute. This strikes me as similar to the behavior of a friend of mine. She's a total Let Thy will be done God freak. She categorically *refuses* to make any life decisions for herself, claiming that God will do it all. But *at the same time*, while professing to believe what she is saying, she spends 90% of her time bitching and moaning and complaining about the circumstances of her life. Bzzt. Does not compute. Seems to me that if she really believes what she claims to believe, then God did *everything she is complaining about*, and that she has no right to bitch. I was suggesting that I have a similar Bzzt reaction when seeing Harris claim that there is no free will and no ability to choose, and yet arguing for several posts now with others, seemingly in an attempt to get them to choose. Bt. As for the rest of your rap, I have no interest in talk- ing the existence or non-existence of free will. To me it's pure theory, and not relevant to my life. As I've said before, my position is that I see no up side to having or professing a belief that there is no free will. And so far in all of these discussions, not a single person has ever proposed such an up side. From my pragmatic, everyday POV, I seem to have free will. Therefore, I believe (pragmatically) that I do. To do so makes my everyday behavior *consistent with* what I believe. But for those who profess to believe that there is no free will, they have admitted that while they may believe that, they *act* as if they did have it. Their behavior is NOT consistent with what they profess to believe. Cognitive dissonance. I experience no such cognitive dissonance. My behavior (acting as if I have free will) is consistent with my beliefs (that I have it). If it turns out that there is no free will, as I have also said many times, No Harm, No Foul. I cannot be held karmically responsible for anything I did or failed to do, because I never had the ability to choose to do or not do it in the first place. By behaving in a manner consistent with my beliefs, I get off scot-free, whether it turns out that those beliefs are true in some cosmic sense or not. :-) To me the question of whether free will exists or not on some theoretical level is a non-starter, something that is not worth my time to ponder, and certainly
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will / Sam Harris Once Again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 06/08/2011 07:53 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: Sam Harris has posted a second follow up to his post on his own blog about free will (the link to which tartbrain originally posted on this forum). In this post he takes a slightly different tack on the subject: You Do Not Choose What You Choose Many readers continue to find my position on free will bewildering. Most of the criticism Iâve received consists of some combination of the following claims: 1. Your account assumes that mental events are, at bottom, physical events. But if the mind is distinct from the brain (to any degree), this would allow for freedom of will. 2. You admit that mental eventsâlike choices, efforts, intentions, reasoning, etcâcause certain of our actions. But such mental states presuppose free will for their very existence. Your position is self-contradictory: Either we are free to think and behave as we will, or there is no such thing as choice, effort, intention, reasoning, etc. 3. Even if my thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious causes, they are still my thoughts and actions. Anything that my brain does or chooses, whether consciously or not, is something that I have done or chosen. The fact that I cannot always be subjectively aware of the causes of my actions does not negate free will. All of these objections express confusion about my basic premise. The first is simply falseâmy argument against free will does not require philosophical materialism. There is no question that (most) mental events are the product of physical eventsâbut even if the human mind were part soul-stuff, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious operations of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of your brain does. Continues: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/you-do-not-choose-what-you-choose/ Cosmic masturbation. Why waste your time? Doesn't have the free will not to?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will / Sam Harris Once Again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ I was suggesting that I have a similar Bzzt reaction when seeing Harris claim that there is no free will and no ability to choose, and yet arguing for several posts now with others, seemingly in an attempt to get them to choose. Bt. If Harris is 'right,' what difference does it make if someone 'chooses' one way or the other, or just ignores that a choice is available? If Harris is 'wrong,' what difference does it make if someone chooses one way or the other, or just ignores that a choice is available? Does one have a free choice to think that there is no choice? If there is no free choice, can one be impelled to think there is? If you undeviatingly always make the same choice, is that free?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will / Sam Harris Once Again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Sam Harris has posted a second follow up to his post on his own blog about free will (the link to which tartbrain originally posted on this forum). In this post he takes a slightly different tack on the subject: You Do Not Choose What You Choose Many readers continue to find my position on free will bewildering. As I have suggested about other believers in the lack of free will here (and that they have failed to reply to), if they are so convinced that there is no free will, WHY are they working so hard to convince others (whom they insist have no free will) to change their minds and embrace the no free will position? If Harris is correct, his thoughts on this matter and his ability to decide for free will or against it are not his own. The decision was made for him. He at no point had the ability to choose what he chose. If he is correct, all of the people he seems a bit perturbed with for not understanding or agreeing with his position *also* have no free will. Just like him, they also at no point had the ability to choose what they chose. So why is he continuing to argue, as if they (or *anyone* reading what he writes) had the free will to choose to change their minds as a result of reading it? Because he does not have the free will to decide not to? It just feels as if he does. Something in this scenario doth not compute. Most of the criticism Iâve received consists of some combination of the following claims: 1. Your account assumes that mental events are, at bottom, physical events. But if the mind is distinct from the brain (to any degree), this would allow for freedom of will. 2. You admit that mental eventsâlike choices, efforts, intentions, reasoning, etcâcause certain of our actions. But such mental states presuppose free will for their very existence. Your position is self-contradictory: Either we are free to think and behave as we will, or there is no such thing as choice, effort, intention, reasoning, etc. 3. Even if my thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious causes, they are still my thoughts and actions. Anything that my brain does or chooses, whether consciously or not, is something that I have done or chosen. The fact that I cannot always be subjectively aware of the causes of my actions does not negate free will. All of these objections express confusion about my basic premise. The first is simply falseâmy argument against free will does not require philosophical materialism. There is no question that (most) mental events are the product of physical eventsâbut even if the human mind were part soul- stuff, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious operations of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of your brain does. Continues: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/you-do-not-choose-what-you-choose/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Will / Sam Harris Once Again
thx for posting this...The mental operations mentioned can simply be replaced by terms such as higher dimensional, more subtle, etc; in which case there's still no change in the strength of the Harris arguments. ... imo - some other line of attack should be found by free will advocates; but I haven't found it yet. Something may turn up within the next trillion years possibly. http://www.fantasygallery.net/williamsg/art_5_crystal-deva.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Sam Harris has posted a second follow up to his post on his own blog about free will (the link to which tartbrain originally posted on this forum). In this post he takes a slightly different tack on the subject: You Do Not Choose What You Choose Many readers continue to find my position on free will bewildering. Most of the criticism Iâve received consists of some combination of the following claims: 1. Your account assumes that mental events are, at bottom, physical events. But if the mind is distinct from the brain (to any degree), this would allow for freedom of will. 2. You admit that mental eventsâlike choices, efforts, intentions, reasoning, etcâcause certain of our actions. But such mental states presuppose free will for their very existence. Your position is self-contradictory: Either we are free to think and behave as we will, or there is no such thing as choice, effort, intention, reasoning, etc. 3. Even if my thoughts and actions are the product of unconscious causes, they are still my thoughts and actions. Anything that my brain does or chooses, whether consciously or not, is something that I have done or chosen. The fact that I cannot always be subjectively aware of the causes of my actions does not negate free will. All of these objections express confusion about my basic premise. The first is simply falseâmy argument against free will does not require philosophical materialism. There is no question that (most) mental events are the product of physical eventsâbut even if the human mind were part soul-stuff, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious operations of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of your brain does. Continues: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/you-do-not-choose-what-you-choose/
