the asinine cretin Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape. Beginning on page 104, "The Illusion of Free Will." Video version (1 of 3). I don't think that a theory of free will -- in the sense of an inscrutable metaphysical locus of personhood that endows a faculty which somehow transcends ordinary causality -- is necessary for the validity of the concepts such as self-determination, virtue, culpability, and the like. I have not read Harris' book beyond this small selection and my remarks here are very willy nilly; I'm only trying to start a conversation. Sure, perhaps free will, as a metaphysical concept, is an "of the gaps" pseudo-explanation; I don't have a problem with that. I don't think it follows that because psychical causality can be probed empirically, and described in reductionist terms, therefore the concept is existentially and/or socially invalid. It seems to me a meaningful and valuable social construct, even if ultimately illusory from a perennial metaphysical point of view. I am inclined to agree with Harris about the dubiousness of "retribution" and I find containment and rehabilitation to be "more evolved sensibilities" (if I may allude to Trek), but of course he's not advocating the erasure of the concept of responsibility. An attenuation of it based on neuroscience perhaps. So, how far might this be taken? I think that a society might rightly create a "free will" concept and standard based on a pragmatism of sorts. It doesn't have to be "real" in some mythical or supernatural sense. It is "real" much as inalienable rights might be considered real, or distributive justice, or many other abstract concepts that are apparently evolved for social reasons. Can we have a truly efficacious and existentially significant concept of free will that is compatible with the kind of determinism that Harris believes to be the plain scientific fact of the matter? I realize that free will and consciousness are huge topics in philosophy, with plenty of baggage and rabbit trails, but it would be nice if philosophical responses here engaged what Harris is actually saying (I'm sure there are many here who are more familiar with his ideas than I am). I've not researched these topics so forgive my naivete and ignorance. I tentatively assume that Harris is accurate when he describes experiments that reveal the wholly illusory nature of our experience of free will. P.S. Again, just trying to start a conversation. I'm more interested in what others have to say in response to Harris than in quibbling over any of my thoughts above, so go easy. Regards. Edited October 10, 2011 by Ceti Alpha V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 P.S. Further (and perhaps tangentially), I imagine traditional Western sensibilities would ground free will, rights, justice, and related abstractions, in a supernatural worldview. The Judeo-Christian God is the source and ultimate explanation of these things, which are contingent upon our having immortal souls, which "animals" lack. I wonder what kind of information cultural anthropology might yield in this regard? To what extent, and in what respects, is free will an issue outside of Western civilization? I know that Hindu and Buddhist religious thought differs markedly with Western conceptions. What about the dominant worldviews of various societies and civilizations in history? Ancient Egyptian, ancient Greek, Imperial Chinese, contemporary Japanese, Khoisan, Dani, Aztec, et cetera, ad nauseum. It isn't difficult to imagine societies that function perfectly well without this concept. Might free will be then quite superfluous? Perhaps it can be argued that it is in some ways harmful to a society? If it really is merely a self-aggrandizing misunderstanding of the nature of reality I can see how it might be harmful. If many people, rather than being rehabilitated, or otherwise helped in some way, are instead stigmatized or needlessly "punished" because of a misunderstanding of human nature as being wholly self-possessed... Again, just trying to instigate a conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) I hereby beg any moderator who happens upon this to put the word sex in the thread title (maybe "Sexual pleasure") since it has failed to generate views. There are younger threads with ten times the view count and I attribute this to saucy subjects. Sexual morality is related to this topic so it isn't pure BS. Edited October 18, 2011 by Ceti Alpha V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) While it is possible to let many of your actions be governed just by your subconscious, it is also equally possible to decide things for yourself, so culpability comes with the ability to chose. With things like an animal, as far as we know, they don't have as great of a capability to fight their subconscious instincts. However, it is expected of most people that they do fight those feelings in order to uphold society and not be lazy about it. But, if someone truly lacks the capabilities for a normal person, who are you going to blame? Their DNA? What good would that do anyone? It's not that free-will is an illusion, it's that most of the time people don't want to put the effort into actually thinking or using their consciousness and fighting instincts. Even when your just relying in your subconscious, your free-will is still there, but it's in a sort of "rest mode", doing minimal activity. Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) While it is possible to let many of your actions be governed just by your subconscious, it is also equally possible to decide things for yourself, so culpability comes with the ability to chose. With things like an animal, as far as we know, they don't have as great of a capability to fight their subconscious instincts. However, it is expected of most people that they do fight those feelings in order to uphold society and not be lazy about it. But, if someone truly lacks the capabilities for a normal person, who are you going to blame? Their DNA? What good would that do anyone? It's not that free-will is an illusion, it's that most of the time people don't want to put the effort into actually thinking or using their consciousness and fighting instincts. Even when your just relying in your subconscious, your free-will is still there, but it's in a sort of "rest mode", doing minimal activity. Thank you for your response. Good stuff. I think the central claim is that brain scans somehow reveal that what we experience as conscious acts are actually predetermined in other regions of the brain and that the sense of free-will is therefore illusory. But seriously, what is free-will? How do you define it? It seems to me that people often mean to imply that there is some ghost in the machine that is exempt from material causality and/or computation. What is it exactly that is free? The topic seems often to be about an ill-defined metaphysical doctrine used to fill in an explanatory gap. If the physical processes underlying a supposedly conscious and free act can be described, what remains? Qualia? Some ever-elusive ontology of the person? ETA: As far as "blame" is concerned, I'm not saying that moral responsibility, culpability, and punishment are therefore invalid concepts. I think there are many concepts in our everyday thinking and in our social relations that are ultimately fictions. Inalienable human rights, concepts like private property, various moral imperatives. We may rightly experience such things as real in themselves, and in a sense perhaps they are, but must they really be more than human inventions to matter? I think in the past Western civilization had a view of history and of day-to-day events that was much more supernatural, providential, and therefore inexplicable. I doubt many today are concerned. Suggesting that things like the weather or the death of a loved one are not consciously willed events (by a deity, presumably), at least in our proximate control (supplications to the deity and the like) may have seemed an intolerable idea to many people of the past. (I'm reminded of a video in which Bill O'Reilly silences a guest who was speaking of global warming by declaring that "GOD CONTROLS THE CLIMATE!!") Is the question of the actual nature of free-will similarly taboo in modern society? I suspect so. If it is considered an inexplicable phenomenon, and therefore essentially supernatural, then I'd suggest that this is a problem. Now, questions regarding the methodology and reliability of the neuroscientific research that Harris alludes to is another thing altogether. Maybe there is something far deeper and more mysterious going on -- I don't know. I really know very little about this topic and have creating this thread primarily to learn. Cheers. Edited October 19, 2011 by Ceti Alpha V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I hereby beg any moderator who happens upon this to put the word sex in the thread title (maybe "Sexual pleasure") since it has failed to generate views. There are younger threads with ten times the view count and I attribute this to saucy subjects. Sexual morality is related to this topic so it isn't pure BS. Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 Done. Hahahaha! Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Thank you for your response. Good stuff. I think the central claim is that brain scans somehow reveal that what we experience as conscious acts are actually predetermined in other regions of the brain and that the sense of free-will is therefore illusory. But seriously, what is free-will? How do you define it? It seems to me that people often mean to imply that there is some ghost in the machine that is exempt from material causality and/or computation. What is it exactly that is free? The topic seems often to be about an ill-defined metaphysical doctrine used to fill in an explanatory gap. If the physical processes underlying a supposedly conscious and free act can be described, what remains? Qualia? Some ever-elusive ontology of the person? Cheers. I've seen that type of research too, but at the same time there's hundreds of situations in a day that your brain hasn't thought of in which you can choose to do something, or if someone puts you on the spot in some way like out of 1000 people or just a crowd. I would agree that sometimes you aren't using your free will and some times you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 I've seen that type of research too, but at the same time there's hundreds of situations in a day that your brain hasn't thought of in which you can choose to do something, or if someone puts you on the spot in some way like out of 1000 people or just a crowd. I would agree that sometimes you aren't using your free will and some times you are. What do you mean by free will? Is it somehow exempt from the kinds of natural causality that we can investigate scientifically? If so, how is this not a non-explanation dependent on an ignorance of the underlying processes? It seems to be a wholly non-scientific (and even anti-scientific) concept in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) What do you mean by free will? Is it somehow exempt from the kinds of natural causality that we can investigate scientifically? If so, how is this not a non-explanation dependent on an ignorance of the underlying processes? It seems to be a wholly non-scientific (and even anti-scientific) concept in any case. Free will is pretty hard to define, but many people like to think of it as the ability to consciously choose. That video is basically saying only subconscious chemical reactions make up your thought processes and all your thoughts are pre-determined by other exact processes, but that doesn't make sense in every situation. You can even view your own consciousness in an imaginary mirror if you do it right. I forgot how, but I think Oprah brought up how to do it at some point. The actual cause for consciousness is also something that isn't really known, but many scientists think of it as information itself being processed. Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 Free will is pretty hard to define, but many people like to think of it as the ability to consciously choose. That video is basically saying only subconscious chemical reactions make up your thought processes, but that doesn't make sense in every situation. You can even view your own consciousness in an imaginary mirror if you do it right. I forgot how, but I think Oprah brought up how to do it at some point. The actual cause for consciousness is also something that isn't really known, but many scientists think of it as information itself being processed. I feel like maybe you're dodging the issue. Do you think that free will requires an inexplicable ghost in the machine or might our conscious choices be subject to the same kinds of underlying causality as our unconscious computational activity? Or maybe you're agnostic? Until we have a complete scientific theory of consciousness, who knows? Just curious. Anyway, I think determinism seems to be the issue. But a hard determinism need not be the case given the obvious complexity of human beings. I imagine a model of the mind would be a complex system with stochastic elements. But that's not quite what is meant by free will, no? It isn't that our actions are random and unpredictable, it is that we, as conscious subjects, somehow own our actions. We feel we originate events somehow outside of normal causality. What about this really requires an inexplicable locus of volition? Isn't the inexplicable aspect simply a vague subjective impression? How do you respond specifically to the suggestion that "free will" simply refers to our state of ignorance about the underlying neurocomputational processes behind a thought or impulse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) I feel like maybe you're dodging the issue. Do you think that free will requires an inexplicable ghost in the machine or might our conscious choices be subject to the same kinds of underlying causality as our unconscious computational activity? Or maybe you're agnostic? Until we have a complete scientific theory of consciousness, who knows? Just curious. Anyway, I think determinism seems to be the issue. But a hard determinism need not be the case given the obvious complexity of human beings. I imagine a model of the mind would be a complex system with stochastic elements. But that's not quite what is meant by free will, no? It isn't that our actions are random and unpredictable, it is that we, as conscious subjects, somehow own our actions. We feel we originate events somehow outside of normal causality. What about this really requires an inexplicable locus of volition? Isn't the inexplicable aspect simply a vague subjective impression? How do you respond specifically to the suggestion that "free will" simply refers to our state of ignorance about the underlying neurocomputational processes behind a thought or impulse? I would agree that the issue brought up is determinism, but even science can touch that realm, since in quantum mechanics, nature is inherently not deterministic. Free-will I think is caused by consciousness, and consciousness is not a physical entity so we cannot just "point" to it and observe, we can observe. I guess we could think of consciousness as an imaginary number. It's not a real value, yet you can use it to generate real numbers. Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 I would agree that the issue brought up is determinism, but even science can touch that realm, since in quantum mechanics, nature is inherently not deterministic. Free-will I think is caused by consciousness, and consciousness is not a physical entity so we cannot just "point" to it and observe, we can observe. I guess we could think of consciousness as an imaginary number. It's not a real value, yet you can use it to generate real numbers. Quantum mechanics applies to quantum phenomena. You are then positing that consciousness operates on the quantum level? Free will refers to a non-computational activity of the brain based on quantum collapse, or some such thing? Quantum theories of the mind; Penrose, et al.? A falsifiable hypothesis based on evidence would be desirable. I think such theories are in the minority among neuroscientists. Maybe I'm wrong. Still, it seems like a long-shot. This is definitely an interesting turn in the conversation, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Quantum mechanics applies to quantum phenomena. You are then positing that consciousness operates on the quantum level? Free will refers to a non-computational activity of the brain based on quantum collapse, or some such thing? Quantum theories of the mind; Penrose, et al.? A falsifiable hypothesis based on evidence would be desirable. I think such theories are in the minority among neuroscientists. Maybe I'm wrong. Still, it seems like a long-shot. This is definitely an interesting turn in the conversation, however. Well consciousness isn't a physical entity, so doesn't that mean it can occupy the QM realm if it is not bound by physical shape? Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Well consciousness isn't a physical entity, so doesn't that mean it can occupy the QM realm if it is not bound by physical shape? Do elaborate if you would. I don't see how any of that follows from the preceding discussion. Also, QM is a physical theory. Even if wave function collapse has something to do with consciousness it would still be within the realm of physics. This kind of speculation gets pretty far out pretty fast. I don't want to go Deepak Chopra here or anything. Without a clear scientific reason to do so, I don't see the validity of postulating quantum mechanical theories of consciousness. At least as more than "what if" discussion. Edited October 19, 2011 by Ceti Alpha V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Do elaborate if you would. I don't see how any of that follows from the preceding discussion. Also, QM is a physical theory. Even if wave function collapse has something to do with consciousness it would still be within the realm of physics. This kind of speculation gets pretty far out pretty fast. I don't want to go Deepak Chopra here or anything. Without a clear scientific reason to do so, I don't see the validity of postulating quantum mechanical theories of consciousness. At least as more than "what if" discussion. Well all I'm trying to say with it, is if consciousness isn't a physical thing, how can it be bound by the world of small and large or physical being of any kind? Since it can't, it can be in both the macro AND microscopic world. It's sort of like how the 4th dimension interacts with 3 dimensional space. Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Done. Well I'll be damned - putting sex in the title actually worked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitkat Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 By putting SEX in the title it pulled you in by natural instincts. Very clever! Since science cannot measure consciousness, intelligence, free will since it is not a physical object, they seem to have no problem in denying that it exists in evolution. It seems their strict disciplinary training of never interpreting anything that has not been tested and agreed by peer review becomes an automatic response when responding to the public questions. Which is my point, there are few job occupations that require them to speak articulately, an authoritive manner, etc. that when you meet any of them in their profession they all seem to act alike (doctors, scientists) in their personalities. To me an automatic conditioning of their thinking processes and they generally do not behave that they possess free will. These type of people are held by high standards from society and I guess this is why they appear likes clones of each other. I may be getting away from this thread objective but I thought I would add my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granadina Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 The ' Unknown ' can be a frightening prospect . To let yourself be governed by it .. even more ! The idea of personal identity is a fiction . Hume knew it centuries ago . .. humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitkat Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 The ' Unknown ' can be a frightening prospect . To let yourself be governed by it .. even more ! The idea of personal identity is a fiction . Hume knew it centuries ago . .. humans have no actual conception of the self, only of a bundle of sensations associated with the self . People with severe anxiety disorders certainly have an idea of what self is when a anxiety attack is over and has released the "self" from inprisonment. As for your comment as only being of a bundle of sensations associated with self is obviously the mechanism used in all living entities. You can look at it and determine that life is an illusion too. Since we are just a being of biochemical activities that stimulate atoms in an excited state that allows us to exist as "living" so at the physics level we don't even exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 My free will was to not read this tread but you had to put sex in it and take away my free will..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granadina Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 People with severe anxiety disorders certainly have an idea of what self is when a anxiety attack is over and has released the "self" from inprisonment. As for your comment as only being of a bundle of sensations associated with self is obviously the mechanism used in all living entities. You can look at it and determine that life is an illusion too. Since we are just a being of biochemical activities that stimulate atoms in an excited state that allows us to exist as "living" so at the physics level we don't even exist. .. So in a way it is some kind of disorder , an imbalance , needs unfulfilled .. that results in an idea of self ; or rather a fabricated self . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imogen lace Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I read some politics and philosophies about anarchy and idealist ideologies, liked the non-violent peace making ideas, tried to live my life as an anarcho-feminist for a long while until I was attacked and had my whole life and choices judged by short-term views and opinions that seemed small-minded and maybe jellous of single life stylists as they may have labelled me, suffered the paranormal experience of verbalised insults against women, racist and agist, they told me that theyd took photos and called me a nude, wether this was a lie to cause more indignity to my life and carrear prospects they certainly made me think about how society looks upon the sexuality of a person when they have been inconsensually exploited, and also the right of women to use her sexuality in the capitalist, sexist industries to be economically independent, it is the question that Andrea Dworkin poses in her book on pornography, I think that as a feminist I personally would never have wanted to distort my own genders sexuality with images of myself in pornography, if what they say is true, aia want to sue them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now