Bret Weinstein: Why I disagree with Sam Harris about free will

For more debate videos, updates and exclusive content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
In this extract, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein explains why he disagrees with Sam Harris' view that humans have no free will.
For Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein full show: • Alister McGrath & Bret...
For Part 2 audience Q&A: • Alister McGrath & Bret...
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...

[@thekaratekidpartii2169]

"i think we have free will" must have taken him ages to come up with that rebuttal

[@timediverx]

Billions of years even

[@DestroManiak]

@@timediverx I love you, gave me a chuckle.

[@afen5252]

hhahahaha gg

[@gingrai00]

Well… That was a nothing burger! 😂

[@mokamo23]

yeh, "i do believe that free will exists".... :))

[@jamessheffield4173]

William James: A man walking down a road sees two churches. One is the church of determination, the other the Church of Free Will. He enters the Church of Determination and is asked why he wants to join? He answers because I chose to and is thrown out. Then he enters the Church of Free Will and is asked why he wants to join? He answers because I have to and is thrown out.

[@nintendude794]

James Sheffield hahaha, awesome!

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@nintendude794 Thanks.

[@sophonax661]

Paraphrasing Schopenhauer here: _You can _*_do_*_ whatever you want but you can not _*_want_*_ whatever you want._ I think Bret is talking about doing whatever you want, not wanting whatever you want. [In German it's called Handlungsfreiheit instead of Willensfreiheit.] Sorry if my English wasn't sufficient.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Sopho Nax you can’t do whatever you want, either. That’s what creates the illusion of free will.

[@ravissary79]

@@jaymiddleton1782 perhaps, but the real meat on the bone that's left is still very meaningful and shouldn't be ignored: Even in the infinite imagination of hypothetical one might do- Even if you can only do A or B in situation X, and even if you want to do A for a reasons, one might also want to do B, for entirely different b reasons. And simply saying whatever desire is stronger wins is just guessing. Maybe that's true if desire a is 100 and desire b is 22, but what if desire a is 51 and desire b is 49? You're still likely to choose A, but the tension allows the mask of the seemingly inevitable nature of choosing A to slip for a moment, and instead of operating purely on habit, actual thinking takes place and a real deliberation of the merits of A and B might begin in ernest. As such, one might realize that despite ones personal desire for a is stronger, B doesn't just connect to your b, but might also be good for cdefg a well, even if you don't really have strong feelings about that... possibility, wonder, curiosity, or perhaps cdefg might have altruistic qualities, the happiness of a stranger, or an increase in self discipline, etc. Once the deliberation reveals more, the thinking process starts to remove the percentages, our auto pilot urges as pilots of our daily functions, and we're actually making a REAL CHOICE. You're delineating self desire a, which you really like, vs self desire b plus cdefg that benefits others, or upholds certain abstract virtues, like fairness... and if one chooses B then one isn't just favoring a over b because a is stronger, but one us revealing new aspects of life and then BECOMING the sort of person who changes into someone who might like B more for presently hypothetical reasons which may later become actualized and then habitual. This is the value of free will. It isn't limitless or even large, and mostly one might just as easily abuse it, ignore it, or over time, maybe even sort of lose it (addiction)... but partner wgat fuels the classical motion of human dignity is our potential in such pregnant little slices of life.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

ravissary79 what I’m saying is, if you picked A, it’s because you were always going to pick A. It was A 100, B 0. The idea that we could have done something other than what we actually did is what creates the illusion of free will. Imagine a die roll. While it is spinning, you think any number could come up. But if, for example, a four comes up - that means a four was the only number that could ever come up. The way the die left your hand, the way it tumbled in the air, the angle it hit the table, all of these events resulted in a four showing. No other number could have possibly come up, because a four came up. But I don’t think that makes life meaningless at all. Just something to be aware of.

[@ravissary79]

@@jaymiddleton1782 but that's purely speculative and isn't born out by the experience of choosing. Of course looking back you're doing to say I could only do A... because the contingent nature of the present requires the past to be unchangeable. But when then was now this wasn't the case. That is unless we're in a B theory block type fixed hyperspace system... on which case every fact, object and event is fixed as one giant fact that doesn't actually DO ANYTHING , just our perception moves through this giant fact. But what good is that view? It can't possibly be proven, it only serves to assuage the gilt if a person who questions their role in injustice by saying it's fate. If it isn't theb we're to blame, but it also means we can do better, to embrace freedom from guilt by embracing the idea that free will is illusory is to give up improvement as a possibility, that responsibility is real, that the is ought distinction is intelligible. To embrace the idea of illusion is to have fee will and then to lose it via intellectual trickery. It's a con with nothing to hold it up.

[@sophonax661]

@@jaymiddleton1782 I agree and disagree with you at the same time and on the same topic which is exciting. I agree that the die that left your (or anybody's) hand would always come up as a certain number, because of physics. I also agree that our thoughts and decisions are emergent effects of our matter (neurons and their synapses). But nevertheless there is a difference between doing as you want and wanting as you want. The paradox is that people think they could want as they want when in fact they can only *do* what they want. You see this f.e. in people who want to eat less to loose weight but they can't. Because when they look at a sandwich they want to eat it. People want to learn for their exams but they watch the 200. KZbin video. Our "want" is like a red ribbon, always emerging, we try to predict it but we often fail. We can act (do) like we want but our wants are not reachable.

[@chasetuttle2780]

I swear these guys are just semantically talking past each other most of the time.

[@Oners82]

Chase Tuttle The whole free will debate is a semantic disagreement so your objection seems kinda stupid...

[@chasetuttle2780]

Oners82 it wasn’t an objection, it’s was an observation, and that’s exactly what I’m saying. They each mean something different when they talk about free will, but they say that they “disagree” with each other. It doesn’t sound like a disagreement so much as a difference in definitions and goal post.

[@Oners82]

@@chasetuttle2780 Sure, but my point is that when people disagree about free will they are disagreeing about the definition of free will. It is fundamentally a semantic disagreement in which either side insists that their definition is the correct one, so to say that it is merely semantics is just stating the obvious.

[@BCRooke1]

@@Oners82 I don’t think that’s the case. As Sam Harris puts it, if you could rewind time and live the same moment again, it would not be the case that you could have done something different. Some people disagree with that. This isn’t semantics.

[@Oners82]

@@BCRooke1 Well what Harris says there is simply not true, as QM is fundamentally probabilistic in nature. The idea that the world is deterministic is simply not true, so if you rewound time you could indeed do something different (not that that would necessarily be free will). And of course it is a semantic disagreement because compatibilists and incompatibilists simply define free will differently, and then both insist that their definition is the correct one. Even if the world were deterministic the compatibilist argues that free will could still exist because free will is not about the ability to be able to do otherwise.

[@RyanJesseParsons]

Free will is the notion that it was possible to have done otherwise, given the same set of initial circumstances. I believe the fact that we can IMAGINE doing otherwise, and IMAGINE alternate outcomes makes free will a compelling illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

[@kendog84bsc]

RyanJesseParsons Yeah.. and it seems to me that only thing that could make you choose the alternative is pure randomness. Does anyone assign the notion of free will to the uncontrollable randomness? I wonder

[@snowman9128]

you worded that amazingly

[@Brand00d]

Spot on

[@WhtetstoneFlunky]

When Sam Harris talks of free will, I don't think he is talking about a freedom to choose "A" over "B" but rather concerning a free will that examines all of the countless uncontrollable variables in a person's life that influences the infinite number of choices he will make. I think Bret Weinstein has a different concept of free will.

[@markwilson2421]

Sam is saying choice is an illusion that there isn't a and b, more that there only a or b which I completely agree with

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

Sam Harris is arguing against maximal autonomy, he just calls it free will...Sam believes (as far as I can tell ) that we’re all npcs running a script.

[@randallanderson1632]

@Heather Watson Correct. Obviously we have opportunities to make selections. Why would that fact be a point of contention? Sam Harris talks of the elements that go into our thinking and by extension, our decisions. He states that we do not have free will because those elements are out of our control.

[@1999_reborn]

Life was Given to us Yeah and that script is running on your brain composed of billions of neurons and trillions of synapses shaped by millions of years of evolution. To brush that complexity off as being analogous with NPCs is a bit reductive.

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

1999 I don’t like the analogy either, to be honest it’s an uncomfortable thought to have for me...but it fits perfectly...if Sam is right, we’re NPCs with no will of our own, every principle, action desire or decision can be traced back to an earlier event in your life or pre life that you have no control over, as well as all future events including your next response. It only happened because of things like the KZbin algorithm, and your psychology that was shaped by past and previous events that steer what things you will say or believe.

[@alanfrost75]

I wish he would have explained why Sam's claims are wrong. He just says he thinks its wrong. And all the experiments that (I think) he is referring to are things that Sam Harris has dealt with and explained why they feel like free will but they are not actually free will.

[@Theactivepsychos]

And also doesn’t Sam reference experiments that show that the brain is already in action by the time we actually decide, meaning that there’s some other mechanism that supersedes our own choice. Maybe I remember wrong.

[@brain0nfire]

The title is misrepresenting the content...

[@Giant_Meteor]

Yeah, I didn't catch the 'why'.

[@madhatter2744]

i thought the exact same thing, it should be more like “how” than “why”

[@jaymiddleton1782]

madhatter an allusion to how. Saying “there are simple experiments anyone can do” and then not telling us these simple experiments isn’t telling us how. There is no free will. Roll a die. What number came up? Could a different number have come up? No, once that number came up, it couldn’t have been anything else.

[@madhatter2744]

Jay Middleton i’m with you on that

[@zgobermn6895]

Hmm, i thought Bret explained the 'why'; because it's demonstrable that we do have free will. He said we can even conduct experiments to verify this. There is no "misrepresentation". It's a simple a fact that Bret disagrees with Sam.

[@timeisup3094]

I think Bret should have a conversation with Robert Sapolsky on this subject.

[@Jes3monkey]

Most people believe that we could have done otherwise in a certain situation. We consider multiple options and decide upon one. If choosing from multiple options is all that free will requires, then we know that we have it because we know that we do this. Now, the question becomes, “Could we really have decided otherwise?” Determinists assert that we couldn’t, and even many who believe In the kind of free will that I described above, admit that perhaps we couldn’t. The problem is that this is not a testable hypothesis (that we could or couldn’t have done otherwise). We cannot completely recreate the decision after it has been made, but what we can do if we aren’t happy with the decisions we have made, is we can decide otherwise next time we have a similar decision to make. That is the best we can do. Time is a problem here, since we cannot rewind time and go down the alternate path. If we are unhappy with decisions others have made, we ascribe blame to them for doing so, and one function of this blame is to convince others to do otherwise if a similar situation occurs in the future, and to apologize for their past decision because of its negative effects. They cannot undo their decision. Again time is the problem.

[@Monkey-fv2km]

Yup. It essentially will always boil down to an argument of defining the phrase to fit the position, and is a meaningless debate beyond abstract philosophy. Whether or not there is free will, we have to behave like there is in an individualist society.

[@timgray950]

He says Sam has a wrong definition, so likely he’s simply taking the compatibilist evasion.

[@pavement66]

The presupposition being he must be wrong, eh?

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Brasil66 if free will is an illusion and he’s saying it’s not, then yes he’s wrong.

[@pavement66]

@Rapid Knight yeah, perhaps I was making an assumption that you were *a priori* decided Bret had to be wrong if he were opposing Sam's viewpoint. That's how I read your post, and maybe it was a misread on my oart. I'm not 100% sold on Sam's assertion that free will just doesn't exist in any form, but do give credence that the fact that we don't get to choose our 'wiring' for lack of a simpler way to put it, limits our ability to choose. I thought Bret was being fair in stating that there may be a difference in definition and also granting that they will likely agree on a few points. In any case, I'm looking forward to listening to this conversation, both Sam and Bret are intellects I respect.

[@pavement66]

@@jaymiddleton1782 I can give you that; contingent on the 'if' being a certainty. Would this be considered neurological fatalism?

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Brasil66 I’m sure there are people who would say no, but me personally I don’t see why not.

[@kittenmastermind660]

We can't even agree on what freewill is which is one of the major problems when discussing it.

[@hitm43]

Goodness Bret...please define your terms. I've left this video with no idea if he believes in a compatibalistic view of free will or a libertarian view. They are so different and to not be specific with the definition of free will means he has told us absolutely nothing in those two minutes.

[@bjornarsimonsen7592]

The definition of free will as I understand it is that cause and effect does not apply for human choices, or at least that it doesn't for some of our choices in some situations. How one can detach cause and effect from action is beyond me though. It's the same as saying the laws of physics do not apply for how the brain works. That our choices are somehow magic and detached from the reality of the universe. Our brains are made in such a way that it creates a narrative where our consciousness takes the credit for our choices and actions. And there are important evolutionary reasons for why that is. But the reality is that we often have no idea why we do what we do. We think we know, but that's just the result of our autobiographical narrative being created just for that reason.

[@Oners82]

That is the definition of libertarian free will, not free will in general.

[@fleetingblue4794]

@@Oners82 Free will 'in general'?

[@Oners82]

@@fleetingblue4794 Yes, free will in general as in free will as defined by everybody who doesn't believe in the archaic notion of dualism. What exactly are you struggling to comprehend?

[@fleetingblue4794]

@@Oners82 A whole bunch of stuff.

[@Oners82]

@@fleetingblue4794 What I said was not complicated.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

Of course we have freewill, we have no choice but to.

[@dementare]

Says he disagrees with Sam Harris, based on a definitional difference... but doesn't explain the difference... seems odd to me. Sam makes it very clear what he's talking about. The ability to be the author of one's own thoughts, or in a given situation where "you" made decision "A", if somehow we could rewind time to before you made that decision and *change nothing* that "you" could have made a *different* decision. That's the "free will" Sam is talking about and says we don't have. Bret here says "Free Will" is something else, *not* what Sam is talking about... well if that's the case, then you *DON'T* disagree with on what *aspect* we do not have, you *only* disagree on *WHAT* "Free will" *is* .... meaning you think that "Free will" *is not* the ability to be the author of your own thoughts or to have made a different decision.... in which case... I would *REALLY* love to know *WHAT* you think "Free Will" is????

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

Free will is your ability to respond to any given thought action or circumstance, also the rewinding time analogy has always left me puzzled, do we retain our knowledge of our past decisions? If we do then we could definitely change the outcome, if we don’t retain knowledge then sure we will make the same decision, this doesn’t really imply that there is no free will though, all it implies is that our choices are set in stone. It doesn’t seem clear to me how that idea would imply we lack free will.

[@1999_reborn]

Life was Given to us Well that’s because you’ve selected a definition of free will that you like and are now criticizing his view from the perspective of your definition. Some people define free will as the ability to do otherwise in the exact same situation with the identical past history of the universe and the laws of nature. To have free will under this definition then determinism would need to be false. Then some religious people define free will as the ability for an immaterial kind to make an absolutely undetermined choice that is feee from the influence of genetics, environment, and the laws of physics. In philosophy the debate in free will is actually mainly cantered around how we should define free will. Because if people can’t agree on a definition of the term, then people will just be talking past one another.

[@dementare]

@Spencer Tracy But what sam is saying, if I'm not mistaken (which maybe I am) is that regardless of whether you choose to go left or not... you were *GOING* to make that same decision, that there never was any "freedom" to choose anything else. It may *feel* as though you could have... but given the exact same scenario you will always make the same choice. Problem is that's an experiment that cannot be done as each moment in time is absolutely unique, and thus you can't run the experiment.

[@dementare]

@Spencer Tracy Thank you for the well written reply. It's greatly appreciated. 1) I disagree, but really only in technicality, as I don't think Sam has sufficiently proven his position. However, the experiment that cannot be done, was one to prove the existence of some form of free will. While an experiment that would prove one position may be impossible, it does not follow that the opposing position is impossible to prove too. I.E. I cannot do the experiment to prove that a man can be a bachelor and married at the same time, it can be proven that a man cannot be both at the same time. The experiment Sam most notably cites is one that shows a person in a different room watching your brain states can know what decision you're going to make *before* you, in and of yourself, are aware of the choice you've already/are about to make. They say: "Think about this, pick left or right, and as soon as you have *DECIDED* press this button, then mark your decision." . In the other room a person can repeatably and reliably declare which you are going to pick, before you even press the button saying *you* know what you're going to pick. In my opinion... this doesn't remove any chance for free will, but does demonstrate that if we do in fact have free will it occurs somewhere in our subconscious processes. Or that at least our conscious cognitive minds are not the *part* of us that generates the decision of free will. 2) The point that I didn't emphasize is that it never *really* was a choice, as you were always going to go the way you went, it was a false option. Just because it *felt* like you could have gone the other way... you couldn't. That's what Sam is saying, effectively removing "choice" as a "thing", under sam's view, there simply are no choices, there are hypothetical thought experiments we render mentally, but even *those* were predetermined.

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

1999 I’m going with the definition that I’ve always believed free will to be, I do like this definition because it seems to make the most sense of how we participate in the world as conscious beings, it doesn’t render things like emotions or consciousness unintelligible.

[@Raging_Granny_Gamer]

He did not give a reason why he disagrees with Sam Harris

[@Josephus_vanDenElzen]

I often hear the "it comes with responsibility" when people argue for the existence of free will. But isn't this faulty reasoning? If free will is present, it is justified to assign moral responsibility. I can see that. However, If assigning moral responsibility is beneficial it.... ; Does not follow from that statement that free will is present?

[@JamesCairney]

Free will is analogous language designed to describe the fact that we can choose. Slapping analogous language around with a literal definition is a cheap trick, especially when Sam Harris himself states that you can indeed choose. Do we have free will? Yes. Does our "free will" allow us to choose anything we want? No, seeing as we are a species that has evolved over several millennia on a planet, with instinctual responses and human drives, no our choices are bound by our circumstances, but we are free to choose. Will I have a cup of tea or a coffee? The choice of what to have is yours, the need to ingest fluid isn't your choice, but whether you do or not, and what you choose to ingest is your choice totally. You have the ability to make your own choices, we all know this, that is "free will" and any literal definition of "free will" completely ignores the analogous meaning of the phrase. Even Sam Harris explains that you can "choose not to listen to him", whilst pretending that "free will" is a literal statement. Examine the word "free" in a literal sense, is anything free? Is "free" a concept that literally exists? This is a pointless debate. Free will, the analogous language that describes your ability to choose. That's all it is, analogous. There is nothing deep in this debate, it is as simple as it gets. It's a linguistic game, nothing more.

[@sigigle]

That's just a redefining of the term freewill. 99.9999% of people don't think that freewill is the ability to only select that what you were always going to be forced to select deterministically.

[@Fransjosefsland]

.. so as long as we redefine the term free will, we actually have it? Brilliant.

[@RamkrishanYT]

Bret is such a nice and soothing person to listen to

[@ay8292]

Unlike his brother lol

[@user-ce2wz2ki6z]

has anyone considered that other groups of beings have freewill too , my intuition tells me that this could lead to confusion , and the biggest problem is the unknown , what if there are creatures with freewill that are in charge of maintaining consciousness for example , or morals , well , that’s part of consciousness too , like wanting to do something bad , a dark cloud forms above your head making it difficult , maybe i’m totally wrong , but they say people drink or drug themselves brave , to overcome that blockade , people use this mechanism to lie to themselves convincing themselves they’re drunk , believing it , in order not to feel that responsibility, overcoming that blockade , meaning , whoever made this body , is free from fault , the protective mechanism is there , no way to over come it , except being totally wrong (responsible) , this mechanism isn’t there though if you’re right , meaning whoever made this human body according to this evidence knew the difference between right and wrong , people though , know this , and you see them overcoming this , for example if a gangster wants to beat people up , they take a short small or younger person and make him bully a bigger one that usually doesn’t hit smaller people , but the bully makes him curse or push away the bully and than the gangster prepared steps in , in the name of righteousness, here is my problem though , how do young people know these without having a racial common consciousness, choosing some among theirs to make them great in their opinion

[@DeterministicOne]

What's his definition of free will?

[@johnchancey3941]

Ok, but did y'all catch Marcia Brady at 1:17

[@idahojake3444]

Evolution proves free will? The theory that we are the result of countless external pressures proves we thought our way to this point?

[@johnno6183]

In a trivial sense we do HV freewill. But we HV a narrow range of choices given that we r human and born into a context. They are both right depending...

[@RationalSapien24]

I’ve never seen anyone label a evolutionary biologist a “evolutionary theorist”. Lmao Some people really can’t grasp that evolution is a fact and a field of study. 😂

[@redcanoe2637]

Interesting but would have been better to have Sam H. on at same time.

[@St.Raphael...]

My dog Blue, google sophistry.

[@rodbrewster4629]

Essentially we have that with the Harris Dennett discussions.

[@perrywidhalm114]

Of course, Free Will exists for people willing to take responsibility and be accountable to their choices.

[@kittenmastermind660]

Addiction, Mental illness, and ACE scores explain why these things exist if we have freewill.

[@takkiejakkie5458]

Entirely not understanding the debate.

[@sigigle]

There can be multiple layers of the responsibility/cause for something. Eg: My heater is responsible/the cause for my room getting warmer, but yet I'm responsible/the cause for having turned it on, etc. Therefore you can still say that we are responsible for our actions, without imagining that we're the original authors of them. It makes us much kinder when we see this.

[@conscious_being]

Automaton has no agency i.e. free will. But how would an automaton know if other entities have agency?

[@duncefunce1513]

The idea that there is no free will is disempowering if you dwell on it. It renders notions like 'responsibility' redundant. How can one exercise responsibility without agency? Is there some distinction between free will and agency that I'm not aware of?

[@sigigle]

It's because there can be multiple layers of the responsibility/cause for something. Eg: My heater is responsible/the cause for my room getting warmer, but yet I'm responsible/the cause for having turned it on, etc. That make sense?

[@duncefunce1513]

@@sigigle you're saying our minds are the heater. So what is the 'you'? God?

[@sigigle]

@@duncefunce1513 That's how a theist would phrase it, but most theists believe in freewill, which would break the analogy by claiming that the heater was the original author of it's faults, and is therefore condemnable for them, since if it had freewill, it could have done other wise. It's what ever was responsible for our coming into existence and giving us a set of biological and environmental traits that determined what we were in the past, and therefore what we are now.

[@anthonylipke7754]

I get the feeling the free part of free will is being taken to a silly extreme. I figure we are complicated functions with weighted randomness. Think of a flow chart that roles dice where for example the die rolls a 6 I do one course of action and anything else others. Modeling as though I have agency rather than modeling all of existence as it is or might be is more tractable I think.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Anthony Lipke you have to act as though you have free will. That’s the point of the illusion. But that doesn’t mean we have free will. It just means we feel like we do. Which is why there’s such a heated discussion.

[@anthonylipke7754]

@@jaymiddleton1782 the abstraction ideal seems distant to the functional behavior. We've created conceptual definitions that exclude the material observations that established the concepts in the first place. I take a behavioral evidential approach less than an abstract philosophical approach I suppose. I generally find platonic realism as a category error. Those truths are their own category not real in the same way as material.

[@1999_reborn]

My issue with the free will debate is that no one ever bothers to define what they mean by free will. You’re basically just throwing around a term that doesn’t mean anything since everyone uses it differently. Whenever I ask a religious person what they mean by free will they just tell me that free will is a choice that’s made freely. That doesn’t answer my question. What does it mean for a choice to be “free”. Surely it can’t mean that if no one forced you to do it then it was a free choice. Because no one forces an epileptic to have a seizure and crash their car but that’s still not free will. And you can’t even define free will as a choice that is made voluntarily. Because people with autism can have meltdowns that cause them to voluntarily throw things across the room. But we wouldn’t say that this is a freely willed choice because the person’s autism is impeding on their will. Someone with autism doesn’t have the same degrees of freedom as someone without autism. And if there are degrees of freedom then where do we draw the line between neuropsychiatric illnesses that impede the person’s will such as autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, impulse control disorders, etc...? Versus an act of free will. This is the problem with trying to say that our choices are free from causality. Because the more we learn from neuroscience, psychology, biology, and sociology, the more we notice that human behaviour is influenced by so many different factors that are out of our control such as our genetics, parents, siblings, teachers, peers, culture, pollution, stress, emotion, mental illness, etc... The more we see that our choices aren’t free from these influences but are actually the sum total of all these influences. I honestly think free will is just a word we use for when we can’t explain someone’s behaviour and to put blame on people.

[@jimm.1013]

@1999 There needs to be a term for the free will Sam Harris discusses over the free will that we have when we decide to select strawberry over chocolate ice cream. Once that is done, there needs to be a clear, analytical description concerning the former of the two versions.

[@truthseeker2275]

@@jimm.1013 I agree, much of the confusion has to do with language. In a historcal context, it is like the first discoverers of the earth as a sphere/globe, started out by trying to redefine the word 'flat' to mean 'sphere'. I propose the term "response-able will". It both reflects our internal process and external social process, it reflects our response both to positive and negative feedback responses from society. It pretty much nullifies the without freewill how can you be responsible for your actions argument.

[@joshhoward8848]

What would be an example of an experiment to prove free will exists?

[@1999_reborn]

That would depend on your definition of free will.

[@joshhoward8848]

@@1999_reborn Yeah, of course. It seems like everybody defines these concepts however they feel like it.

[@OnixShort]

Choosing to do an experiment in the first place would suffice, don't you think?

[@joshhoward8848]

@@OnixShort No, honestly I feel like my choices just kind of pop out of nowhere and I never know why I choose to do what I do. I do stuff all the time and I'm like "man, what was the motive there?" It's fun to try to self-psychoanalyze even if I feel like I'm not getting anywhere. I get what you're saying, though. There is definitely a strong feeling of volition that comes along with certain decisions.

[@1999_reborn]

tihomir dzelebdzic That’s just begging the question. We could design a robot that can conduct free will experiments but the robot wouldn’t be making a choice. To claim that a human performing an experiment is an act of choice is to presuppose that choice exists in the first place. Which is the very thing you’re supposed to be proving!

[@Desertphile]

Okay, I give up: Bret Weinstein, please perform just one "trivial experiment" that shows "we must have free will." Be the first on the planet to do that. Thank you.

[@jackcallahan2719]

Free Will is a misleading term in and of itself at the start of the conversation.

[@Giant_Meteor]

Seems to me Determinism is an unfalsifiable proposition. Can it be demonstrated that every physical event is entirely determined by prior events, without any remainder of indeterminacy? If this cannot be demonstrated, then what is the basis for the dogmatic rejection of the common subjective experience of free will as delusion?

[@St.Raphael...]

Todd K, google sophistry. This is your identity.

[@Giant_Meteor]

@@St.Raphael... If you are claiming that I have committed a logical fallacy, then name it. Merely accusing me of sophistry, without evidence, is an ad hominem fallacy.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Todd K Determinism is unfalsifiable in the scientific sense. Just like any philosophical view is unfalsifiable in the scientific sense. You cannot do any experiments to figure out whether it is true or false and including it in your models does not affect the probability of your data being replicated by your models.

[@Giant_Meteor]

@@jaymiddleton1782 Is Determinism falsifiable in any sense, philosophical or otherwise? Isn't it merely an a priori philosophical presupposition? Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong. But if it is only a prejudicial assertion, again, what is the basis for this stridently confident rejection of the universal subjective experience of 'free will'? Even the Determinists would admit that it seems like we experience freedom to select among options with some degree of indeterminacy. It is a rather bold claim to say this subjective experience that apparently everyone experiences, is never anything but delusion. Bold claims should require solid evidence. What is this strong body of evidence for Determinism? In our day-to-day experience we are surrounded by phenomena that at least 'seems' to have a component of randomness, not to mention indeterminacy at the quantum level.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Todd K there are arguments for determinism, for example the argument that Reverse Causation is impossible. We do experience the illusion of free will, and that illusion is created by the idea that we could have done something other than what we actually did. But in reality it appears we are all caught in a chain of cause and effect over which we exert no control.

[@vidfreak56]

Blame or praiseworthiness have NOTHING to do with free will and doesn't speak to anything just because we dont have it. It just goes to show people have no idea what sams talking about. YOu praise someone because it rewards them. And blame them to punish them. Its those things that seek to augment a persons behavior.

[@samuelarthur887]

He "believes" evolution is a fact? Is that tantamount to knowing?

[@wynandbritz9056]

Why tax me and then give me $1000 back? Why not just a tax break?

[@uarebeautifuluareeverything]

Study it directly and you won’t need anyone to tell you if there is free will. Have you ever wondered why you did something ? It’s so obvious .

[@willkenway]

He sounds like someone who hasn't really considered the question of free will in depth.

[@ozgurakpinar_gr]

I really admire Bret Weinstein, but this time I think he didn’t understand the argument.

[@Skyluna07]

Bret Weinstein does not disagree with Sam Harris about free will. Weinstein said his concept of free will and Harris's simply differ. They are both right.

[@tobycokes1]

This guy has proven himself to be at the very minimum morally dubious

[@duncefunce1513]

In the best case he's morally dubious? What a claim to make.

[@CaeSharp]

This is not a argument..wtf

[@MrPooPooKatchu]

We’re all wondering; how do you and Harris define ‘free will’ differently, and what is an example of an experiment that provides support for free will? I actually tend to agree more with Weinstein but what a lazy take

[@jaymiddleton1782]

ConnorWaddell i don’t think there are any experiments to prove free will. The experiments we’ve done so far show we don’t have free will. Decisions are made unconsciously without our awareness.

[@onestepaway3232]

ConnorWaddell the experiment, to do or not to do the experiment is exercise of free will.

[@zgobermn6895]

@@jaymiddleton1782 "Decisions are made unconsciously without our awareness"?! Huh? What do you mean then by "decision"? The Libet experiment proves no such thing, even Libet himself said that his experiments do not prove the nonexsitence of free will! What are you talking about? In fact, the experiments prove the power of "FREE WON'T", i.e., precognitive brain activity prior to awareness do NOT predetermine action. Experiments prove we can stop and do not engage an action even if already triggered by brain activity. You are misrepresenting the experiments.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

Zgob ermn maybe that’s the case. Either way, there’s no evidence that demonstrates that we have free will.

[@zgobermn6895]

@@jaymiddleton1782 That we have the power of free won't demonstrates exactly that we have free will.

[@harrisondumesich7966]

free will exists because it is does?.... okeh

[@boredfangerrude]

If we as a society, as a race decide that there is no free will, we can no longer punish people for anything which means there's no point in having morals. What this means is that we cannot sustain our level of advancement past the stone age and will and should revert back to that era.

[@1999_reborn]

Why does the non existence of free will mean that we can’t lock dangerous people up? Just because a paranoid schizophrenic isn’t in complete control of his mind doesn’t mean we just let him keep stabbing random people.

[@dementare]

@@1999_reborn Exactly. Basically what Einstein said, or so I've heard.

[@rodbrewster4629]

Jerry Coyne has a great talk on this. It is a good argument against the death penalty but if someone is a menace to society we have the right to protect society. Charles Wittman had a brain tumor. If it was found that the tumor caused him to murder and it was removed would he still be guilty of murder? What about Uday Hussain being raised by a brutal dictator? Terrible luck I'd say.

[@boredfangerrude]

1-If no one has free will, then we cannot justify punishing people as they didn't do it of their own free will. It would be a crime equal to torture, including rape. 2-If we believe that no one has free will, then it will NOT trigger people to forgive and behave better, it will ONLY cause worse nihilism as people have no reason to better themselves after all, they don't have the free will to do so or so they believe. This just causes a series of events that leads to our destruction. 3-We don't need this retarded philosophy in order to understand people are a victim of circumstances, some they bring upon themselves and some they didn't. 4-Just because Einstein said it, doesn't mean it is true, he wasn't right about everything.

[@kittenmastermind660]

Because punishment is not the only way to address behavior and morality doesn't go away because you don't have free will it just different. We still have to deal with murders and rapists even if they are not responsible for there actions.

[@06rtm]

“Moral decency” meaning an entirely Christian moral compass.

[@06rtm]

Jim Merrilees Read ancient roman history and tell me Christianity hasn’t entirely altered western morality. Our justice system (rehab over punishment, and innocence until proven guilty), our immigration policy (opening our borders to help foreign victims because they’re children of god), our charity/welfare (the value of the victim), the view that all people are equal under god (compare that with caste system of India, chosen people of Judaism, apostates of Islam) is entirely Christian. Hitler is so revolting to us westerners because he attempted to reestablish a pre-christian sense of morality. Its why we consider Hitler akin to being the physical embodiment of the devil in almost every way in which we talk about him. Contrast that with Stalin, who was comparably horrifying, but he did so in a more Christian moral framework of compassion for the weak and downtrodden, so we have a harder time conceptualizing him as equivalently evil. Our entire moral framework is Christian in almost every way.

[@timediverx]

@@06rtm That was hilarious. Funny how so many good Bible believing Christians in America were ok with owning people as slaves almost 2,000 years after the religion was adapted from Judaism.

[@06rtm]

Heath Farley The entire world owned slaves for the entire history of civilization. It was Western Christians who abolished slavery and did so using Christianity as the justification. Its the Christian insistence upon all humans being children of God that resulted in the abolition revolution.

[@timediverx]

@@06rtm See, to take your position you have to completely ignore the negative aspects of your favorite religious tradition. I guess those Southern American slave owners just didn't understand that Jesus said the Hebrew Bible was irrelevant and that they shouldn't follow the practices for owning other humans that were given by Yahweh in Exodus and Leviticus right? 😉

[@timediverx]

@@06rtm Maybe if your guy Jesus had come out and said "Oh by the way guys, all that stuff I told Moses about owning other humans as property that you can pass down to your children.... Yeah, I was way off the mark there. Slavery is bad." then maybe it wouldn't have taken 2,000 years for people's consciences to develop to the point where they finally thought "Hey, I wouldn't want to be treated the way these slaves are treated. They are people too. Maybe we should put a stop to this."

[@MinamuTV]

The title is not misleading. Weinstein does indeed disagree with Harris on free will. Harris is taking something that is more than just free will and saying that that isn’t true about us, and Weinstein is pointing out that Harris didn’t prove something as radical as that we have no free will. Even if numerous factors outside of our control affect what we do through our free will, we still choose to do what we do.

[@sigigle]

That's just a redefining of the term freewill. 99.9999% of people don't think that freewill is the ability to only select that what you were always going to be forced to select deterministically.

[@michaelmoody935]

Click bait

[@yoooyoyooo]

To me it rather obvious that we are like dogs on a leash. Our master let's call it the universe is going in certain direction and we have to follow. If that's a free will then ok. You have a freedom to call your prison freedom. Sure.

[@takkiejakkie5458]

Leash implies we have some wiggle room. We have nothing. But I agree with what you're saying.

[@onestepaway3232]

No free will? Tell that to the waiter next time you want to put an order in.

[@flyguy2617]

One Step Away really? So you think you have free will when ordering food...ok tell me this, do you ever order anything that you don’t want using free will? Or, assuming you have a good relationship with your mother, could you force yourself to enjoy punching her in the face using free will? I realize you could punch her in the face, but can you use free will to enjoy it? My view on free will is, you either do something because you want to, or you’re forced to. There’s no actual “free will” Another example is, you couldn’t force yourself to enjoy eating dog shit using free will. You either eat it because you WANT to or you’re FORCED to.

[@onestepaway3232]

Fly Guy I make decisions based on want, need, force and unnecessary every day. I make them freely based on a number of circumstances. I’m free to make those decisions. Because I can self reflect on them and demonstrate control within me when making them. The laws of physics did not drive me to want to be a good father to my children. I freely chose to be the father they needed and deserved. I didn’t have to be. I could chosen a different path. Free will is about making decisions and decisions that work for the greater good. You hope to make more good then bad.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

One Step Away the idea that you could have chosen a different path is why you have the illusion of free will. The fact is, you could never have chosen a different path, otherwise you would. The path you chose was the only path you could have ever chosen. If you roll a die and it comes up 6, it was always going to come up six. The way it left your hand, the way it hit the table and rolled, the air currents in the room at the time, all played into it coming out as a six. But because we don’t understand all the variables at work, we cannot look at a spinning dice and say “that’s going to be a six.” We have to wait. But it could not have been any other number aside from six. The same applies to us and free will. Although it’s not a philosophical argument - it’s entered the realm of science. Experiments show that decisions are made unconsciously and without our awareness, and we only become consciously aware of them after the fact.

[@onestepaway3232]

Jay Middleton it is not an illusion? When ever you are faced with a decision you are in a position to choose. Sometimes you make impulse decisions when you don’t take the time to sit back and think , reflect and look at all options before choosing. Why I accept free will exist is because when ever I’m faced with a decision there are multiple paths presented in front of me. If I have the ability to self reflect, think and ponder through the circumstances I am exercising free will. I will give you 2 examples. Joe is a great baseball player. MLB scouts and colleges across the US are looking at him. He has received multiple college offers with full scholarships. He also was drafted by the New York Yankees in the 15th round where he will receive a sign on bonus of 100k. Joe informs the schools and Yankees he will let them know his decision in a few days. So in this example where is he predetermined? There is also the possibility Joe will not want to go to school or choose to play professional baseball but instead do nothing. Maybe start his own tech company with his rich uncle who made millions investing in a few startups. How is this an illusion? Are your thoughts an illusion? Your experiences? Situations presented in front of you? I don’t follow. Free will exist because choices exist.

[@jaymiddleton1782]

One Step Away choices create the illusion of free will, like I said. The idea that you could do differently than you did. Choices don’t undermine the idea that free will is an illusion, and in fact is part of why the illusion is created. Even decisions you sit and calmly think about... why do you come to the conclusion you do? Why not the other conclusion? The answer, if you’re honest and keep asking “why?” is always “I don’t know.” You have no more control over the decisions you make than you have control over the next though that pops into your head.

[@liminal6823]

Sam is wrong about free will because I said so. -- Bret Weinstein

[@paul.etedder2439]

Freewill is a myth. Someone show me where scripture says man has a freewill . Scripture tells us that we are a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. Ether way you are a slave and NO slave has a freewill . We are bound by time and circumstance. Freewill is absolute or it is not at all . Jesus said salvation has to be granted by the Father (God) John 6:65

[@mortensimonsen1645]

Is he a compatibilist?

[@1999_reborn]

Yep

[@1999_reborn]

Language and Programming Channel Odd you haven’t responded to any of my criticisms. If you think compatibilism is sophistry then explain why it’s the majority position among contemporary philosophers? Actually no. Humour me. I’d much rather hear your account of what free will is and how you know it exists. You better not say because you feel like you have free will because that would indeed be sophistry. The mere feeling of free will isn’t evidence of free will.

[@brain0nfire]

@Language and Programming Channel Two frameworks for the compatibilist arguementation is that, one, they argue about perspectives of analysis - as determinism is an analysis of objective behavior and free will of subjective experience (one from outside another from within); and two, that they may opperate in different "planes" of existence - as the free "spirit" is trying to "invade" the world through the body but limited by it.

[@damonm3]

Free will is an illusion. No matter what you think

[@sparkyy0007]

Without God... you are spot on.

[@damonm3]

sparkyy0007 it’s non contingent. There is no god. 0 evidence. Just Santa clause for adults. Really silly stuff

[@sparkyy0007]

@@damonm3 A creator exists, it's a mathematical certainty.

[@damonm3]

sparkyy0007 please share the equation 🍻 you should be famous for discovering it. Call the atheist experience on Sunday and share with them please😂😂🤦‍♂️

[@sparkyy0007]

@@damonm3 P=10E77 P*120,000= 10E^(9.24E^6) P(U)=10E140 P

[@markwilson2421]

There is no good argument for free will

[@1999_reborn]

I agree. Agent causation sounds intuitive but once you actually analyze the concept it’s completely unintelligible.

[@Giant_Meteor]

What is the good argument for Determinism?

[@markwilson2421]

@@Giant_Meteor I would say you can't choose your wants and you can't pick your thoughts. So from there I would take a philosophical look at why you do and think the way you do. I would look at the concept of randomness and see that randomness is also just ignorance of information, so if you knew all the variables you would know the outcome, hence determinism

[@brando3342]

@Mark Wilson Us following the will of Jesus is the best argument for free will. Your free will to choose not to satisfy your own will. The will that coincides with the world. What your physicality suggests.

[@markwilson2421]

@@brando3342 what about the people who have never heard of jesus what about the people that have been indoctrinated into some other religious cult. Why is it when I look for truth it turns me further from your saviour. I bet you were born in a Christian house hold.

[@jesterlead]

It's hard for a human to be wrong about almost everything, but Sam certainly tries his best...

[@justinwakeling8669]

Yeah I didn't know what to expect here. But Brian is right actually. Harris is wrong on this occasion.

[@Shaewaros]

Complete garbage. He is purposefully misrepresenting Harris' position.

[@wochfps4386]

Thanks for waisting 2 minutes of my life

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

Sam seems to argue against maximal autonomy yet he just calls it free will, maximal autonomy is the idea that you have full control over everything going on with your body , what kind of genes you will have and so on, as far as I can tell he seems to believe that the mind is completely reducible to the brain, and so if you believe this then it makes sense that you don’t have any capacity for choosing because well everything you do is the result of something that is happening to you as opposed to you having any intention of your own. Your a complex NPC running a script, and any thought that might possibly arise in your conscious really occurred prior to your awareness.

[@1999_reborn]

Life was Given to us Sam doesn’t even believe there is a “self” to have autonomy or free will. He thinks the self is an illusion created by the brain and that there’s no self making decisions it’s just complex neural processes. Which introspectively makes sense because we aren’t consciously aware of what the neurons in our brain are doing. Right now if I asked you which part of your brain has the most neurons firing, you wouldn’t be able to tell me. Why? Because we are completely ignorant of what’s going on under the hood.

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

1999 The self is the one thing that can’t be an illusion, because there has to be a self to experience an illusion. Also we’re not completely ignorant about what’s going on under the hood...we have a lot of the brain mapped out. We might not know the number of neurons or synapses occurring, but there is quite a bit we do know.

[@1999_reborn]

Life was Given to us You kissed my point. The only reason we know about the brain is by looking at other people’s brains. But I’m talking about YOUR own brain. You aren’t consciously aware of what your own brain is doing right at this moment. You can look at fmri pictures of brains online. But you can’t know what your own brain is doing without a scanner. Isn’t that odd? If you are in control then why can’t you control the individual processes of neural circuits in your brain that compute morality, emotions, memory, thoughts, etc...? Also, the self can be an illusion. Because if you take a drug like shrooms, it causes chemical and structural changes in your brain and can make you completely lose your sense of self. All you’re left with is pure experience with no subject that is the center of the experience.

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

1999 What do you mean when you say “YOUR” brain? Do you ever notice how we talk about our own bodies as though they are things were in possession of ? My car, my house, my body, my life. We can’t even speak to each other without identifying a self or recognizing the self in others. I think that’s odd. I also agree that having to study our own selves is odd too, I’m completely in agreement with that, but Even still I do know quite a bit of what’s going on in my brain at this moment. I mean I could learn what’s going on if I don’t already know now. As for the shrooms removing people’s sense of self, who’s to say they aren’t the ones experiencing the illusion ?

[@1999_reborn]

Life was Given to us What is the self and where is it located?

[@Ribcut]

Unfortunately Sam Harris's argument goes over the head of most people. The moment you begin to understand the argument, the moment you realize it's virtually impossible to disprove.

[@csachleb]

Bro you're dumb lol

[@5driedgrams]

Lol Weinstein doesn't know shit about the subject.