Free Will with Sam Harris (Part 1) [Video] || The Psychology Podcast

Today it’s great to have Sam Harris on the podcast. Sam is the author of five New York Timesbest sellers, including The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying, and Waking Up. The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction. His writing and public lectures cover a wide range of topics-neuroscience, moral philosophy,religion, meditation practice, human violence, rationality-but generally focus on how a growing understanding of ourselves and the world is changing our sense of how we should live. He also hosts the Making Sense Podcast, which was selected by Apple as one of the “iTunes Best” and has won a Webby Award for best podcast in the Science & Education category.
Topics
[1:57] Sam’s reflections on his childhood
[7:18] Sam’s interest in martial arts
[8:04] Sam’s experience with MDMA
[12:09] How Sam ended up on the Dalai Lama’s security detail
[16:39] Sam’s experience with meditation teacher Sayadaw U Pandita
[23:12] Dualistic vs Nondualistic mindfulness
[24:34] Sam’s experience with Dzogchen meditation
[28:27] Sam’s dream about Dilgo Khyentse
[34:15] Sam’s experience with fiction writing
[37:50] Scott questions Sam’s position on free will
[41:33] Sam’s disagreement with Daniel Dennett
[42:41] Sam’s take on free will and human interaction
[46:38] Why Sam thinks we’re getting “free will” wrong
Subscribe to The Psychology Podcast:
itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/p...
www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-...
See past episodes and join in the Discussion:
scottbarrykaufman.com/podcast/
Facebook:
thepsycholog...
Twitter:
/ psychpodcast
#ThePsychologyPodcast

[@prisonss]

Sam Harris is the most clear thinker known....his reasoning and love to his fellow humans is second to none!

[@jackallenproductions]

Why do you think Sam is the "most clear thinker known"? I inquire in good faith & just want to know your perspective, not looking to start a debate or anything.

[@prisonss]

@@jackallenproductions hi jack....please may I ask “have you not heard his debates, have you not listened to his podcasts?” Let me know

[@jackallenproductions]

@@prisonss Think I have listened to all of his debates. Probably have listened to around 50 of his podcasts over the years. Was just curious what makes you think he is the 'most clear thinker'. Is it the way he explains his ideas? The language he uses? The positions he holds? Combination of all those previous questions?

[@prisonss]

@@jackallenproductions I guess so, he is rational and I would go as far to say “he has no hidden agenda” he doesn’t tell us his thoughts to gain popularity or he doesn’t us faith to increase his audience. His thoughts on BLM, me2 and war (in an ex soldier) are so clear and precise. I saw him in London and was impressed, even tho I was looking forward to hearing Dawkins ...he was condescending and rude!

[@No_Avail]

@@prisonss _"he doesn’t tell us his thoughts to gain popularity"_ He's certainly not after popularity to feed his ego or anything like that. But every sign points to him willfully setting limits on the range of issues he discusses. It's largely tailored to internet-populist "hot topic" standards of newsworthiness. I think this goes some way in explaining why he's okay with not having published a full-length book in nearly seven years, and why he's settled into easy-to-digest podcasting. He is prepared to tackle only the topics which won't alienate or overwhelm a popular audience, because he assumes there's value in certain intellectuals (including him) relegating themselves to being borderline infotainers who take baby-steps with their followers (and especially their avid fans). Whereas I've concluded that he is precisely the sort of public reasoner who shouldn't worry about cultivating vs. maintaining vs. alienating a large audience, and should just focus on the hard problems, including the hardest problems. His old books often reference a world of oft-neglected, rarely-read literature which takes a stab at those types of problems. So we know that he is aware of people who aren't in it to _spread it,_ and are simply in it to resolve it. He should take cues from them, at least somewhat more often, and not pander to the common denominator damn near all the time. For instance, there's zero excuse for having Megyn Kelly or Ricky Gervais on the podcast. If guests are going to be selected based on a standard of "fun", it should be on a different podcast; one not named "Making Sense". He can name the other one "Having Fun".

[@adriancioroianu1704]

Sam Harris is just magnetic, you can't stop listening to him when he gets deep.

[@sammykays8873]

Harris is insane.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

@@sammykays8873 literally the opposite.

[@yamiyugi8123]

@@sammykays8873 I just think the absoluteness of his insistence on free will not existing without enough neurological information about the production of consciousness seems pointless.

[@yamiyugi8123]

It would seem that will exists. Why not a will that is free deterministically, meaning from a set of deterministic options there is always choice for a being capable of abstraction.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

@@yamiyugi8123 he's just saying that all that we call free will be it radical libertarian free will or the mild version is perfectly compatible with deterministic point of view and the other point is that we can empirically get rid of the sense of self and recognize it as an illusion and discern that is it only th exprience happening - what he call and i agree, conciousness and its components. he's not making claims that conciousness is fundamentaly related to the notion of free will because we frankly don't know the mechanism of conciousness and he points that so many times - the mistery of where the "components of conciousness" appear and subject us to an experience.

[@aniccadance13]

I love Sam, he's a genuine, honest and generous man and his meditation app is wonderful🥰

[@sandrarsd7645]

How can anyone not love Sam? Psychedelics are not needed, for real

[@ALForb]

@@sandrarsd7645 ideology is how

[@turtlenoheart]

Maybe his thought's on killing children by promintent political families... that might be some cause for concern.

[@GSDKXV]

⁠@@turtlenoheart “promintent” I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that all of Sam’s haters are illiterate.

[@turtlenoheart]

@@GSDKXV You must not know what that word means.

[@AlexGullen]

Fascinating how Sam's breakthrough dream moment with the pointing over his shoulder echoes with Ekhart Tolle's breakthrough moment at the depth of his depression.

[@GenX4ever]

Awesome talk. You asked Sam questions no one usually asks. Nice to hear another side of him. Thanks!

[@primetimedurkheim2717]

I love waking up with Sam Harris.

[@turtlenoheart]

Why?

[@skullkrusher4418]

@@turtlenoheart his app is called "waking up"

[@turtlenoheart]

@@skullkrusher4418 Considering his abysmally inconsistent ethics... Shouldn't it be called "falling asleep"?

[@skullkrusher4418]

@@turtlenoheart aside from you lacking knowledge about Sam's ethics, his app has nothing to do with his ethics; its a meditation app.

[@turtlenoheart]

@@skullkrusher4418 What makes you think I lack knowledge about his ethics? And what makes you think that mediation has nothing to do with ethics? Do you even meditate bro?

[@richardlouis1284]

Sam Harris is the 🐐

[@TheBuzzati]

Oh Scott, you dirty devil, you. That ending -- Leaving us on a cliffhanger like this. Dastardly.

[@er9875]

I love podcasts with you and Sam, your appearance on waking up was one of my favorite of Sam's podcasts. I hope you guys do more together soon

[@skotski]

Excellent interview of Sam. Kudos!

[@nirmalhodum3206]

We want part 2! When will it come out? Can't wait

[@irrelevant2235]

It boggles my mind on how anyone would argue and disagree with Sam Harris on the topic of free will after listening to him explain how free will is nonsense.

[@ICT_Student369]

They can’t help it

[@trevorhill1688]

Sam's mom is actually the creator of the Golden Girls and, the fact that's true, is one of the weirdest things I've ever learned.

[@irrelevant2235]

Wow! That blew my mind! I remember that he mentioned that his mother was very funny and had a great sense of humor growing up but he never mentioned that she was the creator of The Golden Girls! The Golden Girls was not just a run-of-the-mill sitcom, it was a very popular show back in the mid 80s / early 90s.

[@johnoneofmany]

Soap is my all-time favourite sit com! To find out Sam's mom was the co-creator is a jaw-dropping revelation!

[@turtlenoheart]

Do you think that's why he's so insane and doesn't care about people murdering children?

[@trevorhill1688]

@@turtlenoheart No, he told me that it for sure isn’t because of that.

[@maggiedu1032]

Just love his voice !

[@h.w.6580]

Very good interview! Thanks!

[@tylerjhunter]

Compatibilists seem to think that nobody actually believes in libertarian free will.

[@SkyGodKing]

@braddo pitto Studies show that actually most people beleive in a compatibalist definition of free will rather than libertarian free will

[@Self-Duality]

Interesting content. Subscribed!

[@EvolvedBonobo]

Based on this discussion, I can't help but think of the analogy of a human chess player competing against the Stockfish AI in an online game of chess. Unless the human player was explicitly informed of the chess AI on the opposite side of the board, he or she could easily assume the Stockfish AI chess engine were a real human being playing chess exceptionally well, using its free will to move about the board. On face value, it seems like we all have free will. But, after listening to these two exchange arguments, it seems reasonable to assume that Scott could argue that the chess AI actually has free will (it responds to infinitely-many move scenarios and calculations based on moves from the other player; it can anticipate the strategic moves the other player is making and respond accordingly, especially when pieces are deliberately being sacrificed as a means of some larger positioning strategy; etc.). Sam, conversely, could argue that the human player is really just another version of the AI that is less well-programmed. I'd love to hear these guys address this analogy of the human vs. AI chess engine competition as it relates to free will!

[@cynthiadeg9206]

I’ll accept the notion that I have no free will and my ego also, then must accept that others, no matter how sadistic they are, are also lacking in free will.

[@SladeOb]

Dig deeper. Sam is great, but think for yourself. Simulated thinking even if correct is just that, simulated.

[@GSDKXV]

@@SladeOb stay in school 😂

[@BrentPinkston]

Found this episode from your latest conversation with Jordan Peterson, and am glad you spoke about it. I was really surprised by the fact that Sam Harris spent time in a duelist meditative discipline. It brings an unexpected perspective on his views on religion. Great episode, and left a lot to unpack.

[@hainezy4853]

Just a well done interview

[@manwithavoice]

14:40 Ease of consciousness, feeling content with being... well put objectives

[@nimashokouhfar52]

Great content. I am a big fan of Sam Harris. 👍

[@chriskii12344]

Great chat with Sam Harris! Would be great to hear your with Jordan Peterson too and get into good psychology knowledge!

[@maxwelldillon4805]

38:17 Free will discussion begins.

[@dannyberinger4634]

Thank you

[@S.G.Wallner]

I hope there is more free will discussion in part 2.

[@ThePsychologyPodcast]

Much, more more.

[@Ligma.69420]

Now I'm imagining a weary Sam Harris walking out onto his porch in the early morning, still rubbing his eyes as he is approached by a cougar with "Free Will" spray painted down it's side. Fantastic analogy, and now "Free Will Cougar" is one of my favorite animal mascots, right up there with "Brain Wolf".

[@OfCourseICan]

Fuck; what an intellect! I really didn't like this bloke until this wonderful interview, but when Sam went on about our lives already being pre-ordained, just floored me. I had this concept already in the depths of my mind and now it has been confirmed. What a mind, thanks so much for this wonderful interview.

[@starlessnight1164]

You'll find that you'll like lots of people as you look closer into them. It's a very common problem for people to judge without sufficient evidence, or perhaps because of misleading sources. Trust your own research when it comes to people and ideas, don't rely too superficially on others to do it for you.

[@ghost_in_the_robot]

@@starlessnight1164 I think it's called implicit/confirmation bias. Throw cognitive dissonance in there for good measure. Most online videos lead to parasocial relationships... hence, why people will "hate watch" a podcast or someone like Peterson even though they don't agree with them...

[@carmack614]

Came here from Jordan Peterson's podcast :)

[@David-wn3bo]

I sometimes wonder if Sam sometimes has to feign his anger. Having the knowledge that people don't have free will, and having studied meditation with "moral geniuses," I think he must have a very passive and zen outlook on people. This doesn't mean he doesn't genuinely sometimes feels anger at people, but I think he's kind of separated from his visceral feelings

[@eVieww]

He does and you can hear it in some of his podcasts. I don't think this would be an example of that though. Listen to his podcast episode 32 titled "the best podcast ever" and you'll find him at his most pissed :D

[@juniors878]

Happy Birthday Sam 🥳

[@GetMeThere1]

55:35 Sam wraps a perfect gift for Scott here, and Scott simply refuses to acknowledge the simple truth.

[@chase_modugno]

If the mind always defaults to its best interpreted logical choice for every single circumstance it's encountered, then every single one of us would constantly be in a state of the best version of ourselves. In other words, whenever we make a wrong choice against our better judgement, then the better and more logical choice was not made.

[@ryanjones6127]

Thanks for sharing this conversation! I've enjoyed it, but if I'm to give some constructive feedback can you please not cut of the video mid-sentence - I'm guessing you did it to create a cliffhanger but I might watch part 2 in a week or so. By then it won't make as much sense within the context of the whole discussion and right now it's frustrating because I didn't hear the end of Sam's thought.👍

[@richtomlinson7090]

The way I look at it is that it's all included, everything is included and everything someone says, oh but what about this or what about that, I say as soon as you recognize something that was on the outside, it is suddenly inside and included in the chain of causality.

[@Marcara081]

Any argument against free will must eventually target the legitimacy of philosophical individuation. And because that process must be legitimate in order for free will to exist AND for the distinction between cause and effect to exist, which is necessary for determinism, any anti-free will argument which attacks individuation either directly or indirectly becomes self-defeating. It becomes an argument regarding the nature of categorization and if categorization can produce something which is 'real' -depending how you then define 'real'.

[@thejokesonlife3745]

Your mic suddenly become great during the sponsor part

[@thejokesonlife3745]

@braddo pitto true

[@johnjacquard863]

possibility is just as real as actuality and its demonstrable.

[@GSDKXV]

😂

[@DeleriousOdyssey]

"Showing no free will at all here" Sam is a comic genius, lol

[@turtlenoheart]

Pretty sure you're laughing at a mentally deranged person... that's not cool man.

[@marktomasetti8642]

I agree that our manner of understanding events in the world (causality) does not leave any room for free will, but when Sam says, "... it’s not even an illusion ..." I have to disagree. I do operate under the illusion that I’m typing this comment of my own free will. It’s like an optical illusion in which two gray areas are an identical shade of grey, but when looked at in the context of the full picture, they look different. I know they are the same shade (having covered the picture parts between the two grey areas), but I cannot see them as identical when I view the whole picture. Although with free will I think it’s possible to cut through the illusion at times, but most of us don’t. We actually "play along with" the illusion that we have free will, unconsciously. (later, after listening to part 2). Sam says what I’m calling "the illusion of free will" has something to do with volition (not being coerced), it is NOT "libertarian free will" (complete freedom to choose my thoughts, such as deciding to have a strong desire to learn how to play the cello. In reality, I either have that desire or I don’t, I cannot manufacture it at will). So, I don’t have the illusion of free will. I have the experience of acting on impulses (write a comment) whose origins I may never understand. I’ve never actually had the illusion that I could change the fundamental nature of who I am (libertarian free will); so he’s right. Our legal system and important aspects of our society are based on the notion that we are responsible for the fundamental nature of who we are. So, it is heresy to say otherwise. I think this is what motivates the Compatibilists to attempt to reconcile free will with determinism - letting go of one of the major structural components of society is just to risky for some of us. I’m not 100% sure I know what the Compatibilists are thinking, it’s just an intuition.

[@DamjanB52]

(31:06) On the third "Tell me !", the dream master was pointing to the other, unseen side of the fulcrum, where the lost head goes

[@stevebonella1]

Scott's objections to Sam's views on Free Will became increasingly incoherent. Will be interesting to see how he'll try to save face in the next episode.

[@kinocchio]

Why does he always do audio not video podcast?

[@geoffreydawson5430]

Suppose people need to make a living but I could of learnt most of this by listening to the lyrics of Radiohead's recent album. I thinks what we are all desiring is for a Bachelor of Arts to be free again.

[@Starman.2112]

Weird, this is the first time I think Ive seen Sam in person in the Covid Era... consider I pay for all his content lol.

[@josiahferrell5022]

He had a couple of live AMA sessions last year.

[@billyb6001]

17:15 if you want to skip to the commercial

[@johnjacquard863]

the only reason its difficult to describe freewill explicitly is that we have a blackbox problem with consciousness in terms of information . if it was a deterministic universe there would be no blackbox problem there wouldn't need to be self consciousness. ( how does the big bang or laws of physics have implicit that at some point self consciousness is predetermined? the issue id the human being specific centralized nervous system with regard to two information systems. literal meaning information ( low compression algorithm metaphor meaning ( high compression algorithm

[@DejanOfRadic]

I follow Sam's logic, and I agree that his original contribution to the subject of free will is not original at all, but a simple logical extreme of a line of reasoning. In other words, I honestly remember reaching these conclusions as a teenager first stretching out the contours of the subject. While I agree that the commonly held notion of free will is obviously a delusion, it is not so easily or giddily replaced with the conclusion of determinism. The non-existence of free will by no means suggests determinism as the only other option. The subject is more parsimoniously addressed by suggesting that the question, as it stands, is not valid. There are relative distinctions between dream, rationality, insanity, injury, trauma, and love....for example. To place all the phenomenon of consciousness under the metric of determinism simply because cartoon ideas about free will can be debunked is a move of unnecessary bluntness.

[@VladyslavKL]

🕊

[@AznDudeIsOn]

SO there's ideas about Free Will that differentiate it from voluntary/involuntary behavior + randomness. There's the idea of Free Will as it not being possible to be consciously aware of every factor possible. And there's the idea of free will as the ability to make different decisions that aren't caused by quantum variation if we were to replay the scenario. But this seems lacking to me because I don't feel like free will is about whether things are predetermined or whether we have omniscient knowledge/awareness and thus the power to have choice in outcome. My perception was that free will is the ability to choose in the confound of voluntary/involuntary behavior + randomness. Sure, Sam is right that our past/present novel is already written, and because of causality the future choices we make are predetermined too. However, although what we will choose to put our attention and focus on is predetermined, we still have free will because we have the ability to consciously pick what we will focus on, as well as consciously choose to train unconscious and reflexive circuits. To me, free will is a philosophical way of describing our ability to have self-chosen neuroplasticity and in turn much more adaptive and larger variations in behavior in comparison to other animals. That is, free will is a way of describing what differentiates us between other organisms who's neuroplasticity is not influenced by a consciousness that has the ability to do things such as when Sam became aware that the sense of suffering/peace does not have to necessarily be connected to external sources (outside of maybe the octopus). That is, free will describes our ability to have an additional level of awareness that can be separated from our sensations, direction of attention, thoughts, feelings and behavior.

[@roderik4]

You can redefine free will in ways such that it would make sense given what we know about the world. But Sam's point isn't that no possible definition of free will can make sense. It's rather that the most common notion of free will (i.e. the sense that one could have acted otherwise) can't exist and is also not even experienced when one pays close attention. In this sense, you may have a choice on how to affect your neuroplasticity, but it is still not a free choice, because you will choose whatever you choose due to factor you didn't create or control. You can also speak about an additional level of awareness, but awareness is just that. It isn't free, because you have no control over what the contents of awareness, at that or any other level, will be.

[@AznDudeIsOn]

@@roderik4 good point

[@johnjacquard863]

i can use deliberate decision making to harness neural plasticity and change any aspect of myself with will. i can change my physical body, psychological mind, or emotions with my own consciousness deliberately on purpose independent from and external circumstance. if thats not free will then i dont care what you mean by free will THIS is why i care about. let me know when you create a robot that can do that. im not sure about sam harris but Im not a NPC

[@wendym2544]

can someone simplify for me what ultimately does it mean if we don't have free will. I dig really deep to use my free will everyday so my life will get better. Does this mean no matter what I do my life is going to stay the same? Or is he talking about something completely different then this? And if so, please explain that in a nutshell if you can. Thank you! Appreciate it!

[@quintonwilson8565]

Don't worry about it.

[@bebe8842]

biology is context dependent, behaviors and attitudes are influenced by the people we meet and the environment we live in more than our capacity to choose voluntarily how to behave in the next sec. that's why ppl should be careful with everything they do,. free well doesn't exist not just in Libya or Iraq but everywhere on the globe. watch or read Robert salposky and it'll make so much sense

[@irrelevant2235]

Scott Kaufman keeps referring to _"limited free will"_ where it's unfortunate and it's not his fault because it's not within his capacity but he simply doesn't understand.

[@JAYMOAP]

You want to have a conversation with Joscha Bach

[@cameronidk2]

I am a long time admirer and reader of Sam .. I am, Still a fan of the four Horsemen that Sam was the rider of Death .. no wait he was the rider of mild psychedelic's ..(satire) out of respect for Sam .. and my love of the IDW i won't mention it here.. If i could ask Sam Harris a Question it's the one i was left with after reading Free will.... I feel i grasped the book in it's entirety as it concern's why Sam Believes there's no such thing. At the root of is he is of the belief that we live in Deterministic universe.. which as of right now.. there very little evidence that we do not ... So with out significant evidence that shows the possibility of the actual possible, which basically means that some how once a closed system is set in motion there are possibility's that the basic laws of physics could not predict even if the system was known complexly.. .. So my question is .,. if the universe is a closed system that was began ..billions a years ago and every thing from stars to comet'/s to biology to the sound for sam's voice and the atoms of his brains that intimated those vocal cords and his experiencing of this .. was all going to happen and nothing else could happen .. thus free wil is but a epi effect of physical phenomenon .. the future already is .. so why does he go forth as if we can change our outlook , change our mental states for the better .. behave in a certain mater to enhance well being .. when .. every thing experienced by our biology pain rage anger doubt .. is nothing more then a state of the universe that was predetermined from the very start.. If There is no freewill .. Sam's opinion as to my choices and the merit, or virtue of those choices is like telling a movie screen Villani not to kidnap the princess..,.. if there is no free will ../ he's not choosing to have that opinion, eve4n though it feels like he's choosing to say these things he's not .. So it's such a strange thig for some who doesn't believer in free will but still thinks his stance is a choice of his will and i should live as if i do believe in f4ree will and suffering.. .. Sam in my opinion understand ,many thing's in as far as science can be informed .. but if i have no free will .. the experience of my existence is just a side effect .., because every thing was already going to happen.. there is no chance .. their is only cause and effect .. nothing altar's the theory of cause and effect..as of yet now .. I believe that it's most likely beyond our current capacity of possible understanding.. the smartest prime mate .. or piggy .. or k9 will never have the capacity for calculus .. we may never have the capacity to understand our universe beyond a certain point.the final answer may be beyond us. and so as i say .. i have to have faith that i'm an agent in a determistic universe in away that makes my existence a thing of immensurable possibility's that only my biology is in control of and outside the predictablity of determnism .. even in away defying Determism..as Gravity eventually defies Spacetime and destyroys information thus i Believe that as Right as sam is on the neurology and that synapse.. and the apparent determistyic state of the universe .. is not as valid as it seems to be .. and all I have is faith that i'm right..

[@irrelevant2235]

The sense of free will seems to be a very specific programming by evolution. As such, the purpose of free will must relate to nature's two mandates of survival and reproduction. Since it seems to be a very specific programming, how specifically is it useful as it relates to survival and reproduction?

[@traceywachman2146]

except you need the deposit to do this. try saving for that first, becoming impossible. So this is only great if you have a property already you can leverage

[@monkerud2108]

free will is tricky, but the consideration of a source for a choice is important, if you want to change something in your lite, that is completeley meaningless outside of the fact that you have a life, with details, a personality, drives and correlation between goals, effort and achivement. all of those things can be found in a completely deterministic system, as well as a probabilistic system, what you cant find is an entity with a personality that has no path dependence with respect to the past, or if you like at an exsperiencial level, without the world making an impact on you, and you on it yiu cannot ever have a sense of choice that is not completely arbritrary. all of this simply means that determinism removes true choice based on nothing, but it can replace it with choice that is in line with our conception of free will, like being able to choose to quit your job, or realize you hate your wife, or chase after a new career, just because of the way you feel about it, this is in a sense free will, but it is a weaker free will than actuall choice. if you for example in your life had the power to choose all the possible evolutions you might have ahead of you, based on what you know now then you would soon find that you would have to know so much more than you know now that everything you could do would be completely predictable and only arbritrary to you, you simply could t be yourself in that state, or leading up to it, you are you because of the limited scope, and the uncertainty, the fear, the love, the hate, humor, or whatever other exsperience you value, none of them can happen isolated from the context. you cant prove that about exsperience any more than you can prove nature contradicts herself, the so called hard problem is simply not decidable in form. yet in retrospect any life has to be determined, so what does it matter than you can’t totally change your life at any point, if you could it would still be amenable to the same skepticism anyway, because all lives lived you can imagine living has this very human character of linearity to it, if you want a non local personality maybe ask the atoms for advice, without the string of memory we are just another rock tumbling down an incline. if you struggle with dealing with the certainty of it, think of it this way; it is always certain that something will happen, whether is really you or not making the choice, and you certainly don't know what will happen, so from your perspective the future is as open as it was before you started your worrying, we are all still contenders in future events, and the variables that are the best predictors of what happens next is these things we call free will(+some bad habits). its not that bad, if you never knew about it you wouldn't feel bad, and you now know nothing more about the future than you did before recognizing this.:)

[@gr8lampini]

I hate the free will argument because I believe the free will scholars debate and the free will most laypeople think of are two different concepts.

[@eVieww]

around 48:30 on the right side of the sceen theres the face of cognitive dissonance :D PS: a great podcast and there were very interesting questions asked.

[@oceanswell82]

I agree with Sam. But what do we call the sense of choice that we do experience.

[@johnjacquard863]

its bizarre to criticize " could have done otherwise" but NOT criticize " if you could rewind" , how does that work lol :D

[@MakeEterniaGreatAgain]

Where part 2?

[@yuripavlov5091]

Engaging. But I am a little in uncertainty--was there a pre-reading assigned? =) I am unfamiliar with the guest, but it looks like he is a free will scholar (maybe?). Yet there is something off--so far he has made no point other than "free will does not really exist." My advisor always tells me: If you truly understand your topic, you should be able to talk about it at ease. So far, he is going in circles, to be honest, and it hasn't been illuminating. But I am Looking forward to next week's episode

[@Nesendrea]

Search “Sam Harris” on KZbin. He has entire videos dedicated to the concept of free will, in which he lays out several compelling arguments against it. He has also written a book on the subject.

[@lovelife2062]

you should heed your advisors advice then and truly understand your topic or person discussing said topic I.e Sam Harris via Google and 1000s of hours of his free content

[@jimmybolton8473]

So Sam is pointing at us and this is the dream? Is that about right?

[@b4byf4c3455451n]

I Have samethink: The only wish of the allmighty is the comprehension. And for doing or to doing that.. the allmighty himself has needed for free will. Wich is rappresentaded by the complex unit i Because the complex unit has both the opposit solution. +1 & -1

[@b4byf4c3455451n]

The free will is the Real meaning of omnipotence

[@oobydoob1984]

Ben stiller vs the guy from college humor videos

[@leekirby]

I wonder if Sam’s concept of free will is testable in any way?

[@jessgarza88]

Look up studies in fmri, there's pretty compelling evidence that suggests that our minds decide what we do before we are made consciously aware

[@irrelevant2235]

It's of course not his fault but it's unfortunate that Scott Kaufman doesn't have the mental capability to understand that free will doesn't exist. He just doesn't get it.

[@GifCoDigital]

Sam is looking more and more like Ben Stiller every year he ages.

[@masterfoggy88]

Why you doing this to me… make laugh so much 😂😂😂

[@ghost_in_the_robot]

Look, there was a time when we had free will. But it has been weaponized, our choices have been data-mined and used for predictive programming. If you don't work for 8 hours a day or pay your rent, car insurance, and other "non-negotiates" render free will useless. You can say to yourself, well, if I had the CHOICE, I wouldn't be homeless or have better health, but I don't have money or the capabilities, so yeah... Like Sam said, you can turn off the world and never make a choice, stay drugged up in a stupor. You can become a perfectionist and try to choose the right answer every single time. I was thinking about how money is really the first NFT digital asset (backed by the Federal Reserve of course), everybody has dead presidents and paper tinted green, but the value in inherit to our choices and what we spend it on. It's literally a piece of political art, fancy pyramid and an eye, some cool Latin words and the hook, In God We Trust. All to support the idea of consumerism; be born with social security number, indoctrinate the youth in school, get use to a schedule, attend college or work at a factory/restaurant, and endlessly consume goods and resources, products or services, until we die. It's a well oiled machine and we're the lubricant. Luckily, but the internet has changed it up a bit and given people other options. Most importantly, the ability to communicate and exchange ideas with other cultures. Influencers can get paid for playing their part in the tapestry. Everything is part of the simulacra. There's no more prototypes, it's all artificial and manufactured to be an imitation of the original idea. Our will power should be another tool we use to access our vision and imagination, but instead it's paraded as a concept for good and evil, the ancient idea of duality. I personally believe our choices become narrow as we get older, we become more consistent in our decision making abilities, yet if string theory is correct, every single option has its own branching pathway, leading another set of choices which continues on and on, into infinity and beyond. This must be how God spends his time. If you were an omnipotent being and had unlimited knowledge, you'd want to be able to experience EVERYTHING, so you'd create vessels with limited free will who could amuse you... think about it, what's the difference between sympathy and empathy? Apathy. Free your will, the rest will follow. Don't be so shy, don't be so shallow. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

[@S.G.Wallner]

I have never been convinced by the, "couldn't have done otherwise," argument. My questions is, what proof does anyone have that someone could not have done otherwise? We can't rewind the clock, so how can we verify whether or not someone could have done otherwise?

[@dungeon-wn4gw]

The proof that no one could have done otherwise is determinism.

[@S.G.Wallner]

@@dungeon-wn4gw There are a few flavors of determinism but I do understand that is the general claim. But in the same way, what proof do we have that determinism is true in the sense that something different could not have happened? We can't rewind the clock, so how do we know a particular quantum phenomena could or could not have happened differently?

[@danzwku]

@@S.G.Wallner i'm a noob on this topic but i think the argument is ''because it didn't, because it happened because of this cause and it had this effect that resulted in it happening this way" lol i'm making no sense

[@ASimoneau]

If you rewind the clock to a point where you had the exact same genetics, upbringing, and life experiences as you had the first time, on what basis do you assert that you could do other than what you did the first time?

[@S.G.Wallner]

@@danzwku I think your take is an accurate portrayal of the common position. And to me it still doesn't quite answer my question. Maybe my question is ill posed. But, despite our ability to retroactively recognize the state that came previously. We can't actually revisit the moment at which the state changed so we cant know if it could happen otherwise. If we could travel back in time, maybe things would happen differently. I remain agnostic while Determinism makes a strong claim. The burden of proof is on determinism to show that it couldn't happen otherwise. I don't know of any proof of that.

[@sandrarsd7645]

Tell me!!

[@rileystewart9165]

Someone please make a ninjitsu sam harris naruto meme.

[@shak535]

Sam " I once told the Dali Lama "

[@DamjanB52]

He didn't say what he told the dream master .. did he tell him about the dream ?

[@GSDKXV]

Sam has no equal

[@bananahead44]

Audio bad on interviewer

[@juhliousu5491]

It's ok, I don't need to here anymore anyway... Sam already "landed" all his philosophy, for me, in his books long ago....

[@johnjacquard863]

so where is the " malfunctioning robot" or "wlid animal gone berzerk " podcasts at? ill go watch them :D where are all the chimpanzee piano concerto sam? theres nothing different about the human centralized nervous system and a malfunctioning robot? comon

[@jeffreyleerobinson]

nothing demonstrates lack of free will than reading rotely from a que card in the beginning.

[@tmc3980]

Theravada >> Mahayana

[@danzwku]

36:34 Sam Harris goes to pee

[@dimitriostsiliakas4094]

''surely no free will here''... hahahahahahah

[@mountainair]

Free Willy perhaps

[@fredricknietzsche7316]

This Scott guy is trying hard but, its clear he is just not in the same lea3as Mr Harris.

[@jaykay6387]

Sam has to talk to somebody, after all. Check out Sam's debates with Jordan Peterson, that was like a clash of the titans. They were launching thunderbolts at each other, it was hard to keep up, it made me feel like a moron and that isn't something I'm used to, it was humbling.

[@nogaei1]

No free will. Just the ability to decide to practice vipassana, and then shift to non duality practice, be one with the observer intentionally, unfreely but deliberately - decrease suffering and calling others to do the same . all that rendom (or deterministic), contingently acts summen insuch an absord and not very interesting argument about the absence of free will that contradict this obvious teleological path. There must be god then! some willing working conscious is must be involved in this Sam Harris project

[@keyboardwarrior1082]

Sam must get real tired of trying to explain this in so many different ways to do many different people lol.

[@thehillbillygamer2183]

I know Trump's so bad Joe Biden did so much better job as president things are so much better now for the majority of Americans inflation food shortages Afghanistan Ukraine

[@8xnnr]

Sam Harris seems tired of explaining it lol

[@thehillbillygamer2183]

I think this guy's just jumping on the I hate Trump bandwagon because he knows it's popular with you know the type of people he wants to interact with with his celebrity KZbin career

[@thejokesonlife3745]

Dude get a better mic

[@polarbianarchy3333]

What is your PhD in? Or dud you earn a BS

[@tobynsaunders]

You lost me at the end there, Scott. You concede that libertarian free will doesn't exist, but then you started saying that free will does exist? What happened? Were you talking about "free will", i.e., regular will that is called free for the sake of allegedly helping mental health (a la Daniel Dennett's intention)? And then you mentioned something about overriding programming as if you were talking about the West World notion of free will.

[@avi7278]

Sorry this host is just not intellectually interesting and Sam having to rephrase his points in the same way you might while trying to explain the concept of a square root to your average seven year old impedes valuable progression that may warrant further attention. Firstly saying the idea Sam was presenting is "besides the point" I find to be incredibly rude. But Sam did indeed have his revenge where he explained that he was attempting to rephrase so as to have the point land, clearly becoming slightly annoyed with the host's seeming inability to comprehend, all the while introducing flaccid interjections that were quite ironically beside the point.

[@sunnyla2835]

How does a college dropout have the kind of money needed to travel (Nepal, Australia, etc) and study for 10 years without working? Is Sam a trust fund baby?

[@HkFinn83]

Well how old is Sam, mid 40’s at least? It was a lot more accessible at that time to do things like that. I had numerous friends who spent a decade in education without much of any money.

[@joshboston2323]

@@HkFinn83 --already in his 50's.

[@filmjazz]

Sam Harris believes in and respects “randomness” more than free will, and yet his very existence is a product of the very opposite of “randomness.” The force directing matter away from entropy is “will,” but Sam refuses to acknowledge it because it comes from a place that science does not currently have access to. I honestly have not thought about the free will debate as much as Sam has, but if his view is correct, then let’s hear him design an experiment that validates determinism in human behavior. If he can’t do that then his idea about free will has no more credibility than all of the other unscientific “woo” that he has made a career out of criticizing, and it’s “like, just your opinion, man.” p.s. - I’m a Sam Harris subscriber and a fan, I just don’t agree with his materialism. I think he’s dead wrong.

[@blubablubahumbug]

I think the only way there could be an experiment about it would have to be outside of "moral" values. As (I think he said in this vid, mightve been another vid I watched) If there was some neuromancer with tech to perfectly read your brain patterns, there would be a way of seeing what the thought would be before the decision happens. To keep the belief of free will requires some level of almost religious thinking because you have to deny an amount of science we already have (ie basic biology and psychology).

[@boethius31415]

It's good to see Sam admit that God probably knows what you're going to do before you do it ("all of this is totally compatible with some guy, some evil genius, in another room typing in my instructions to my completely determined and coerced brain") even if the theology implied by this statement is too Calvinist for my own tastes.

[@peteryunge-bateman5807]

You have misinterpreted the concept Sam was describing , to make it conform to your delusions of supernatural Father figures. Sam was saying it was perfectly understandable that we perceive reality as one that is predetermined. The subject here is how and why we think, not what. He was suggesting you have emotions that compel an earthly desire to perceive and comprehend the intrinsic nature of existence. I suggest it is Ration. With empathy, Pete.

[@HakWilliams]

Sam doth protest free will too much.

[@dukelee3964]

Mmmh, Sam did you have free will when you endorsed Mike Bloomberg for president, during a global pandemic and recession? Or was that your parents fault?

[@CHGLongStone]

Yes freewill exists, most people don't have it because they're trapped in their limbic response with no metacognition

[@wyldflowerlearningcommunity]

How does that explain free will? you're just pushing the can down the road

[@117Industries]

@@wyldflowerlearningcommunity He hasn't explained it. But I agree with what he's saying nonetheless.

[@peteryunge-bateman5807]

Free will is a delusion of a thought process dominated by the selfish emotions of our ego. Stating the terms limbic and meta cognition, is hardly evidence presented in a logical and reasonable manner which supports claims of free will. With empathy, Pete.

[@117Industries]

@@peteryunge-bateman5807 The statement above didn't constitute an explanation. But if there were a neurological mechanism through which free will operated, it's conceivable that not all people would utilise their brain in a way that allowed them to activate this mechanism and to apply their will freely. For example, both hemispheres of your brain are connected by a huge band of nervous fibres called the 'corpus callosum' and where this band is severed or impaired people demonstrate peculiar behaviours and thinking, as if their brain isn't working under its normal state of bilateral harmony. This is because it isn't, because the network of fibres which would normally allow the brain to cooperate under some specified task have been impaired. A person's cognitive function usually declines under such conditions, but so does their general decision-making. The consensus, in light of these findings, is that while we retain an archaic view of "left" and "right" brain functionality, and while both hemispheres do show distinct processing styles, ultimately both sides of the mind are used simultaneously for almost any given cognitive task (a hypothesis which fMRI scans support). Therefore, we can reasonably assume that you need both hemispheres to cooperate in order to support normal cognitive function, but that you also need them to be sufficiently interconnected so they may communicate effectively between themselves. Imagine then that our thinking patterns could bypass the callosum so that we were overusing one side of our mind at a time. This is not inconceivable given the effect that both the environment and social pathology can have on an individual's psychological health and their brain-function. Imagine too that through a culturally reinforced process of "black-and-white" or binary thinking, that we could reinforce this hemispheric imbalance (or rather the unilateral activation of brain-regions under various cognitive loads). You now have a situation where the brain isn't operating normally, but is overloading one side of itself for any given task. Now imagine that the physiological mechanism through which free will operates is intermediately connected to both hemispheres through the callosum, or that it uses simultaneous informational input from both hemispheres in order to operate. It could be the case that both hemispheres, due to their distinct processing styles, are functionally necessary to generate the kinds of alternatively conceived futures which would be necessary for truly *free* decision making. And the kind of consciousness which allows for free will might only arise from both hemispheres processing information in tandem from distinct perspectives, in the same way that our perception of stereoscopic vision is the emergent phenomena of two eyes viewing an object from different angles, while some mechanism allows the "ghost in the machine" to select from variable inputs generated by this complex functional arrangement. You now have a set of conditions in which two premisses obtain: -Firstly, that any person has the innate capacity for freely willed decision making, by virtue of the structure and function of their mind. -Secondly, that this ability relies upon bilateral (and presumably harmonious) cognitive function. We can thereby presume from the second premiss that should some person's mind be subject to those conditions which hamper balanced bilateral activity, that they might then be "shut off" from their innate capacity for free will. And lacking the kind of 'metacognition' necessary to apply their will freely to a bilaterally balanced stream of information, that subject would then be enchained to a 'limbic' feedback-loop in which both hemispheres construct decision-making circuits based on the subject's autonomous responses, fears, desires, and values (which are largely based in the 'limbic' system) and their Prefrontal Cortex's algorithmic & rational response to such inputs. Whether or not this isolateral engagement would cause recursive or self-reinforcing function within either hemisphere, without the harmonious operation necessary to support the "free will drive*", we are left with a mechanistic feedback loop in which the mind is enslaved to its hardwired limbic responses and the predictable rationalised processes which consequently follow. In other words, we might very well not have room for free will of a meaningful kind if we are psychologically barred from the kind of 'metacognition' which would otherwise break us free from our 'limbic' chains. In short, what the OP said had a lot more merit to it than meets the eye, despite the lack of explanatory substantiation. *"free will drive": the mechanism which supports the operation of the aforementioned "ghost in the machine", (the "ghost" being that aspect of your consciousness which experiences a range of optional pathways forward in decision-making processes, and experiences agency in selecting from that range of choices).

[@babyyoda3118]

This guy who I used to enjoy so much. What happend?? Is it his ego or his mr know it all attitude? Sad that this briliant brain can’t figure out how to be a nice person!

[@johnjacquard863]

its bizarre to criticize " could have done otherwise" but NOT criticize " if you could rewind" , how does that work lol :D