Sam Harris Free Will Lecture

[@realbobbyaxel]

Sam harris and his ideas on free will and determinism are still as relevant today as they were 10 years earlier, if not more so!

[@HiddenTruthExposed]

Lol all of human history son

[@shojaejlali1290]

Durrrrrrrrr!!!

[@mrloop1530]

Lol it's an eternal question

[@m.n.executor1902]

i knew that Ben Stiller joke was coming and i still laughed my ass off lol

[@Ryan-SeongJun]

Lol😂😂

[@arthurfleck629]

Or did you…?

[@leslie19471]

Dr. Harris has opened my eyes to so much.

[@losttribe3001]

It’s even crazier when you realize that him opening your eyes was determined and you had no choice! 😉

[@AceofDlamonds]

Sadly many people don't have the predisposition to receive intellectually stimulating talks like this well.

[@malibération]

I hope your eyes didn't fall out!

[@andrewjackson5080]

"In Hinduism the very idea of free will is non-existent, so there is no word for it. Will is commitment, fixation, bondage... To be free in the world you must be free of the world. Otherwise your past decides for you and your future. Between what had happened and what must happen you are caught. Call it destiny or karma, but never-freedom." - Nisargadatta Maharaj

[@christinachapman85]

The best argument Harris makes is when he notes that we think of free will as the ability to do what we want, without wondering where our wants come from. They are the result of prior causes, like everything else.

[@catkeys6911]

You do what you want only if you are free to do so. I believe Sam is playing semantic games with the word "free".

[@kartikeyasharma6558]

But you are not free to want what you want. That's the point. ​@@catkeys6911

[@tyranttitanium5721]

​​​@@catkeys6911If someone wants to drink soda right now and they have a conflicting desire to avoid experiencing the long term effects of consuming that much sugar also right now and I force them to drink soda then they're being forced to do what they want even if it's conflicts with that second want/desire. It has nothing to do with freedom OR freewill. Freewill doesn't have a single definition that we all use. Some of the ones I've heard other people use or implied using are: 1: The potential for an agent to act without constraint (the person I talked to about this definition wasn't very clear. Partially because I made the mistake of asking them on the spot). 2a: The potential for an agent to act entirely on it's wants. 2b: The potential for an agent to act (full or in part) on it's wants. 3: The potential to have done otherwise. I'm pretty sure there are more, I'm just listing the ones off the top of my head that I've actually heard other people talk about. He's trying to point to problems with definition 3.

[@PierreNicques]

@@catkeys6911 You do what you want because that's your will. But in what sense is that will free? Free from what?

[@BoxRoomStudio]

I would absolutely love to know how many people picked a Ben Stiller film

[@hansadler6716]

I am one of them. "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" - my all time favorite film

[@RattyDaddy]

Something about mary popped into my head but I settled on a different one. Also I was talking about something about mary few days ago

[@JCorvinusVR]

I think the reason people so vehemently reject the idea of free will being an illusion is because of how important a sense of agency is to mental health. Maybe it's a defense mechanism? That and it seems so self-evident. My consciousness is constantly filtering and re-imagining things that are sent to it by the subconsciousness. There's a feedback loop of some kind. But the problem of causality remains.

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

That's very true. Many atheists too think that there is some real free will out there.

[@leomiller2291]

Sapolsky discusses this in his book on free will.

[@ocolotav1]

Sam Harris is one of the messiah's of the times the sad part is that a lot of people will get through their lives without hearing or understanding him.

[@AMultipolarWorldIsEmerging]

Calling an atheist a “messiah” - face palm

[@jettaca88]

Wrong choice of word. Better if Harris was called brilliant.

[@Xpistos510]

This just goes to show that even among atheists, the impulse to use religious language and elevate certain people to holy statuses will continue to persist.

[@xsuploader]

@@AMultipolarWorldIsEmerging bro he said this 8 years ago lmao. He might not even remember sam harris at this point.

[@timestamp2525]

@@AMultipolarWorldIsEmerging It's just an ironic statement or oxymoron. Harris himself responded "God forbid" when someone was asking what he'd do as presidential advisor. It's funny. It's the sort of thing people with a sense of humour say

[@NC-ck5oj]

This makes me feel very uncomfortable but I cant argue with a word of it

[@FernandoVazquez-ro1nw]

There are two levels to understanding this - that's why it seems so complicated. Level 1: We "seem" to be able to choose from a set of options (That's why we feel free), BUT Level 2: We cannot chose our choices or options since those were put there by genetics, environment and other random events. Therefore, we are not as free as we thought we were. ----- I cannot choose between green, yellow, pink and red if all the colors I have been given in life are only green and pink - therefore, my options are limited and I am not free.

[@TijsHam]

Free will might be limited, but does it completely fade away? There is still some freedom within the sphere you can influence consciously (green & pink). The idea of complete free will is childish... that would imply that you could break the laws of nature if you so pleased, so there are always limitations on free will. I like to think of free will not in terms of control but rather in terms of influence. Conscious thought usually deals with deliberation that is more complex and might have more significant consequences in the long run. A lot of the examples that are presented in this talk (vanilla or chocolate... favorite movie) are entirely inconsequential in the long run and are much more likely to be decided unconsciously instead... of course, there is very little free will involved there. But to say that there is no conscious influence within the processes that lead to decisions isn't the whole story either.

[@balistaAE]

Reading the comments, it appears i have listening to a whole different lecture than most people here. 1 - Sam is saying that the commonly held notion of free will does not exist. This is important. You can define free will in such a way as to evade his criticism, and you are perfectly entitled to do so. But then you free will will no longer resemble what most people consider free will is. 2 - Sam actually goes out of his way to say that this is true regardless of the existance of Souls and that this is true in a deterministic (pre-determined choises) and indeterministic universes. It is actually the thing i find most remarcable about his view.

[@Grymbaldknight]

As a soon-to-be philosophy graduate thinking of pursuing a legal profession, the incompatibility of retributive justice with our understanding of determinism is something i've thought about a lot (due in part to lectures like this). As Sam says, how can you base a legal system around an absence of free will? It's actually not too difficult, depending on one's perspective. The purpose of law isn't to punish choice, but punish action - and this is done in order to encourage criminal reform and keep dangerous people from causing further harm. You don't need free will to enter the picture if you're just trying to protect the public from criminal activity. The prospect of punishment also exists to dissuade people from committing crimes in the first place. Sam also says - i think elsewhere - that intentionality is a big part of action, even though free will doesn't exist. If a person deliberates, plots, and commits a premeditated crime, it's more suggestive of a criminal mind than a crime of passion, or an act of negligence. Such premeditation is indicative of the fact that the individual is more dangerous - so, for instance, murder is more "deserving" of punishment than manslaughter, and so punishing on the basis of intentionality remains valid.

[@AntiCitizenX]

*The purpose of law isn't to punish choice, but punish action - and this is done in order to encourage criminal reform and keep dangerous people from causing further harm.* Bingo. You just solved the problem of free will.

[@jurisgnostic]

exactly. we still have to protect society from some folks, but we have to temper our notion of "fault" and "evil". Read "the demolished man" by Alfred Bester. BTW i am a philosophy grad who practiced law. feel free to contact me. i;m not generally much of a chatter unless it's substantive

[@SS-cd6ie]

I tried to tell a coworker we have no free will, he told me I was an idiot and made fun of me to everyone. I didn't think he'd get so angry. Why does it bother people so much?

[@dalegriffiths3628]

He has no freewill to behave in any other way - that’s no real chooser there

[@soliniv1411]

He doesnt want to accept any new ideas, you threaten the bubble he lives in 🤷‍♂️

[@zulubeatsprince]

Sam addressed this early on. Religious beliefs and the need to blame or judge others

[@BadMannerKorea]

Just quote Sam Harris and tell him he can’t think a thought before he thinks it.

[@megalodon369]

Why do you also feel the need to blame or judge others?@@zulubeatsprince

[@XX-es8vg]

I wanted to watch all the way to the end of it, I truly do, but I had no choice but to stop to go and prepare dinner.

[@davidevans3227]

i'm listening while getting ours..

[@tomoxford123able]

I'm studying determinism at the moment. Great lecture. Cheers!

[@humanbeing5396]

Correction: you had no choice but to study

[@timetraveller2818]

​@@humanbeing5396Correction: You had no choice to reply to this comment and I had no choice to reply to this reply of a comment.

[@davidalbro2009]

What you believe matters very much but what you believe is never chosen. What you do matters very much but what you do is never chosen.

[@giuffre714]

Well said. 😀

[@kevinsayes]

I always keep a tab or two open on my phone browser with words I hear that I’d like to learn how to incorporate into my vocabulary, or at least have in the arsenal so to speak. I’ll go over them and practice them in a quick sentence whenever I browse anything until I feel I’ve got it down. Every time I watch a video with Sam speaking (which is a lot), I find myself with 3-4 of these tabs. I love the way he speaks; both in his choice of words and phrases and his rhythm and delivery. The calm demeanor ties it all together into a very effective package.

[@appsenence9244]

What fking words do u mean haha? U can't be serious? You're trying to learn more words by watching videos? Just go read a fkn book

[@dalegriffiths3628]

The people that hung the elephant also couldn’t choose to act differently - based on genes/past conditioning/ those that hung the elephant were determined to do that they didn’t choose it. In the same way as those that stood around as bystanders and those that ran home in tears. The retribution desire that is acted upon was clearly present in some but not in others. Now I seem to find solace in the idea of no freewill, is there a little independent ‘I’ that has the ability to find solace as opposed to not? Of course not. Great lecture Sam.

[@InfinityReptar]

So does this essentially mean we live in a simulation? 🤔

[@wadesmith666]

"Consciousness does not require a self - The self is a prediction of the brain" James Cooke | James Cooke is a neuroscientist, writer & speaker, focusing on consciousness, meditation, psychedelic states, science and spirituality. Check out what he's saying- got to be honest haven't quite got my head round it yet.

[@billyranger2627]

So much sense. Knowledge,bereft of prejudice, does spring forth compassion. More and more, it’s dawning on me why the title p, Buddha,meaning the awakened one, was bestowed on one who woke up. Most of us are asleep. Ego our fuel. More power to you Sam.

[@Mockturtlesoup1]

I remember the first time I voiced my belief/hunch that free will was an illusion. It was to my best friend who was driving us home from school sophomore year, and the conversation was extremely frustrating(as it often is with people who've never thought much about it before.) Later, I started to wonder what people believed and had written about this, and was surprised to learn how common the belief is(i.e. that free will is an illusion), at least among philosophers, neuroscientists, psychologists, etc. What originally got me thinking about the lack of free will was just the basic premise of cause and effect, and that every effect has(at least one) cause(excluding potential quantum shenanigans, and probalistic outcomes in the micro scale), and thus if you could know everything that's happening, down to the subatomic level, you could predict/know what would happen next, as well as go backwards and learn every cause of every event, including human thoughts, behaviors, emotions, etc. I actually do have Sam's book on free will(the short one with the red cover) but I'm realizing that I've never read, or at least have never finished, that book.

[@israelp348]

Yeah the more I question myself and thoguht about this..... the more evident and clear it was that i just HAD to accept the truth that we actually don't have free choice.

[@giuffre714]

#metoo

[@aliengod3528]

It seems so obvious to me the fact we have no free will, and I don't know how I feel about that.

[@giuffre714]

#metoo

[@MasterSpade]

38:03 -- "Yes you are free to do whatever you want but where do your desires come from?" -- Same Harris Exactly... We don't get to choose those things.

[@imnotdavid7954]

The problem with free will is that, logically speaking, if the will is free, it must also be arbitrary. No matter how far back you go in the logic regression of the decision-making progress, you have to either reach a point where there are unchanging rules governing everything (in which case free will is an illusion), or there are absolutely no rules governing the ultimate decision to be made (in which case everything is arbitrary, not performed through logical choice). The world around us appears to be anything but arbitrary and we have much evidence of the rules governing it. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that unchanging rules govern our decisions and so we have no free will. But again...even if our will was free, it would just mean everything we do is arbitrary, which isn't a valuable quality at all.

[@imnotdavid7954]

welp...just watched the video and this is exactly harris's position. Really not sure why so many of you don't get it. I think you're more just refusing to get it. Because it makes you uncomfortable.

[@MiguelTrujillo1]

Genius. Very persuasive.

[@themartialartsapproach8786]

I'm determed not to get involved in this discussion.

[@imnotdavid7954]

The refutation of free will does not require experimentation or an entire novel to explain. It is a purely logical refutation, and a relatively simple one, given the importance of its ramifications. The long and short of it is that, any logical way you try to arrive at free will, you either determine there is no free will, or you determine that whatever portion of the will isn't free, behaves completely arbitrarily, with no room for things like moral judgment. It's a simple and elegant conclusion...so much so that whenever it is challenged, you are safe in presuming that the challenger suffers from some form of mental illness, generally related to overwhelming egotistical tendencies and/or religiosity.

[@blazingsstar]

Lol

[@imnotdavidxnsx]

@@blazingsstar good point

[@LMarieCarson]

Some of what is revealed in this discussion, which interestingly enough is scriptural is the notion of the need to deliberate an idea/thought in societal setting or gauge ideas/thoughts among societal contributions - and then produce a consensus/process for cultivating/shaping/restructuring the social framing relationship to these influences. Most of what Sam seems to address is that ideas and thoughts can merely occur upon someone in relation to social framework factors - Being a product of a social mind to a degree and shifting occurs w/in degrees of access to deliberation and acts from there. More to say, but that’s a simple observation.

[@0pct-Zscrop2-bcue7im9a.4space]

14:11 sams deepest quote on god and morality.... im speechless. An unsung hero

[@IvarFFF]

Awesome! A "will lecture" for free!

[@garettjames6349]

I think this becomes even more interesting when discussing AI and the Turing test. When you understand free will is an illusion, and that we are simply processing input and then making decisions on that input (for the ultimate goal of reproduction), don't we have to accept a MacBook is already an AI device but simply lacking the independent (programed) compulsion to reproduce?

[@jameswilliams-ey9dq]

I believe he may have defeated his own argument when he stated that fatalism is a random choice. He essentially was discouraging a passive attitude towards destiny suggesting we choose to affect or future.

[@ivorfaulkner4768]

Why was my comment of yesterday published: I thought it was spot on!

[@Pazzystar]

I wish Alan Watts was still alive... and had a seminar with Sam.

[@markdelej]

Jareth Gawain he only mentions Alan Watts once ever that i can find yet all of sams ideas on free will and the illusion of the self seem to be identical to Watt’s philosophy. I’m sure with Sams knowledge of philosophy he is well aware of Watt’s but would love to see him do a podcast or lecture on his ideas

[@sebastianjacobsen727]

The podcast after Watts death he talks alot about him, and praises him very much while acknowledgeing his influenced on his thoughts

[@swapblue]

@@markdelejthere's a full section for alan watts on Sam Harris' "waking up" app, so i would say he knows him

[@mossibility]

how we interpret our perception determines our behavior. No matter how we interpret our perception, whether it be correctly or incorrectly, our behavior is a response to whatever stimuli is happening. That isn't a free choice at all.

[@jacobl7451]

14:52 the Ben Stiller line

[@cshe92]

Thank you lol

[@garroshhellscream4645]

25:06 "All you can do is witness these decisions"...WITNESS ME!!

[@appnzllr]

I had a fellow student in graduate school who was so strong on predestination that he questioned whether we had free will.

[@ReX0r]

I agree the debate has been alive and well within Christianity in the form of predestination. However, it makes the abrahamic god a rather cruel one considering he kicked adam and even out of the garden. And considering all other suffering (theodicee).

[@irrelevant2235]

Sam Harris is simply brilliant!

[@wealthypepe]

simp

[@mikefufuffalo8487]

This is just the logical conclusion I came to, based on my theory of life that timelines are a thing, and each event leads to the next..... but it's nice to hear someone agree =) Also seriously.... can you people who believe in free will NOT get upset by the mere discussion? That'd be great, thanks =)

[@SorrySonny]

There is choice, once you act upon choice, there is an awareness of that. When acting without choices, and being aware of it at the same time is where free will exists.

[@user-bp1gx3qt3o]

Your capacity for making certain choices is influenced by your genetics and past experiences in the same way that your desires are. For example, somebody who is a psychopath will have a massively reduced (or even nonexistent) capacity for empathy, and would therefore be less compelled to make a choice that involves helping someone in need. A highly empathetic person might be praised for their altruistic choices compared to those of the psychopath, but really it’s an unfair comparison because the internal decision making process is completely different - choosing to help instead of harm isn’t really much of a choice at all if you are strongly compelled by your emotions to be altruistic/caring. It just feels right and comes naturally. If these emotions weren’t present, the empath’s choices would likely be very different. Another example - a person with extremely low intelligence will have a lower capacity for self awareness/self reflection, and is therefore not as well equipped to assess their current situation/life trajectory and make the choice to alter their path to a better one. Someone who is more intelligent will be better equipped to self analyse and can make better choices as a result, such as recognising and giving up a bad habit, or realising their past wrongdoings and apologising for them. We have instinctive negative emotional reactions towards problematic/antisocial behaviour and seek to blame and punish, but evil people are really just a very unfortunate combination of genes and environmental factors that converge to cause a ticking time bomb. It’s an uncomfortable idea to reckon with though as it seems to absolve violent/murderous/dishonest people of their actions, which doesn’t sit right with us

[@fireballfitness170]

11:30 11:50 12:05...12:20... 13:30 13:50 14:25 14:40... 15:16 15:34 17:02..17:40 19:31 time lag, sense of free will during this, let the brain has already decided 20:05 20:35 ... Think of a film 22:20... Were you free to choose that which did not occur to you to choose 23:42... You might have a story... In the lab those stories are always wrong 26:06... True regardless of whether we have a soul... 28:00 29:30.. 31:50 fatalism 35:10... It is possible to change.. 48:00..

[@Fi3ryPh03n1x]

I have a sudden urge to see Ben Stiller eat an owl.

[@Swagmittens]

amazing lecture, I came into this not really knowing what to expect and being fairly confused where it was going at the beginning, but yeah it makes complete sense. One thought I have now is that if a God does exist, then the Christian bible verse "every knee will bow and tongue confess", would be quite literally true. I mean you can't punish us for how we acted on earth if you would've done the exact same things as we did had you been us.

[@federicocamp2231]

This speech is what finally convinced me that free will is an illusion. I am now listening to Robert Sapolsky who is also spreading the same message. I think this is the most important issue to understand. That way we can focus on the correct way to shape civilization towards the wellbeing of everyone.

[@mtvisual]

So pleased i didn't choose to watch this! Great video. Thank you ;)

[@jjpeditorreel]

You chose to watch. You just in no meaningful way are responsible for that choice.

[@saurovraj]

Swami Vivekananda said "the will can never be free, it is bound by the cause and effect phenomenon. But there is something behind the will that is free". This something is called Aatman in Sanskrit (the Vedas). And Atman is Brahman (God).

[@cephii6490]

Humans of sufficient intelligence must ultimately grapple with the fact that free will simply does NOT exist. Why your subconscious pushes ideas and simulations into your cortex at the moment it does... is mysterious to you and therefore you attribute this feature to "God". There is good reason why many of the world's greatest thinkers have ultimately landed on this subject to discuss at some point or another. The absence of free will is not something that the average IQ 70-85 is likely noticing on a moment to moment basis. My theory is that once the human race is at an average IQ of 150 and above, most people will notice that free will does not exist as easily as you now see that blood is red and silk is smooth. It is obvious that 2+2 is 4 without any formal education. If and when we reach the point that subjectively our cognition NEVER feels free, even when we aren't paying attention, will be a very unusual situation. On a side note, when we stop believing EVERYTHING without direct evidence, we might spend our entire life confirming that the sun is hot and that apples are red since we may never have sufficient evidence to satiate our skepticism.

[@lauriecolaprete3460]

THIS IS AMAZING!! TRUTH --- I ABSOLUTELY FEEL!!

[@0Sebek0]

I just watched as this man read my mind, but I would have gone further to say how really importat is to acknowledge the fact that free will is a meaningless concept not only when considering the restribution implied in the penal system, and that the old and still present ignorance of this reality is the real and only source of hatred, destruction and evil itself, but also that by understanding it, the cause and effect nature of human behaviour, we can actually do better than just locking people

[@samuelfox8126]

I love my strings. They nudge me and then let go to see if I will follow.

[@junevandermark952]

If I could create a universe, all my creatures would be able to create their own universes, separate from mine. That would be free will.

[@aznstride4325]

No, because how would you explain how a creature choose to create a certain universe as opposed to to another? How did a specific type of universe occur thru them in the first place rather than another type? Lol. There’s no free will, no matter how you cut it.

[@junevandermark952]

@@aznstride4325 Thanks for your response. The point of my spoof ... was that if the universe was created and the creator gave all his creatures free will ... then all his creatures should then be able to cut all ties to the creator and be able to create our/their own universes ... just as he created his own universe. On a serious non-religious note ... I believe the scientific theory that in one form or another, the universe and energy always existed ... no creator ... no plan ... and that suffering of all forms of life is natural.

[@aznstride4325]

@@junevandermark952 the notion of free-will doesn’t even makes sense logically. So if you’re talking about creating a universe where logic breaks down, then sure

[@junevandermark952]

@@aznstride4325 I suggest that because religious myths originate in human imagination ... they can't be expected to contain any logic. Within theology ... if we were created by a creator, without our permission ... we didn't have any free will. If, on the other hand we evolved and were reproduced naturally because of our parents having sex, we still didn't have any free will concerning whether we did or did not want to be born. After 70 years of being messed up by religious nonsense, I became an Atheist. I like to think that at least that choice was based on my own free will.

[@junevandermark952]

@@aznstride4325 Wherever human imagination exists … it tends to go wild. From the book … Sumerians: A History From Beginning to End … By Hourly History ... "For one thing, Sumerian thinkers did not have an exaggerated confidence in man and destiny, as they were firmly convinced that man was fashioned from clay and created to serve gods. Sumerians thought that uncertainty was most common in man’s life and that they were haunted by insecurity. As a result of not knowing what the gods might bestow on man, they invested little comfort or belief in free will."

[@sandeep-ra0-1]

Wow... Sam Harris has some really good insights. He might find the Bhagavad Gita very interesting.

[@ClayShentrup]

this is pretty much verbatim the argument i made to myself while stoned as a computer engineer student in college in the '90s.

[@karagi101]

Did you choose to come up with that argument?

[@74bluewolf]

Sam Harris you the man broder...

[@Youbeenwarned321]

This view should not be confused with fatalism. When you embrace your lack of freedom you become whatever the force is that is making your decision for you.

[@sngscratcher]

It is an erroneous model of reality, a faulty construct within our minds that often confuses people about the issue of free will. And it is not a conceptual issue; it is a perceptual issue and the resulting lack of understanding on a deeper level. “Most people live in the delusion that they make decisions out of free will. In reality their actions are completely determined by their past. How you think, what you want and what you consider important are all determined by your upbringing, your culture, your religion - in short, by your concepts. As long as you still think you are your mind, you have no free will. Spiritually you are unconscious. You may think you know what you want, but you don’t. It is only the conditioning of your mind that says: “This is what you need to have”. That’s not a choice, it’s mechanical. Some people escape from this. Then it is suddenly as if there is more consciousness, which means that for the first time they truly experience free will. Only then can you take responsibility.” Eckhart Tolle. Free will is the gasoline that drives the engine of our spiritual growth. Cheers.

[@arsroma]

Hello, WFLA. I am writing on behalf of the russian-speaking atheism community. We would like to dub this lecture on russian. Do you have an English transcript? It would have helped us a lot.

[@leonmonderer]

We have free will within the frame of what constitutes the Self. The Self is a result of many variables over which we have no influence. Did I get this right?

[@kendrickjahn1261]

No, he argues that we have no free will. The self is an illusion as well.

[@beluwhaleoftheisland7247]

15:03 Sam does look like Ben Stiller🤣🤣

[@irrelevant2235]

I agree that we don't have free will. I completely understand determinism and the possibility of randomness (which is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics). However, would someone please help me understand what Sam Harris is saying at 8:10 where he says _"Everything that could possibly constitute your will is either the product of a long chain of prior causes and you're not responsible for them (i.e. determinism) or is the product of randomness and you're not responsible for that obviously or is some combination of the two."_ ? So what Sam is saying here is that the universe is either deterministic (I agree) or it's random (I disagree) or it's a combination of determinism and randomness (I agree). When I look at the universe, it's either purely deterministic or it's deterministic with randomness. I really can't see a universe which is constructed from pure randomness. When I look at my hand for example, I can't say that my hand evolved from pure randomness. My hand evolved from either absolute determinism or determinism with the possibility of randomness.

[@deadendsaga]

He tried to explain this to Bill Maher

[@dandydan999]

Just because someone has a predilection for making bad choices doesn't mean the person is not making a choice. For example, if the murderer had the violent impulse while in the presence of an armed police officer observing then the murderer would choose to not kill at that time. Even if the killer would choose to kill in that scenario, the choice was still made. This idea that we don't control our thoughts does not mean we don't have the ability to choose our actions.

[@R1K2G3]

Thanks for your reply. Before we begin a dialogue, could you please tell me whether you affirm or deny the definition of "free will" I gave above as, "the power of contrary choice"? Since I am coming from a biblical/theological perspective, it might help if you tell me what worldview you hold (humanist, atheist...etc.). Emotionality, in Scripture, is not to be trusted as a source of truth. In fact, the Scriptures teach us to control our emotions because they are most times unreliable.

[@septicwomb4394]

I think one of the reasons the sense of free will is so strong is because humans are social animals, and without it we can’t ascribe moral responsibility for indiscretions to other members of our group, which is essential for maintaining group order. We have to ascribe free will to others for reward and punishment to make sense, and by extension free will is ascribed to us by others and we believe it. It’s a group illusion. I wonder theoretically whether a human isolated from other living things would even think about whether or not they had free will.

[@ahmershahkhan5715]

Well think again! Name one animal which is not social?

[@ahmershahkhan5715]

@@septicwomb4394 so are you saying your comment applies equally to all animals which are also social?

[@ahmershahkhan5715]

@@septicwomb4394 I rest my case!

[@ahmershahkhan5715]

@@septicwomb4394 O yes I do! You already nullified your argument yourself. Why isn’t the sense of free will so strong in other social animals? If being social is a cause of the emergence of free will then it should manifest itself in other social animals too. Doesn’t matter if there are other causes or not. They can be debated separately.

[@ahmershahkhan5715]

@@septicwomb4394 My response of 2 weeks ago is also not too hard to grasp yet you seem to be having a lot of difficulty in understanding it. Don't worry, I know you are doing your best. If you care to read my comment again, I already acknowledged that other factors may be at play and that "They can be debated separately". So not sure why are you repeating your same point again and again when there is no need. Looks like its me who is wasting my time. If you have a comment to make specifically on your initial point i.e. being social animal as being one of the factors then please do reply again otherwise goodbye.

[@gdansk12349]

Buddhism never said we don’t have free will. That’s a load of BS mr Harris.

[@giuffre714]

Do you mean Buddha?

[@josefschiltz2192]

I would have thought that the most we have is a sort of interwoven determination. Anything further would seem to be irrational.

[@thomasdrouin1602]

I agree with the premise, but it does generate some questions. If we are not expected to take a fatalistic approach to determinism. how then do we approach a situation with another human. We may not be able to predict specific behaviors, but based on that persons past actions, how is it possible to expect any thing different? We know it happens but what if any is our ability to have some influence on ourselves or another person to make different choices. ( By simply changing the environmental influences)? Determinism is difficult for many people to understand in that it's evidence is found after the fact, and it is reasonable to suppose that determinism is fluid because external as well as internal conditions change outcomes. In the case of criminals we look back at their past experiences and the influences of genetics, to explain why. At what point in a persons life could it be possible to predict with any consistency what a person might do and when they may do it? That to me seems to be the most important part about excepting determinism in that we may be able to change outcomes by specific types of intervention and prevention. We all know that Psychology is doing this now but based on the theory of determinism the premise and the techniques would surely change immensely . There would be the need for drastic cultural changes. It's an exciting possibility that unfortunately will meet strong resistance from the faith based community.

[@catkeys6911]

Isn't this is just a redefinition of a time-honored phrase. It's like saying "Of course you have no free will, because you were never free to choose whether or not to exist in order to have any kind of will in the first place.

[@todayisthedaytolive]

Also, how would the universe start in the first place if there wasn't something other than matter that simply acts according to laws? Something would have to perpetuate the energy into this current state that we're living in right now. Its just to specific, unusually and far from being understood to be completely determined by a non aware mechanical entity. And even if everything in this current reality is determined, it may not have been determined whether or not your soul (the experiencer) would end up being in this particular creation of this particular universe. You may have made the choice to come here knowing that your freedom would be limited for the purpose of expanding your overall understanding of whats possible.

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

As a lifelong atheist, I see no reason to decide on free will or determinism. It doesn't make any difference and they're ultimately indistinguishable. What I do know is that the theistic explanation of free will is a load of utter fertilizer.

[@babbisp1]

Nts 3:32 5:30 8:09 Everything that could possibly constitute your will is either the product of a long chain of prior causes, and you're not responsible for them, or it's the product of randomness, and you're not responsible for that... or it's some combination of the two. And however you turn this dial between the iron law of determinism and mere randomness, free will makes no more sense.

[@babbisp1]

Either our wills are determined by prior causes, a long chain of prior causes, and we’re not responsible for them; or they’re the product of chance, and we’re not responsible for them; or there’s some combination of chance and determinism. But no combination seems to give you the free will that people cherish.

[@twoshea749]

No one proves the existence of a Creator - insert personal poetic mtaphor here...better than folks like sam harris...

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

There is absolutely no rational justification for theism. As such, proof (as you put it) is a misnomer.

[@abarralang2777]

I am astounded at the amount of comments evincing ignorance towards the concepts contained within this lecture. Apologies to those who have made the effort and are able to debate in a sensible manner.

[@dadko01]

This talk is my Roman Empire

[@Greenleaves-pf2xn]

Sam Harris helps me understand Vedanta better. I am not the doer. Prakriti works on you.

[@davidmccoy6888]

will has its causes, it also has its effects. Yes, your present consous frame took form, with its intentionality, on an unconous level before you were consously aware of it, but after it is consous, it works with your unconscious mind to bring into consousness remembered or even new creative ideas to fuffill and cary forward that now consous intent.

[@giuffre714]

You spell conscious funny.

[@hereticartist574]

I love this video and linked it (from another channel that no longer has it) dozens of times. I have over 2K followers on Twitter and I regularly practice Street Epistemology with theists because I think this video is useful to introduce their minds to the idea that Abrahamic religions are nonsense. HOWEVER, I think the channel name is not going to facilitate this for me with Christians or Muslims and so I’ll have to find it somewhere else. Anyone know where else I can find it?

[@shojaejlali1290]

Is that germaine greer at 18.23?

[@TimHanrahan-p3d]

Certainly looks like her

[@yowhatsupwheresthehandleof1916]

Why do people talking about free will always go to subjects like morality or 'evil'. It's obvious these people are not focused on free will, but rather other issues they have.

[@needicecream100]

I think it's because they misunderstand the implications of the non-existence of free will. They think that people's not having free will (or their opinion that they don't) will cause them to act in immoral ways, because they can claim "hey, I had no choice, so you can't punish me". Harris points out in this lecture that this is a misunderstanding.

[@TheRedHerringOfficial]

yowhatsupwheresthehandleofmycaritfelloff you can unknowingly get certain attachments if you take drugs (ayahuasca, pysilocibin, LSD) without a shaman well versed in the universe you are entering. Some of these attachments, (which religious people refer to as demons... although I would just look at as lower vibrational entities and thoughtforms) enter through a wormhole created by a certain psychological issue.They latch on to this issue and exploit it. A lot of what Sam Harris has expressed are the principles of satanism ( and I am not saying this in a judgmental religious type of bible thumping way) These entities feed off of negative emotion and often promote these modes of thinking. The concept of not having moral responsibility does not resonate with me at all. There is a difference between relgious responsibility and moral responsibility. His theories don't take into account any of quantum physics (the newest science) and neglect spirituality (completely). Although he tries to talk about the soul, he completely skips all of the the science of spirituality, which is also important. Free will and fate can exist simultaneously with multiple timelines. Sorry Sam.

[@ghostsade3]

They are intertwined, but can be separated. If you believe in free will, you are far more likely to blame people for their actions and therefore to punish them rather than rehabilitate them.

[@jeffreypmitchell]

This guy who was on House MD is still reading from the script.

[@SS-cd6ie]

I didn't choose my insomnia. Why would I?

[@TheDrunkardHu]

that applause....

[@KatrinaDancer]

I don't eat owls because I don't eat any animals. Animals are sentient beings with feelings and emotions.

[@pedestrian_0]

Plants are also alive, you're just not considering their feelings, conveniently, because we all need to survive one way or another. But if you ponder on what a plant is, you can understand we have no reason to doubt that it too feels just as alive as we do.

[@paxanimi3896]

Animal, plants… don’t forget fungi, mushrooms are delicious. I just hope they don’t have feelings too.

[@soliniv1411]

Neanderthals: we better kill something and eat it or we die

[@louiseneervoort5262]

😅 very clever.

[@duaneburris7ate9]

Feel free... To give that lecture.... Was it free to attend?freeeeedom😯

[@signsbyrusty]

When Sam asked for me to pick a movie....I picked one...why didn't I pick ardvark or lettuce...didn't I chose to pick movies...now I might not of had much control.. if any... about which movie came to mind...but didn't I chose to focus on movies and not nocturnal African mammals or vegtables...wasn't there some level of chosing on my part?

[@TacoWTA]

Those 'wires' were just simply more alert because of you paying attention to the talk that he gives.

[@2CSST2]

Your choice of focus was pre-determined itself. Besides, you focused on that because Harris instructed you so, you didn't freely will that subject of focus either

[@ReformedView717]

Election by God. God is sovereign over all. It’s all predestined with your own will acknowledged and given to you, basically you choose who you are and what you think freely but it’s all from God since before creation.

[@Paremata]

I'm not saying he is wrong but I would love to see someone of his caliber debate him on this.

[@soliniv1411]

So you dont want this to be true? Or he didnt convince you?

[@Paremata]

@@soliniv1411 I definitely side with him that Free Will does not exist. There are lots of examples beyond what is explored here. Children of the same parents who turn out vastly different and the fact that we don't have control over the environment we are born in seems to also contradict. But I have a hard time with the part about being able to make decisions and then that also being chalked up to being predetermined isn't completely baked. In the end I agree and probably overwhelmingly but the act of debate can help to make an argument more robust.

[@soliniv1411]

@@Paremata yes it gets hart to grasp, in my opinion ultimately you arent in control of the decisions you make, your brain is making them for you based on the new information you learn everyday you just think you made the choice to not steal or kill but it was your brain who did it without you realizing it, i dont know it is hard to grasp that part but like you said all the rest of the things he said make a lot of sense

[@Paremata]

@soliniv1411 For the most part, our consciousness is not aware that free will does not exist. We go through life thinking we are in control of our own destiny. Of course we blame others when they do not succeed for their bad judgment. We might even look back at our own mistakes and call it bad judgment when really it is the culmination of genetics, environment and experience.

[@fslubin]

"You are free to do whatever you want" (38:06), but it was predetermined. Les nuages, Sam.

[@yifuxero5408]

Red or blue pill? Parallel universes at an Engineering Company. A Co. has two foremost engineers vying for different models, but the Board of Directors can only select one. Engineer A wants a blue wire with accompanying hardware which differs from B's model which uses a red wire and other hardware. In two days the Board of Directors must decide on which model to fund, by taking a vote But the very next day one of the Board members is talking to a neighbor, who sees the Board member sneeze twice. The neighbor thinks to herself, "If the Board member sneezes a third time, I'll recommend a certain remedy and that the Member should stay home. and rest In parallel universe #1, the Member doesn't sneeze, doesn't stay home, and votes for the engineer's model with the blue wire. In parallel universe #2, the Board Member sneezes, and with the recommendation of the neighbor, stays home. The result is that the Board votes for the engineer promoting the red wire... Wrong choice! The client was displeased with the model, crashing the Co. due to lack of funds. Did the neighbor cause this? Question: How much energy is involved in the neighbor's thought to intervene on behalf of the Board member? Did a single fleeting thought disconnected from the Co. sink it? Was she a spy who deliberately did this, paid by an enemy of the Co?

[@dena180]

here's my defence of free will; free will does not mean your "consciousness" can choose "freely" between things. it simply means your brain has multiple choices at any given moment. and "you have a free will" isn't a statement directed towards your innermost sense of being, it's a piece of information for your brain, to make it question what it's going to do at the present moment. at this very moment, you (not the observer of thoughts, the creator of thoughts) CAN choose between sitting or standing up. your consciousness has no clue what is going to happen, but the brain does. and sometimes if the brain DOES hear the words "you have a free will" it's course of action will change. and that's what it actually means. this version of free will allows you to actually get out of bed and do stuff, feel responsible (and therefore try to change it's bad behaviors) and yet does not hold your consciousness responsible for anything, thus still disapproving the notion of heaven and hell and "pure" resposibility.

[@dandydan999]

The film experiment makes no sense with regards to free will. The fact that your mind reached into it's memory bank to recall names of films you want to choose from doesn't have anything to do with which film you ultimately choose. They are related events but not due to causation. What does it matter to the existence of free will that the mental process of recall is a combination of memory and subconscious activity?

[@Dodginbulletzz]

I am flossing my teeth 🦷 voluntarily

[@Vtwin_Superbikes]

I actually came to this conclusion myself. You acted on something, you were always going to do it that way, its all you were equipped to do, your whole life lead you to that point and you were always going to make that choice. My only thinking is it’s kinda in retrospect, you can get to the end of your life and map your whole decision tree but does that mean your life is mapped out? I don’t think so because you also have outside influence which is random.

[@thewaytruthlife7]

foreknowledge and predeterminism are entirely different thing.

[@Raiden-the-Goat32]

Not exactly but kinda. What i mean by this is knowing something will happen before it does requires the outcome to be determined. Foreknowledge just mean's you knew the pre-determined outcome in advance. Because if you was proven wrong you never knew something would happen. So for you to know 100% what someone will do tomorrow with 0% chance of being wrong would require that event to be pre-determined. It's just Foreknowledge speaks to knowledge of an outcome and determinism mean's the outcome is already set in stone. But for Foreknowledge to exist determinism logically follows.

[@zerozilch]

The crocodile is like the government Faye row waiting for someone who is in need of assistance

[@johnflorio6269]

This is one of the most profound things I have ever heard.

[@TVPSupportersShow]

Brilliant!

[@ryangallmeier5987]

How was the Triune God cruel in His barring of Adam and Eve from the garden, after they willfully rebelled against His clear prohibition?

[@Raiden-the-Goat32]

The answer was 9 year's late but i will answer. According to the Adam and eve story Adam and eve did not know good from evil until they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Infact the story admits that they only acquired that knowledge after they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So Adam and Eve technically was mentally handicapped in regards to them knowing right from wrong. In essence just like in our modern society we do not punish people for doing wrong when they do not understand right from wrong because that is cruel this makes the God cruel. So yes if the Adam and eve story happened which i do not believe it did the God of the Bible is cruel. Factually to make a free will choice requires knowledge without that no free will choice. If they already had the knowledge of good and evil before they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the tree serves no real purpose.

[@Crebralassassin]

he's not quiet as really, really ridiculously good looking the way ben stiller is.