Sam Harris on mind reading machines, free will, and deriving "ought" from "is"

Sam Harris speaks with Richard Dawkins at The Sheldonian Theatre, University of Oxford, on April 12th, 2011.
The full video can be found here: • Who Says Science has N...

[@therobbiethorpe]

... There is a difference between blaming people and taking effective action in any given situation. Carrying a grudge around is pointless and a waste of energy. Pointing the finger is nothing more than getting a moral superiority fix to satisfy the ego. I can say 'no' to someone. I can remove myself from a situation that arises just as I can dodge a falling branch on a windy day. Nobody needs to blame the tree - we know it was the wind. Now we also know humans are fully caused beings too.

[@therobbiethorpe]

I absolutely agree that society requires laws in order to function effectively and that penalizing people is sometimes necessary in order to deter undesirable behavior. I think you may have misunderstood. I did not say I 'try to suppress my feelings...' I mean that by knowing and believing that people are fully caused I naturally forgive them. No trying required. I can still take effective action but it comes from compassion rather than a need for retribution. I used to take it personally...

[@babbisp1]

With or without free will, happiness and suffering exist. People will either be lead to commit heinous acts by causality, or misuse their free will. With or without free will, the importance of preventing crimes is more important than punishing crimes. The difference is that if you do dismiss free will, blaming people becomes less than a little important. It's rendered pointless.

[@Gnomefro]

"But to say you have free will is inaccurate." Only if you regard the expression "free will" to be the logical contradiction called libertarian free will. Compatibilists have offered a sensible definition of free will for 100s of years that would require us to change almost no aspect of our reasoning surrounding responsibility. IMO, it's just pointless to abandon the expression, because its most common usage has absolutely nothing to do with being able to transcend natural law.

[@therobbiethorpe]

...deliberately to hurt me. I was able to give up that belief system a few years ago and since then it has been easy to stay calm and not be nasty to people. Other people can do what they like, and they do, but change starts with me. If everybody lowers their standards every time someone upsets them then the lowest standard prevails. Knowing that people have no free will helps with that because it makes forgiveness utterly effortless and it takes power away from negativity and hatred. :)

[@therobbiethorpe]

...and hold on to feelings of anger or hatred for people that upset me long after the event. Rationally I knew it was pointless but I couldn't change how I felt. That was the old me. For me it is simply a way of shedding emotional baggage. All of humanity carries emotional baggage from past experiences and it colors their future behavior. I believe this will change as the findings of neuroscience become more accepted in society - though that is a very long way off.

[@therobbiethorpe]

When I believed in free will (because I didn't know any better) I would judge and blame people and think certain people were bad or evil for the things they did, like 99% of the planet. Now that I know it is an illusion I have a peaceful relationship with life. People can't help what they do in any given moment. If someone upsets me I know that a) they had no choice and b) I need to look at why the actions upset me and fix myself. Free will belief is the ultimate curse of humanity. Peace. :)

[@PablitoSuHermanito]

Ther is a confusion here. To assert that we can get an AUGHT from an IS... That is, we can identify from a truth proposition a highly or greatly adaptive ethical position... is ONE DIRECTION. To assert that "everything that is" implies that it is inherently ehtical, is not even the claim. That is, there is no problem with overcoming Hume and advancing science.

[@ArnoldTohtFan]

The "appeal to nature fallacy" isn't always a fallacy. For instance, we love green spaces, flowers, lush vegetation and fresh air, and they are all very much natural things.

[@philipboardman1357]

It only has to be wrong part of the time to be a fallacy. There is nothing about rejecting a naturalistic fallacy to suggest we should reject nature. Rejecting the naturalistic fallacy only implies that nature is sometimes good and sometimes bad. We think green spaces are both natural and good, but we shouldn't be tempted to believe that other natural thinings are therefore good because of their connection to nature.

[@bboyagua]

ArnoldTohtFan Fallacies are only fallacious in their justification. An ad-hominem fallacy is still a fallacy even if the person you called a "dumbass" is wrong. They aren't wrong because you think they're a dumbass, the relationship to things state of nature or the source of the information can never tell us if something is true.

[@therobbiethorpe]

Hmm, I've just read the article and it simply attempts to disprove determinism. I completely agree that Quantum Mechanics makes a mockery of the idea that given the state of the Universe at point A we can predict the state at point B. The author even admitted that the title of the theorem was deliberately provocative and I don't really see it as an argument for us having free will in the sense of being the 'authors of our thoughts and intentions'.

[@jonesgerard]

"I proved you that neurosciences are in an open confrontation with quantum mechanics on the matter of the existence or not of free will." I would narrow that down to the atheists among them. They are in opposition to free will because its God given. As a former atheist I can say my ego took away my free will. So those who say "we" have no free will, "they" are correct but only for "them". They have argued their limitation and it came true.

[@Earthgazer]

you're asking what the difference in determinism and predeterminism is. that's why this discussion is exhausting.

[@schmutzbuch9486]

I proved you that neurosciences are in an open confrontation with quantum mechanics on the matter of the existence or not of free will. So, as long you don't have the illusion that your truth is based on science, it is absolutely respectful to me dear..

[@BCtruth]

At 2:40, he says that when white people are shown pictures of white and black people, that whites have more negative thoughts about the pictures of black people. His conclusion is to infer that white people are unavoidably racist. That is not the conlcusion. The proper conclusion is that all people assocaite with people they recognize and have characteristics in common. If you show black people those same pictures to blacks, Asians, or any person of any race or ethnic background, that person will associate more positive feelings toward people who look like them. Racism is the act of discrimination,not jsut having positive or negative feelings. If we based it only on feelings or thoughts, everyone would be called racist and the word would lose meaning. btw...he also gets free will completely wrong.

[@schmutzbuch9486]

...and I've mentioned the method of maths that is used in quantum physics from Conway and Kochen in order to support their own Theorem of Free Will..

[@PeteFromMaine]

At some point in the causal chain you do play an active role. That is where morality comes in. But to say you have free will is inaccurate.

[@annabago8621]

I've been thinking about free will lately, and came to precisely the same conclusion.

[@writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, MrPhiloscience.

[@Earthgazer]

i don't know if any philosopher out there aligns with as many of my personal thoughts & beliefs as much as sam harris

[@therobbiethorpe]

Randomness introduced by QM does not make the human will any more 'free'. As Einstein quoted, 'A man can do what he wants but he can not will what he wills.' Also, if you consider that not having free will is a sort of license to be nasty (I know you were not being that) it only serves to illustrate that in the moment you write something nasty that was the state of your brain. In my life the only time I've ever wanted to be nasty to people is when I've believed they have done something...

[@gxulien]

Free will is a nonsensical question, in the Wittgenstinian sense. Harris never gets to his is-ought these 9 years ago. Now he thinks he's fivured it out (lol).

[@Earthgazer]

cause and effect is the most real, fundamental, observable phenomenon in science. if you're saying it is a mental construct, can i assume you believe in idealism?

[@lookatmepleasesir]

'you can go one better then simply asking someone what makes them happy, you can measure their brain waves or something' how would we know what states of consciousness or emotions any measurable brain activity correlates with without the subject reporting their internal states?

[@Earthgazer]

oh and one more thing: any evidence that supports determinism wouldn't be classified as neuropsychology, it is much more accurately classified as neurophysics. Physics...a much more "real" science than mathematics

[@Earthgazer]

quantum physics has not questioned determinism, it has questioned predeterminism. "Please do not misrepresent my words. I said neuropsychology not physics"...ok...but it has nothing to do with psychology it has to do with physics. No, determinism (of human thought) has nothing to do with experimental psychology. it is an extension of the already established and commonly accepted scientific claim that the universe is deterministic.

[@CplFerro]

Kudos to Mr. Harris for bringing these matters to our attention. Could he slip in the odd female murderer or psychopath though, instead of presuming men's monopoly on violence?

[@koffeeblack5717]

Good scientist, bad philosopher. An agent cannot be responsible for an action if the agent couldn't have done otherwise. To say that someone did something bad means that they ought not have done it. But ought implies 'can', meaning that it is only true that you ought to have done otherwise if you could have done otherwise.

[@a1tre680]

You assume resonsibility can only be held if there is an agent involved in making a choice. You are certainly free to define responsibility in that way, however I have a different defintion that I think better accounts for what we mean when we think of responsibility. An agent that causes an action is responsible for that action. To say someone ought not have done something bad does not imply they were capable of doing otherwise. It only implies that it would have been better IF they had done otherwise, despite the fact they were not capable of doing otherwise. An agent is hence responsible for its actions and society SHOULD punish actions that are bad. By execunting that punishment, future agents will be deterred from commiting actions that are bad.

[@aleatoriac7356]

@@a1tre680 Well said. We get our capacity to imagine a counterfactual confused with an incoherent feeling that we actually could have done otherwise.

[@AnonyMous-og3ct]

You can apply that logic of "can do otherwise" to the future in response to conditioning. If a pet dog bites me, I attempt to rehabilitate its behavior not based on the idea that it could have done otherwise in the past, but because it may be able to refrain from doing so in the future in response to my conditioning. One thing a deterministic mindset helps with is to avoid getting too angry/upset in such scenarios and act out of vengeance, and instead more calmly and rationally question what the best course of action would be to deter repeats of the same behavior.

[@MisterF_1984]

The idea that "my" decisions are made before "I" am aware of them simply because there is a process that generates those decisions seems to be a misunderstanding of what "I" is. "I" isn't something that floats separately above the mechanics of the brain, "I" IS the process!

[@a1tre680]

I'm no neuroscientist, but our brain operates both our consciousness and subcounsciousnes. The "I" usually refers only to the consciousness, hence the processing of our brain is not identical to our "I".

[@bobymocanu5256]

@@a1tre680 whatttt ?????

[@Earthgazer]

what i'm proving to you is that quantum mechanics has never questioned the validity of determinism, the idea that all events are DETERMINED by prior causes. the only thing QM has successfully challenged is that events can be PREDETERMINED, even by an infinitely complex information-retrieving computer. maybe there is a language barrier here, but these two concepts have completely different implications.

[@13e11even11]

There continues to be on the part of Sam Harris a complete lack of understanding of Hume’s overall enterprise of skepticism, in this oversimplification of is ought.

[@Earthgazer]

i disagree with your statement that you should try to suppress your feelings towards other peoples' immoral actions. yes, they are simply acting in response to causal events and experiences, but society requires moral judgement in order to survive. we have to prosecute and penalize people for actions that threaten individuals or society, even if they are not technically "responsible" for those actions.

[@schmutzbuch9486]

I'm aware of the causality of my thoughts and this causality does not nullify the existence of free will. Thow, I would like to see a sample of this numerous of evidence that we don't have free will. Have you any?

[@schmutzbuch9486]

Totally agreed.. But faith in God is a personal issue that cannot be under discussion from a scientist or a believer as a l i e or t r u t h. Nor Scientists neither Believers can prove anything.. And it is absolutly childish when people claim God's non-existence as a scientific one! I do believe in God and I did that through serious and chronic doubts.. But be careful..free will is not in the believers' pocket! ..it is a dynamic and never static way of life, as life is itself..

[@metaldude82]

Well, you could make a case for us humans since the concept of "cause and effect" is a creation of our very minds.

[@CesarCepeda2014]

I would say that if there is ever any possibility to reduce or increse our capability for compation then perhaps we could get to an era were there is not compation any more among humans , its intrinsic evolution will always reward only thoose without compation.

[@patrickgomes15]

If there is no such thing as free will that kinda takes away the word 'trying' (endeavouring) from the Determinist's dictionary. Sure, he can try to convince everyone and their grandmother about the truth or otherwise of things, but, to be consistent, the Determinist will/should not feel any passion or emotion (relating to the success or failure) of their endeavours. Now, insofar as Harris, or Dennet *do* get emotional, are they not betraying their own perfidy in this doctrine?

[@therobbiethorpe]

But you are assuming that people 'want' to take advantage of me and that the only reason they don't is if I can hold them responsible for their actions. I can only speak for myself but I have no desire to take advantage of people so why would someone else - unless they were conditioned to by bad parenting or genetics or both? And if they fall into that category it can't be seen as their 'fault'. Only by believing they acted freely can I blame them and how would blaming them help me or them? ...

[@schmutzbuch9486]

my dear friend Robert Thorpe talked about my ''self'' illusion...in other words this assertion doesn't it mean that there is no self? except if I missunderstood his words.. From when determinism has become a science?

[@therobbiethorpe]

I can see that you see it. But I can not. Quantum Mechanics adds randomness and uncertainty to physical laws and turns definite outcomes into probabilities. None of this makes even a tiny case for free will. There is plenty of evidence that we do not have free will. Just think of a thought - how did 'you' make it pop into your conscious awareness??? Did you 'choose' the thought or did it just come to you? Try it. Are you the author or do the thoughts simply write the book you call 'YOU'?

[@Earthgazer]

what exactly about the idea of determinism is pseudo-science? what do your remarks about "there is no self" even mean?

[@schmutzbuch9486]

3 Excuse my english I'm not a native english speaker and I hope I am being understood.. Just because you chose to b e l i e v e to the non-existence of free will for e t h i c a l reasons, because it makes you feel better and calms you down does not mean I do the same.. My questions are o n t o l o g i c a l not e t h i c a l.. I care about the t r u t h no matter i n c o n v e n i e n t it could be for my p e r s o n a l beliefs..

[@schmutzbuch9486]

{1} Predeterminism? What kind of term is that? The term ''Determinism'' was clearly as such, a philosophical tendency of the 1 8 th century (!) with roots originated from Aristotle and Epicureanism! And if that answer is not enough for you please take a look at ''The Strong Free Will Theorem'', a scientific article of 2 0 0 8 (!!) where Quantum Physics with the help of Maths is questioning Determinism!!

[@schmutzbuch9486]

I've asked you again and you didn't answer me dear. If determinism is based on Physics then why Quantum Physics by Indeterminacy Principle of Heisenberg has questioned determinism since the '30s? Please do not misrepresent my words. I said neuropsychology not physics, that it is a pseudo-science because psychology has nothing do to with science! Determinism's scientific claim is based on our understanding of Human Behavior from Experimental Psychology's researches.

[@schmutzbuch9486]

There is also a tendency to generalize scientific results in order to fit them or banish them (!) from our o w n perspective.. The Indeterminacy Principle of Heisenberg is refered in an atomic level of Quantum Mechanics and not in our daily life. This uncertainty appears in a very small scale which is mostly obvious in microcosmos.. Probalities also refered not to a definite outcome for randomness of physical laws but to the certainty that we are u n a b l e to determine exactly the movement of

[@patrickgomes15]

Just as 3 billion years of evolution lead to creatures that kind of break out of the evolutionary process in some respects (we create stuff willfully (oops!)) why is it not possible for the process to have created brains that do operate beyond cause and effect, and are, at least SOMETIMES, able to pause and choose between two roads? Sure we could end up with a seemingly endlessly regressive question of what causes the choice, but it's not clear to me how the process necessarily stops at Biology

[@schmutzbuch9486]

...particulars.. So if we have the c e r t a i n t y that we can only d e t e r m i n e particular movement with p r o b a b i l i t i e s....that doesn't mean that physical laws ''act'' in probabilities, but it shows our i n a b i l i t y to determine them exactly.

[@fleetywoodymac]

Surely this is just alleviating everyone who wrongs you of any responsibility? If there were to be a group of people who thought like you do here they would be mulcted, tricked and generally taken advantage of in the knowledge that you would not hold them responsible. I am by no means disagreeing in full with Harris, but definitely see in practice the problems that misinterpreting it may lead to, namely here with your above comment...unfortunately.

[@Earthgazer]

...description of this would be "magic".

[@schmutzbuch9486]

{3} Dear, what are you talking about? Behaviorism, Structuralism and other Deterministic Theories are based on Experimental Psychology since Wilhelm Wundt the father of Experimental Psychology established this Faculty of Psychology, a whole century back!! No, the scientific claim that the universe is deterministic, it's accepted by you as a commonly scientific claim because Quantum Physics has way too different approach than determinism.

[@schmutzbuch9486]

So, I clearly understood.. Thank you for mentioning it...that determinism is not a science! But if you admit it isn't, why have you asked me about determinism and pseudo-science? Isn't mr Harris clearly a determinist who presents this idea as a scientific one? One more question please...what kind of logic sais that out of determinism, man must accept magical strings above the laws of physics?

[@ZenGuitarStudios]

this is interesting. but can you give me just one REAL example of this? Can you name a life form that has transcended cause and effect?

[@schmutzbuch9486]

no dear, don't bother.. I've never asked you such a thing... I'm proving you by history and science that Quantum Physics has questioned Determinism...& you think I want you to explain me what is predeterminism.. you can't see the woods for the trees. that's why this dialog is exhausting

[@schmutzbuch9486]

(2) As for your last answer, just not enough to support determinism's claim dear... Any ideology which is trapped on its own dogma cannot see any other true answer out of its own limits. So determinism is a scientific claim..not a science...hm..huge difference don't you think? An i d e a is struggling to be science, an Objective Truth...will Determinism gonna make it? I bet not in a million but history will show us.. nice talking to you..you were the most honest anti-freewillirian...

[@schmutzbuch9486]

neurophysics? then why quantum physics from early '30s with Indeterminacy Principle of Heisenberg has already doubted about determinism, though those days determinism was still just a philosophical assertion, but it has.. I will except the term ''real'' for physics as it concerns o u r understanding of the nature....but you should know that mathematics in the world of science is the only field that it is axiomatic reliable..the only..

[@therobbiethorpe]

Take a look at Naturalism(dot)org it is a brilliant organization that I discovered after Sam Harris and develops his ideas and brings together loads of work by different neuroscientists and philosophers that show how abandoning free will belief can have practical benefits.

[@SamCoreJ]

Like he said, you would still need to be locked up.

[@SCAREDBANANA]

At 2:34 there are at least two people sleeping.

[@Carinthium]

Assuming human genetics remain constant, education will at best mitigate the problem. Too human in the way of human hypocrisy and delusion is instinctive- a much better society may exist, but humans will stil act at each other's expense in admittedly less harmful ways.

[@therobbiethorpe]

I like your creative use of the spacebar ;) On point 3 : My opening comment on this video was giving MY perspective on why what Sam Harris is saying makes a lot of sense to ME. I agree with him and I have zero expectation of changing anybody elses mind if they do not. For ME it is t r u t h :)

[@fleetywoodymac]

You are assuming everyone is as benevolent as you. The fact is they are not. I certainly am not. What I am stating is the fact that you let people know you do not hold them responsible for being negative or aggressive to you (or taking advantage in some way which I am sorry but people do do) will lead them to doing it more and more. Give it time Robert and be honest with yourself and you shall see. If I am wrong wqe shall also see! Fun!

[@dlevitt0508]

That's how I meditate.

[@therobbiethorpe]

I will take a look. These things interest me and I want to know more. Note that I can 'want' to know more despite knowing that my 'wanting' is fully caused. I just feel the urge to know more. Thinking is a 'process' that occurs in a brain. To suggest that some aspect of the brain is not physically determined by physical laws and the movement of particles is to invoke supernatural explanations for 'free will'. You might as well believe in god lol.

[@schmutzbuch9486]

{4} Dear, though you are the Determinist here, I'm the one that gives you answers with c a u s e !! You just answer me your opinion without Historical or Scientifical Evidences. You disregard my answers and that makes our dialog exhausting, you're right. I can't write you every time 3-4 comments with evidences and get just a personal opinion of yours as a scientific one. I know the language barrier problem of mine in order to be understood but please at least defend your claims!

[@fleetywoodymac]

Yes your proposed culture is a nice idea but here and now people will take advantage of you. Of this I can guarantee only if you let everyone know that you will not ever blame them for what they do to you. What you say here 'So causes for aggression sort of disappear at source. I accept that many people will misunderstand but education can change that eventually' I VERY much agree with and hope with all my heart that it can come to pass. Education is the key, with logic, in my opinion!

[@schmutzbuch9486]

sorry i meant though*

[@schmutzbuch9486]

{2} Well, I've attended University seminars of ''Biology of Behavior'' in Medical School and ''Gnostic Psychology'' (a term in my language) in Psychology School where N e u r o s c i e n c e s are clearly connected with P s y c h o l o g y on the matter we have under discussion. So, you can't knock down my argument because I'm aware of scientific bibliography on this connection... But I would like a sample about the connection with Physics on your claim..

[@jonesgerard]

Reaction decisions have nothing to do with free will, harris is being stupid. Whether I move my finger or not is not the sort of decision that involves free will, a considered decision can take years, I pondered whether to believe in God for 40 yrs before making a decision.

[@schmutzbuch9486]

..i've talked with

[@buktomsin]

Genius!!!

[@therobbiethorpe]

You can call me whatever you like in order to satisfy your need to strengthen your 'self' illusion or ego. Well done on understanding the concept of forgiveness but I feel you need to work on your understanding of pseudo-science. Have a good day :)

[@bobymocanu5256]

Bullshit i think muhamad ali because is my idol

[@tpstrat14]

Harris' arrogance on the subject of free will is really quite comical. He pretends as if he's ended the debate by simply saying that we are prisoners of our previous states of mind (whether it be a millisecond or a 30 years) He speaks as if there is no present moment to act on. It's disappointing to hear such close mindedness on the subject of free will. Where it gets comical is in how sure of himself he is. geez...

[@schmutzbuch9486]

Totally agreed.. But faith in God is a personal issue that cannot be under discussion from a scientist or a believer as a l i e or t r u t h. Nor Scientists neither Believers can prove anything.. And it is absolutly childish when people claim God's non-existence as a scientific one! I do believe in God and I did that through serious and chronic doubts.. But be careful..free will is not in the believers' pocket! ..it is a dynamic and never static way of life, as life is itself..