None of us are free to choose that which doesn’t occur to us. Every conscious thought is the byproduct of a being’s genetic ability, the environment that being is exposed to, or some combination of both. Sam’s argument is simply that we don’t have the freedom to choose the thoughts that arise in consciousness, before those thoughts actually arise. We are agents that can learn from past experiences, but we are not free to choose how past experiences will impact us.
@@Drogers8675 when I first learned free will is an illusion it disturbed me for awhile aswell. But then I realized it didn't fundamentally change how I can enjoy my life. In fact it made me both much more empathetic to other individuals, and stoic in my daily life.
@@Drogers8675 Man believe themselves to be free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined.
Free will is simply nowhere to be found. From an introspective analysis, but also from a scientific perspective. There's only two modes of physics - determinism or randomness. There's no room for free will in either case. The question of who, or what, am 'I' is much more interesting.
Since we know next to nothing about consciousness, it’s overly simplistic to try to boil its functions down to a simple binary. Scientific hubris always proclaims its discoveries are complete, but that has never been the case… possibly never will be. But yes indeed, the question of “who am I” is worth pursuing!
I've been thinking about this. With randomness, isn't randomness also determined? As in, let's say that randomness occurs by where atoms happen to be in space - at the most fundamental level. Where atoms are in space is defined by their trajectories set in motion long ago at the big bang and in the hearts of ancient stars. Thus, randomness isn't really random at all. Does that make sense or am I completely wrong? I am open to the possibility that I have no idea what I'm talking about.
@@olkid there is the concept of true randomness, mainly described by quantum mechanics. In that particles have probabilities of being in certain states or positions, rather than certanties. My (limited) understanding is that reality at the subatomic level is essentially random/quantum, but determinism emerges at the macro level. At least reality appears to be deterministic at macro levels. So fundamentally reality is actually random, or probabilistic.
@@chuckie5358 that's so interesting. So that would suggest that there's a duality in reality, whereby the reality we experience as human beings (with brains giving rise to subjective experience - even though brains are based on atoms and thus on quantum mechanics) is a different type of reality to what reality is at baseline. Makes me wonder if there would ever be a reasonable viewpoint from which quantum randomness could also be viewed as determined - if that makes any sense at all.
Sam Harris doesn't say he is like a leaf floating down the river. He says he is the river itself and it makes all the difference. He even said it on your podcast explaining to some degree why that's the case. Thanks for your work brother
If he is the leaf or the river makes no difference at all. In the case of the leaf, it's path is determined by the river. In the case of the river, it's path is determined by the landscape. In both cases they have no other choice than to obey that which is determined.
Once again: a tremendously intelligent person confidently criticizing a point he or she clearly does not understand. There really is something about this subject matter..
I was thinking exactly the same. I don't understand how people can't see that the point being made is that, whatever choices you make, you don't choose what you choose. Him saying about dropping it all and becoming a rapper is excalty Harris' point. Why did he say rapper and not painter? He doesn't know. And even if he offers up a reason as to why he said rapper and not painter, he didn't pick that reason - it just occurred to him and he said it. Also, I can understand why people don't understand because the whole point of free will being an illusion (which is an illusion in and of itself) is that, if I were them, with their genes and experiences, I would literally do exactly the same as them.
But you're misunderstanding too. The point that is lacking is that both sides are talking about different versions of free will. Personally, I think the no free will argument is reductionist which is making an assumption that people who argue for it are saying we are somehow supernatural beings. That level of free will is impossible to satisfy. I don't think any person making the argument for free will are arguing against that notion
The way "Free Will" gets discussed makes it sound like the only "freedom" you have is to continue to live OR to just lay down until you die. Like choosing to destroy yourself is the only true act of "Free Will" you have. And choose to live, no matter what you do it can be perceived as predictable or predetermined. Dude could be a rapper if he wanted but instead of saying he doesnt believe he would be any good he makes it seem like that wasnt meant to be. So now my question is, are we talking about fear of the unknown or the ability to choose something outside of what would/could be perceived as predictable? Am i missing something?
This is brilliant. It reminds me of deep conversations about the nature of existence while on psychedelics. I may need to watch this again... from a different perspective.
DFW Arboeals - I had an edible and watched this and trust me when I tell you I could totally follow this brilliant conversation fully, and I am not of this mental caliber sober…
"I think Sam Harris has realized that his conscious brain doesn't have free will but his unconscious brain does" That is the exact opposite of what Sam argues. The unconscious part of the brain is as much a deterministically reactionary part as anything else. Relative autonomy between two physical systems, (consciousness, unconsciousness), is the set up that allows for the *feeling* of free will, which he fully acknowledges is a real feeling people have, but however no, Sam does NOT posit that his unconsciousness has free will. The only real caveat to this argument, that Sam has also touched on, is whether or not quantum randomness can realize the formation of a thought that you might not have had otherwise. But even then, that would be at best random freedom from determinism but not freedom of will because there's no choice in what quantum randomness yields.
This guy was not suggesting that Harris posits that his unconsciousness has free will, though I do think he was suggesting that Harris inherently knows this and it annoys him.
@@Maffmatix Lee said he thinks that's what Sam realized. but what Sam actually says seems to suggest Sam has realized the exact opposite of what Lee "thinks" Sam realized. Sam's words and arguments are pertinent to the discussion of what Sam has "realized" because most of the time people resonate with the logical consistency of their own ideas. as someone who has also "realized" there is no true free will myself (way before Sam ever published a book) i would be quite annoyed by people saying i've actually realized something that i find totally illogical. so yes, anyone can imagine that anyone else has realized the exact opposite of their spoken words, but it just reminds me of the same way religious people argue (nevermind what you say.. deep down you've realized God is real) that sort of thing.
I agree with most of this but how I understand Sam's argument is that he doesnt even think we have a "feeling" of free will. At least in the exact moment a decision is made. We maybe afterwards think about how "free" our choise was but that is just another though that appears in consiousness. The exact moment we make a decision or think a thought is absolutely mysterious but we have become used to it because it is the only way anything can appear in consciousness.
I don’t think either of these gentlemen actually truly understand Sam’s position as some of the commentators on this thread. What sold me was the argument that I cannot think a thought before we think it. As for the comment about the leaf floating down a stream, Sam has explained that we aren’t the leaf, we are the stream. We aren’t experiencing, we are the experience.
@@Chris-wm7zt Precisely, so therefore there is no one composing the thought, the thought just comes. So where is the agency to author our thoughts, as many believe they have. So the point is we experience thought, rather then construct it.
For me I always go to the main point of free will; Do you have any responsibility? Are you accountable for your choices? If the idea of free will is about having absolute control of your choices than I believe it's a question of definition. For me free will calls us to self examination of our conscious choices. I think it's safe to say that there are subconscious decisions that we aren't in control and conscious decisions that we have level of freedom in.
I think something you may be missing is you didn't choose to be self reflective either. That is a product of what it is to be in your body at that particular time and place.
@@wilsonj9753 I'm addressing the bigger issue that if self reflection is not one of your own, then what hope does one have in claiming responsibility? Plus I don't think you can prove that self examination is exclusively to responses to body functions. That's like saying the only reason you're arguing with me because your body is triggered. They are many aspects and factors when it comes to one decision including the problem of consciousness.
@@teravega Are you implying there is some non-physical (metaphysical perhaps) reason for making choices and being self reflective? Because that's the only way it's possible to have free will
@@turkeylegs5431 All I'm saying is that there's nothing convincing to be free from all responsibilities. Let alone proving it. You can call it whatever you want but at the end of the day, someone is responsible at a certain point.
@@teravega Free will =\= responsibility. You're using a definition of responsibility that assumes free will. We don't consider animals as self reflective, but their mechanisms are responsible. The biological machine is "responsible", it doesn't matter if it did it through pure free will or not. A murderer doesn't choose the path to become a murderer, but alas they murder.
Lee first argues that time is a first principle and that the world is deterministic, yet does not agree that we have no free will in the sense that our mental cannot impact the physical. I think he's got confused with being able to have agency due to the way the brain is set-up, and having free will in the metaphysical sense.
I still can't understand how anyone disagrees with Sam's argument on free will, assuming you take onboard his definitions. When people like Lee say they disagree, then go on to argue against it, they quickly show that they haven't understood the basics of the argument.
Can you recommend the most complete Sam Harris vid/talk where he fully explains the “No Free Will” theory he has adopted? I’ve heard a smattering of his take on not having Free Will and they’ve never been entirely convincing. It seems the reason there’s such a debate on this topic is because the definitions aren’t fully ironed out and agreed to. To an addict, striving for Free Will is simply having the power to do the things you tell yourself you’re going to do, or to be free of the addiction -which is experientially the best analog to being able to say “I have free will”. Or put another way, you absolutely know you have something when you’ve experienced it’s lack. As the WestWorld quote goes “Free Will exists, it’s just fucking hard.”
I agree with you and that's why I think it is so sad to be an atheist. You have to accept that you are nothing more than a complex machine with a finite service life.
@@mknow1 Nothing sad about that. You can still feel and experience. Live to enjoy your life. Work towards positivity in your life. Die happy. There doesn't need to be meaning to anything to be happy, just enjoy the ride, while you still can.
@@arhael3594 What is sad is that lack of free will diminishes the value of humans and puts them closer to animals. A cat can be happy with a ball of string. Is a tree happy when the sun shines on it? And happiness itself can be simulated with drugs, easily. So no free will removes a lot of value from what it means to be human. Also with no free will you remove a lot of personal respinsibility from life...just remove the defective machines. Morality then becomes fluid, a product of democracy or autocratic supervision. Grim.
@Ian Novak For me the happy alternative is that human beings have souls that are the true essence of us. This soul has free will and can make choices. That's just my belief. I cannot accept that I am nothing more than a slow organic chemical reaction.
@@mknow1 Gonna disagree. One, we are not "closer" to animals, we are animals. Value of humans has always been subjective, at most primitive level it's human self-determinism as species. What value you give humans as individual is entirely up to you. You have your feelings, you have your experience, you care about your loved ones, you have empathy. If knowledge of no free will impacts you enough to deem life meaningless, it's on you. Maybe you should reflect and find new meaning.
We do have free will, the problem is so many people are so risk averse, to not face consequences So they choose to live and act within the Pavlovian structure we have created.
@@jaysonp9426 we do but Nihilistic views sometimes enter my thoughts that never existed before discovering determinism, I like determinism because it helped me not regret the past knowing I always did my best in a way because I had no other option but sometimes trying at life seems pointless, theres a temptation to always just go with the flow - sounds good if the flow always leads to something positive but it's not always the case. Determinism is something sometimes I think is not always good to know, sometimes its better to enjoy the magic trick without knowing how its done.
I think the connection between Nihilism & Determinism is interesting, because the adoption of the DeterminismTheory (and it IS only just a theory-not all theories ever theorized have ended up true btw) does tend to lead one to think their actions/decisions don’t really matter. IF it was true that Free Will didn’t exist, and if you actually believed to your core that it didn’t exist, then you would only put 1% of your energy into decision-making and be indifferent about the outcome ie) go with the flow, because wouldn’t it all be the same either way? It’s because we actually know there’s weight in our decision-making, and the outcome DOES matter to our life, that we actually have to grind out a decision with the limited info and processing power we have to make a decision. We’re not robots as Harris and most materialist scientists would like to believe … Free Will is an emergent phenomena and therefor is limited, it also syncs up nicely with the evolution of all things.
@@jaysonp9426 when I first believd it to be true yes the first couple of weeks It actually helped me deal with regret and blaming myself for things in the past, then a week of feeling it was all pointless about everything and now mostly not....... I was going through some deep issues at the time so although I am quite philosophical & self reflective generally this was a particularly acute analysis I was putting myself through. I do think of it occasionally but no not often.
The problem i see with the argument is that he is saying some proportion of what happens is based on a causal chain, and the rest is not. Sam would argue, that the stuff that appears to not have a causal chain is simply just because we can not explain it at this point. And even if you do decide to be a rapper based on this information or the hypothesis that free will doesnt exist that too is still a causal chain. If all things are set in motion by causal chains, then that is exactly what Sam Harris is saying. Whether or not 'it doesn't matter' or 'do we really exist' are existential and metaphysical questions that are still potentially up for debate.
I think what he argues is that - you are the causal chain. Also causality does not necessarily flows only from part to the whole, it also can flow from the whole to the part after establishing the pattern. Check the work of Michael Levin for example and also Karl Friston.
The illusion of free will has a lot to do with the illusion of the self. And as long as you are that egotistical to not even realize that you haven’t understood Sam’s argument proves to yourself why you can’t get it.
This question is so boring! Noone even knows what conscious is. And Harris has gone on about it so much that it feels like I’m back in 2010! Never heard a single new argument since then! No joy in this repetition!🤮
Amen Baby Yoda! I agree… the mystery of Consciousness, that it’s still a black box, seems intertwined with Free Will. How can we claim to be absolutely certain about Free Will when it rides along with something we know little about. Also, I see both Consciousness and Free Will as emergent phenomenon… both are outcomes of evolution. Dolphins, some apes, have a sense of self -an evolved state of conscious awareness, that other animals don’t possess. At one point we didn’t possess self-consciousness, now we do. How is it not then the case that our FreeWill exists along a spectrum, sure it’s limited, but it’s being born in all of us to a differing degree. That’s the theory I subscribe to anyways. And yeah … Sam doesn’t seem to have had a new thought in a long long time.
I don't understand how people can't see that the point being made by Harris is that, whatever choices you make, you don't choose what you choose. Him saying about dropping it all and becoming a rapper is exactly Harris' point. Why did he say rapper and not painter? He doesn't know. And even if he offers up a reason as to why he said rapper and not painter, he didn't pick that reason - it just occurred to him and he said it. Also, I can understand why people don't understand because the whole point of free will being an illusion (which is an illusion in and of itself) is that, if I were them, with their genes and experiences, I would literally do exactly the same as them.
"1+1=2" - Yes, but no, that's not right & here's my intelligent argument for why it's wrong. - Yeah bro, you sound intelligent, but the guy that said 1+1=2 makes way more sense than you do.
Free will is interesting because I know for myself I always try to make the right choice so my path through life turns into what I thought was going to be the right course of action. So even though I have the ability to purposefully do the wrong decision I know that if my life were restarted with the same environmental phenomenon I would most likely make the same decisions.
Nietzsche’s argument was that we don’t know all the forces that intervene in a decision. Thus, a conscious decision is improbable. However, he proposed the eternal recurrence, a way to act as if what we do will be repeated eternally. Nietzsche’s idea was closer to almost no free will, although each person is the sum of all pressures at any instant, he being “guilty “ was more a result of “moralism” than actual responsibility.
I played dragon's Lair as an 8 year old and knew right away that you just had to time your movements right to unlock the next cinematic. I never imagined it was generating anything. Was he on drugs ?
The idea of free will is what i believe ,is the lego theory, were everyone of us are given a bunch of lego pieces ... and wat we make out of them is free will... whereas we have no choice on wat lego pieces we get
Pretty good analogy. You have no choice on how impulsive you are, how strongly you can feel, how much empathy you have. But you are free to make choices based on your personality.
I don't want to dispute this guys brilliancy. But it's pretty fishy that 90% of the time when philosophy is being discussed in Lex' podcast Nietzsche is coming up, when Nietzsche is seen by many philosophers not even mainly as a philosopher but rather as a poet, his main work being "Also Sprach Zarathustra". On the other hand Platon, Aristotle, Kant, Heidegger, Hegel, Marx, Rawls, etc. are never discussed.
the fundamentals are: is proof of the soul, there is an interplay between destiny and freewill.. they are in intimate partnership, a feedback loop, of life after life Lex and Lee here, it has been your destiny to be in this life situation to explore with freewill the what, where, how and whys of as you are, you were both born into particular families, time, place and form, in this destiny, to learn, to choose and to create, that has enabled you to be living the lives you are, this was the result of the freewill feedback loop of your previous incarnations, that has reafirmed your destiny in this life, the soul is the aggregate/conglomerate/solution of this interplay
Everyone has will and none of it is free. No Sam doesn’t think his unconscious brain has free will, if you think that you’re completely missing the point.
I like to think of us as deterministic beings with an infinite backstory. The universe is flat as far as we know, and if it is flat it would be infinite in space. If we are deterministic, and the big bang was real, we would have had at least one interaction with everything. I think this would create "true randomness" due to the infinite number of possible interactions at the first moment of time.
People are so confused about the topic, and it’s not that complicated. Free will isn’t even a coherent concept and when people talk about it they’re jumping from one thing to another without realizing it. Why is it so hard for people to understand?
Free will is an easily observable natural phenomenon. Just because you can't work out a coherent concept doesn't negate the very thing on which the concept is based.
@@caricue exactly lmao. When something doesnt align with your worldview, you should maybe change your worldview. Materalists are doing exactly what theists do in trying to fit everything into the worldview
Is consciousness a consequence of free will or is it a perception .Can you even have free will without consciousness or consciousness without free will . What is perception if it is not the consequence of free will and or consciousness.
Consciousness is just as part of the brain as an accelerator on a car. But consciousness is just the input like the accelerator on a car. If we had to consciously make decisions, we would die. We can be responsible for our heart beat rate. How much oxygen we need in our blood. Just the same as the accelerator, if it had to also be the pistons and fuel injection system then it would be over encumbered with tasks. Consciousness has to be seperate from decision. But it doesn’t mean we don’t have free will. It’s our brain making the decision. But consciousness is part of the brain so you are making the decision.
One of the best Lex interviews ever. Awesome and deep, you can see some of the despair on Lee Cronin's face when the free will crux arrives. But I like the fact that he does not give up. Keep striving for answers guys. How about the origin of truly original thoughts, like a string of notes that creates a never before made melody. Many composers say it came from 'nowhere'. Unconcious? Outside agent? Metaphysical? Facinating stuff.
I read and listened to a lot of Sam and learned a tremendous amount. However, his TDS and his hard stance on everyone getting vaxed, as well as his pro censorship stance on cccchhhccccovvvvidddd has me questioning his widely heralded objectivity as of late. Lastly, his stance on free will never really satisfied me. It definitely makes you think...
Sam Harris takes an hour lecture to tell you that in order to have free will you have to be able to choose "who you are" and "what you want." That's his whole shpeel. If you understand that free will is there so that you can try to "get what you want" then it isn't really so complicated. You generate behaviors that you predict will bring about a favorable outcome depending on the situation.
@@paullampl1 The worst part is that the whole mandate was based on the belief that the jab would keep you from spreading it to others who couldn't get one. This was not true, and once all the science was in and it was proven untrue definitely, they still kept saying it as if it was true, to this day.
@@caricue you mentioned “they” kept stating it prevented transmission, though it didn’t… but did Harris ever correct himself on that position? Or is he unable to update his worldview as I suspect is the case? Think he’s suffering from a touch of Scientific hubris.
Look at me! I have free will. I can think thinks outside of causal reality. I can think thinks that don't require antecedental causes. My thinks are not caused by anything. I am outside of causality.
Doesn't the notion of Free Will come down to the idea that there is a little person in the machine running things. Where would you find it and how would you define it?
I hate to say it, but I think Lee is fundamentally missing Sam's point. And I also think it's possible to recognize that, after the fact, we can say we had no choice but to do something given that our brain had to follow the same laws of physics as everything else (which reacts based on the physics of the environment, its own memory systems, etc), while also recognizing that fact doesn't reduce our responsibility to be moral or follow the same principles we would have followed.
becuz you don't have the access to my mind, you [can only guess] what's going on in my mind and becuz I also don't have the access to your mind, I also [can only guess] what's going on in your mind and becuz neither of us has the access to Lee's and Sam's mind, both of us [can only guess] what's going on in their mind if every single one of us is exactly doing the same [guessing game] have you ever wondered... what are we trying [to guess] from the first place? not to mention every thought that we have and every action that we undertake always derives from our own subconscious selves so you could say that even conscious people are essentially playing [guessing game] with their own subconscious selves it goes on and on at infinitum who am I really? what exactly am I doing here on youtube?
Lee says that our sub conscious has free will, but it doesn’t seem to fit with Sam’s definition of free will. For Sam, free will means that things are not externally causally predetermined. The subconscious is external because it is outside awareness. We are subject to the subconscious. I don’t think Lee has really disagreed with Sam, has he?
Speculation around what the UNCONSCIOUS mind does doesn't remotely produce a convincing arugement for free will. Sam's approach (which makes perfect sense to me) does not mean our 'choices' don't matter. I think this is a common misunderstanding of what Determinism means
If you accept there is no free will, it doesn't free you to do whatever you want. The whole point is that you have no control over it. Your brain is constrained in the things it will allow you to do.
True, but it frees you from thinking or worrying about it too much. That's why I believe in free will and don't really worry that I may be completely wrong. If I am wrong, no worrying is going to change it. Therefore I continue to live my life as if I have it, knowing I may not, fascinated by the fact that so many people consider their perception of it (whether they assert or deny it) as infallible.
Lex, I wanna see your humor, even if its totally self deprecating. That is after all, the best kind of humor. It's honest, and shameless, and because of that, you may find the consequences aren't actually a variable.
These guys all accept human level concepts as features of nature rather than human constructs. Determinism, reductionism, causation, chains of causation are artifacts of the human mind, so while useful for understanding, if taken literally, they lead you into nonsense and confusion.
Thank you I totally agree Sam Harris doesn’t make any sense. If he is correct nobody should ever go to jail for anything they do no one should be responsible for anything. It makes no sense he’s taken Eastern believes of nonattachment in arguing in western philosophical terms a basic eastern argument. Sam Harris sounds like he knows what he’s talking about because he uses big words and he has a good vocabulary he’s simply a salesman
This isn't Sam Harris's theory, this has been discussed since time in memorial. Lex always pitching it like sam made the theory 😂. I mean, lots of far more important intellectuals like robert sapolsky or steven pinker have similar opinions, yet here lex is making it like its Sams theory. It isn't
You actually do have free will it’s just that it’s really easy to manipulate. Psychedelics also offer the ability to break out of any conditioning weather it be religion, science or government and corporate manipulation. Free will is attainable.
Follow the motivation. If we see someone making huge sums of money by doing something, we do not then assume what they're doing has no connection to the motivation of getting money. The principle works in reverse too. Why do some people insist that there's no such thing as free will? Because everything they wish to force on people is a violation of free will. If they can condition people to agree there's no such thing as a free will to violate, then there's no such thing as violating that free will. People don't actually choose to have sex. So if that's true, then there's no such thing as rape. People don't actually choose to have things or trade with others. So if that's true, then there's no such thing as theft. And so on, and so on. Without free will, there's no such thing as consent. Without consent, there's no such thing as right or wrong.
Thank you for stating the obvious. Morality is the stumbling block for arguing the absence of free will. Sin and evil is seen as a blockchain phenomenon and people like Sam Harris are building castles out of sand.....
I love this conversation, but I wish they explained more what it means for the unconscious brain to have free will. At that point, what's the definition of "free will"?
individual will always succumb to the will of the group. therefore, there are rules. from the smallest particle to a collection of primates. I bet if we run into ET, they may not look like us, but if we're at similar times in our respective evolutions, we will see the exact same fundamental rules of operation in their society.
We can only experience consciousness in ourselves and we cannot with science prove that another person is conscious. If free will really is an illusion… then who is it an illusion to? An illusion means that somebody is being tricked. That means there is something else inside people that is perceiving this illusion of free will. That something is your consciousness. But if free will really is an illusion and our world is limited to particles and energy interacting with each other in a causal chain, then consciousness cannot exist. We know consciousness exists because it’s is the only real sense we have. Sight, sound, touch, etc are all plugged into it. We only know the physical world through our consciousness. People who have been deprived of all senses are still conscious. So free will is real and consciousness is real but neither of them are detectable by scientific observation, while at the same time the visible universe that is detectable by scientific observation is purely deterministic, one long causal chain, no randomness. This supports the theory of two trains on parallel tracks that never touch each other, but travel beside each other consistently. One train is the deterministic material world and the other train is the unseen spiritual world right beside it. And only God could have synchronized those.
There's something refreshing at that kind of laugher in the middle of such weighty conversations. It's like a little peek at the fact that both sides are missing a bigger truth waiting for us all.
A life without free will is to live our life in some Truemanesqu Show. What would be the point, so you think we are playing are life as a cruel joke, where we in our very life are powerless to set for a larger goal then us? It must suck to be you, when you have such a bleak picture of life, like ants marching to our deaths? I say once again, sucks to be you.
Not even gonna watch the video but yeah Sam Harris views on free will are junk. Picked those arguments apart a long time ago. Really disappointed by Sam Harris reasoning
It's my understanding that "free will" only means we are free to reject Holy God...and many do... much like a young man or women might leave their parents home so they are free to live as they please, and out from under the burden of and "not much fun" parental standards of behavior. In His words to us (bible) and by His Holy Spirit, the Uncreated Jesus gives us every reason not to reject His Way, and every reason not to prefer Lucifer's way (who distracts, tempts, manipulates, bullies and lies to all humanity in his goal to enslave or destroy humanity)...but, sadly, many sophisticated well educated or, conversely, truly animal-like humans (or just lazy and shallow people) souls do reject Holy God and choose the path of worldly ambitions and fleshly, even deviant, impulses. Yup, many deceived souls, either as an individual or as a collective group, use their "right to choose" to follow after Lucifer and not after Jesus. In the end, Holy God, Jesus Christ, as His Sovereign Majesty, will respect your free will and your God-given right to please yourself. But, it's important to know...just as a human soul travels through life first as dependent (child) and, second, as an independent young adult (teen) and, third, as an interdependent & mature soul (adult). However, n the psychology of humans we know many people remain teenagers their whole life. Well, it's the same with Holy God...and in this regard, some never actually reach the interdependent stage in their spiritual life...many souls remain reman childish in their relationship with Holy God...but, many souls also go on to be independent of God and, like so many teens, scorn and despise what they don't understand. The mature Bible Believer is INTERdependent n their relationship with Holy God, still having free will, but, preferring/choosing to be guided by a Greater Wiser Being than themselves. Human free will isn't all it's cracked up to be...not with so many young people now uncovering their private parts for sex as casually as some people scratch their butts in public, and this kind of free will sex leads to slaughtering babies not yet ready to take care of themselves...but, hey, we call it abortion or termination as if it's merely a business project that's being shut down... So maybe free will with no Holy God guidance can produce only teenager independence, self absorbed, shallow of experience, scoffers of maturity (since they don't have it)...??? Dependent Independent Interdependent Humanists have only their own self serving self preserving intellect to guide them...and no otherwise no one else other than similar type humans to assess free will...while some of us have Holy God to answer our questions. I'm just saying 😏
@@CptVein To you...not to me. I've met Jesus. Yes, there are Bible Believers who actually meet Jesus, but, not all. Why He chooses some and not others, I don't know. As for Jesus, absolutely every belief system, religious or humanist, believe Jesus is created. Only pure unadulterated New Testament Christians believe He is "begotten" of God and not created. I suppose it's a bit like David and Goliath??? A whole earth filled with humans who do not believe Jesus is created and they keep trying always to diminish His status and glory...while a small group of Christians resist those Luciferian lies. As God says "the path to destruction is broad (many people) while the path that leads to life is narrow and few there are who find it. May Holy Uncreated Jesus, through Whom all things are made, make His presence known to you sooner than later.
@@CptVein What part? If it's the part where I wrote "...whole earth filled with people who do not believe Jesus is created"? I'd meant to say "uncreated"...not created. Does that help at all?
@@CptVein Maybe this could help...if an earthly physical human father can also be a son, brother, husband, father, nephew, uncle, employer, employee, sportsman, hobbyist, perhaps a king too....each role having a different perspective and a slightly different 'personality' in each separate relationship (e.g. the man doesn't treat his mother like an employee nor does his relate to a daughter like a spouse)...how much more so in the spirit realm can Holy God be Almighty Sovereign Majestic and Omnipotent etc...as well as "Abba" ("Dad") or Only Begotten Son (named Jesus) and King (over all other kings) or a Helper and Comforter known as the Spirit of God? Mainly so He can communicate with all His people...and they, too, can more easily relate to Him. As well, and most Christian Church Goers do not believe this...the first 2000 years of Bible history is about God creating a People for himself (flesh, culture, dependent, only a few special people got to hear from God), then the next 2000 years God created a nation for Himself (soul, civil, independent, now a group of people Israel who could hear or refuse to hear from God) and THEN (for 2000 years) God revealed and still reveals Himself as the Son (perfect sacrifice, inherits all) and the Returning King (to rule over all) and it's this last revelation of God, as Son, Inheritor and King, which is the glory and culmination of God's 6000 year Plan of Salvation, first, for "all Israel" (not the False Jews Jesus condemned, nor False Christians) and, second, for all humanity. Whereby, each individual soul (not just special people like Abraham, nor a special group like OT Israel) can now each interdependently "walk and talk with Jesus" if he or she and God are so inclined. Also, I think the first 4000 years of the Holy Scriptures (Old Testament) reveals the masculine "law & order" (governance) expression of Holy God...while the last 2000 years (New Testament) reveals the more feminine "grace & mercy" (compassion) expression of Holy God. No!...God is NOT " two spirited", God is NOT "gay", and God is not "three separate gods" or supernatural entities or beings, but, in the Only Begotten (not created like angels, humans) Son of Jesus (God in the flesh) can we find the perfect and full expression of both justice and mercy, both law and grace, both masculine and feminine, and the latter not to be confused with the deviated beliefs of the Deviant Community. As for us humans in general...basically, God's masculinity is deposited into the male (to govern, guard, protect,p and labor on behalf of the female, children and human community) and His feminine expression is deposited in the female (to offer all people and relationships empathy, intuition, wise counsel and, especially, to support godly, good or decent men as they typically battle their way through life...unlike the female who can remain at home, by the hearth, if she so desire...but, I tell you no lie! the man who is hostile, disdainful of or indifferent to the feminine and the female is in serious trouble with God. Equally, the woman who doesn't support and encourage the masculine and the male is also in deep trouble...we have less than 100 years to figure out Who is Holy God and what does He want from His human creation. For me 😇 the Holy God Creator IS Jesus Christ. If you 🙃 don't agree...take it up with Holy God on Judgement Day. Well, I could go on, but, I'm old, tired and sick...can only do so much now and, CptVein, if all you do next is tell me I'm "wrong!"...I'll likely consider that intellectual laziness your "third strike" and will stop playing this 'game' with you... PS I don't find in the Holy Bible half of what I hear taught by Christian Church Goers these days (and for sure not in Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism or Jehovah Witnesses and other such worldly or fleshly, or Phariseeical 'cults' and they, in turn, are often horrified or unsettled by my questions and comments. In fact, after 12 years trying to fit into Churched Christendom, I had to leave and go it alone...almost companionless...but never without Jesus!
None of us are free to choose that which doesn’t occur to us. Every conscious thought is the byproduct of a being’s genetic ability, the environment that being is exposed to, or some combination of both. Sam’s argument is simply that we don’t have the freedom to choose the thoughts that arise in consciousness, before those thoughts actually arise. We are agents that can learn from past experiences, but we are not free to choose how past experiences will impact us.
I don’t believe you and I choose not to
@@Drogers8675 when I first learned free will is an illusion it disturbed me for awhile aswell. But then I realized it didn't fundamentally change how I can enjoy my life. In fact it made me both much more empathetic to other individuals, and stoic in my daily life.
@@redmen2822 it sounds to me like you made a decision that made the most sense to you. I’m happy for you
@@Drogers8675 Man believe themselves to be free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined.
@@sasquatch1554 you will need to prove this in a controlled experiment.
Free will is simply nowhere to be found. From an introspective analysis, but also from a scientific perspective. There's only two modes of physics - determinism or randomness. There's no room for free will in either case. The question of who, or what, am 'I' is much more interesting.
You’re Chuckie!😁
Since we know next to nothing about consciousness, it’s overly simplistic to try to boil its functions down to a simple binary. Scientific hubris always proclaims its discoveries are complete, but that has never been the case… possibly never will be.
But yes indeed, the question of “who am I” is worth pursuing!
I've been thinking about this. With randomness, isn't randomness also determined? As in, let's say that randomness occurs by where atoms happen to be in space - at the most fundamental level. Where atoms are in space is defined by their trajectories set in motion long ago at the big bang and in the hearts of ancient stars. Thus, randomness isn't really random at all. Does that make sense or am I completely wrong? I am open to the possibility that I have no idea what I'm talking about.
@@olkid there is the concept of true randomness, mainly described by quantum mechanics. In that particles have probabilities of being in certain states or positions, rather than certanties. My (limited) understanding is that reality at the subatomic level is essentially random/quantum, but determinism emerges at the macro level. At least reality appears to be deterministic at macro levels. So fundamentally reality is actually random, or probabilistic.
@@chuckie5358 that's so interesting. So that would suggest that there's a duality in reality, whereby the reality we experience as human beings (with brains giving rise to subjective experience - even though brains are based on atoms and thus on quantum mechanics) is a different type of reality to what reality is at baseline. Makes me wonder if there would ever be a reasonable viewpoint from which quantum randomness could also be viewed as determined - if that makes any sense at all.
Sam Harris doesn't say he is like a leaf floating down the river. He says he is the river itself and it makes all the difference. He even said it on your podcast explaining to some degree why that's the case. Thanks for your work brother
Glad you pointed this out!
Yes. Very true.
If he is the leaf or the river makes no difference at all. In the case of the leaf, it's path is determined by the river. In the case of the river, it's path is determined by the landscape. In both cases they have no other choice than to obey that which is determined.
@@erikrullestad6709Exactly, the metaphor is still the same.
Once again: a tremendously intelligent person confidently criticizing a point he or she clearly does not understand. There really is something about this subject matter..
I was thinking exactly the same. I don't understand how people can't see that the point being made is that, whatever choices you make, you don't choose what you choose. Him saying about dropping it all and becoming a rapper is excalty Harris' point. Why did he say rapper and not painter? He doesn't know. And even if he offers up a reason as to why he said rapper and not painter, he didn't pick that reason - it just occurred to him and he said it. Also, I can understand why people don't understand because the whole point of free will being an illusion (which is an illusion in and of itself) is that, if I were them, with their genes and experiences, I would literally do exactly the same as them.
But you're misunderstanding too. The point that is lacking is that both sides are talking about different versions of free will. Personally, I think the no free will argument is reductionist which is making an assumption that people who argue for it are saying we are somehow supernatural beings. That level of free will is impossible to satisfy. I don't think any person making the argument for free will are arguing against that notion
The way "Free Will" gets discussed makes it sound like the only "freedom" you have is to continue to live OR to just lay down until you die. Like choosing to destroy yourself is the only true act of "Free Will" you have. And choose to live, no matter what you do it can be perceived as predictable or predetermined. Dude could be a rapper if he wanted but instead of saying he doesnt believe he would be any good he makes it seem like that wasnt meant to be. So now my question is, are we talking about fear of the unknown or the ability to choose something outside of what would/could be perceived as predictable? Am i missing something?
This is brilliant. It reminds me of deep conversations about the nature of existence while on psychedelics. I may need to watch this again... from a different perspective.
DFW Arboeals - I had an edible and watched this and trust me when I tell you I could totally follow this brilliant conversation fully, and I am not of this mental caliber sober…
"I think Sam Harris has realized that his conscious brain doesn't have free will but his unconscious brain does"
That is the exact opposite of what Sam argues. The unconscious part of the brain is as much a deterministically reactionary part as anything else.
Relative autonomy between two physical systems, (consciousness, unconsciousness), is the set up that allows for the *feeling* of free will, which he fully acknowledges is a real feeling people have, but however no, Sam does NOT posit that his unconsciousness has free will.
The only real caveat to this argument, that Sam has also touched on, is whether or not quantum randomness can realize the formation of a thought that you might not have had otherwise. But even then, that would be at best random freedom from determinism but not freedom of will because there's no choice in what quantum randomness yields.
This guy was not suggesting that Harris posits that his unconsciousness has free will, though I do think he was suggesting that Harris inherently knows this and it annoys him.
@@Maffmatix Lee said he thinks that's what Sam realized. but what Sam actually says seems to suggest Sam has realized the exact opposite of what Lee "thinks" Sam realized. Sam's words and arguments are pertinent to the discussion of what Sam has "realized" because most of the time people resonate with the logical consistency of their own ideas. as someone who has also "realized" there is no true free will myself (way before Sam ever published a book) i would be quite annoyed by people saying i've actually realized something that i find totally illogical. so yes, anyone can imagine that anyone else has realized the exact opposite of their spoken words, but it just reminds me of the same way religious people argue (nevermind what you say.. deep down you've realized God is real) that sort of thing.
i wish sam was actually in the room for this conversation, strawmans are always lame
I agree with most of this but how I understand Sam's argument is that he doesnt even think we have a "feeling" of free will. At least in the exact moment a decision is made. We maybe afterwards think about how "free" our choise was but that is just another though that appears in consiousness.
The exact moment we make a decision or think a thought is absolutely mysterious but we have become used to it because it is the only way anything can appear in consciousness.
I think the free will - quantum physics talk is mixing of 2 different layers of talking about the world.
I don’t think either of these gentlemen actually truly understand Sam’s position as some of the commentators on this thread. What sold me was the argument that I cannot think a thought before we think it.
As for the comment about the leaf floating down a stream, Sam has explained that we aren’t the leaf, we are the stream. We aren’t experiencing, we are the experience.
Nothing happens before it occurs. What a lazy argument.
@@Chris-wm7zt Precisely, so therefore there is no one composing the thought, the thought just comes. So where is the agency to author our thoughts, as many believe they have. So the point is we experience thought, rather then construct it.
For me I always go to the main point of free will; Do you have any responsibility? Are you accountable for your choices? If the idea of free will is about having absolute control of your choices than I believe it's a question of definition. For me free will calls us to self examination of our conscious choices. I think it's safe to say that there are subconscious decisions that we aren't in control and conscious decisions that we have level of freedom in.
I think something you may be missing is you didn't choose to be self reflective either. That is a product of what it is to be in your body at that particular time and place.
@@wilsonj9753 I'm addressing the bigger issue that if self reflection is not one of your own, then what hope does one have in claiming responsibility? Plus I don't think you can prove that self examination is exclusively to responses to body functions. That's like saying the only reason you're arguing with me because your body is triggered. They are many aspects and factors when it comes to one decision including the problem of consciousness.
@@teravega Are you implying there is some non-physical (metaphysical perhaps) reason for making choices and being self reflective? Because that's the only way it's possible to have free will
@@turkeylegs5431 All I'm saying is that there's nothing convincing to be free from all responsibilities. Let alone proving it. You can call it whatever you want but at the end of the day, someone is responsible at a certain point.
@@teravega Free will =\= responsibility. You're using a definition of responsibility that assumes free will. We don't consider animals as self reflective, but their mechanisms are responsible. The biological machine is "responsible", it doesn't matter if it did it through pure free will or not. A murderer doesn't choose the path to become a murderer, but alas they murder.
It’s shocking when seemingly smart people don’t understand the obvious fact that free will is an incoherent idea
Lee first argues that time is a first principle and that the world is deterministic, yet does not agree that we have no free will in the sense that our mental cannot impact the physical. I think he's got confused with being able to have agency due to the way the brain is set-up, and having free will in the metaphysical sense.
He doesn't understand what Sam Harris' position is and yet is arguing against it. Silly.
I still can't understand how anyone disagrees with Sam's argument on free will, assuming you take onboard his definitions. When people like Lee say they disagree, then go on to argue against it, they quickly show that they haven't understood the basics of the argument.
Can you recommend the most complete Sam Harris vid/talk where he fully explains the “No Free Will” theory he has adopted? I’ve heard a smattering of his take on not having Free Will and they’ve never been entirely convincing.
It seems the reason there’s such a debate on this topic is because the definitions aren’t fully ironed out and agreed to. To an addict, striving for Free Will is simply having the power to do the things you tell yourself you’re going to do, or to be free of the addiction -which is experientially the best analog to being able to say “I have free will”. Or put another way, you absolutely know you have something when you’ve experienced it’s lack. As the WestWorld quote goes “Free Will exists, it’s just fucking hard.”
@@MaxFenrir Hey Max! th-cam.com/video/pCofmZlC72g/w-d-xo.html
I agree and do not understand it either. It especially surprises me when it is done by obviously VERY smart people.
Maybe it’s because Sam’s definitions are flawed from the get go.
@@Chris-wm7zt Like what?
Never heard a valid, unsettling or interesting counter to Sam's arguments about free will before... Still haven't. And to no free will of my own.
I agree with you and that's why I think it is so sad to be an atheist. You have to accept that you are nothing more than a complex machine with a finite service life.
@@mknow1 Nothing sad about that. You can still feel and experience. Live to enjoy your life. Work towards positivity in your life. Die happy. There doesn't need to be meaning to anything to be happy, just enjoy the ride, while you still can.
@@arhael3594 What is sad is that lack of free will diminishes the value of humans and puts them closer to animals. A cat can be happy with a ball of string. Is a tree happy when the sun shines on it? And happiness itself can be simulated with drugs, easily. So no free will removes a lot of value from what it means to be human. Also with no free will you remove a lot of personal respinsibility from life...just remove the defective machines. Morality then becomes fluid, a product of democracy or autocratic supervision. Grim.
@Ian Novak For me the happy alternative is that human beings have souls that are the true essence of us. This soul has free will and can make choices. That's just my belief. I cannot accept that I am nothing more than a slow organic chemical reaction.
@@mknow1 Gonna disagree. One, we are not "closer" to animals, we are animals.
Value of humans has always been subjective, at most primitive level it's human self-determinism as species. What value you give humans as individual is entirely up to you. You have your feelings, you have your experience, you care about your loved ones, you have empathy. If knowledge of no free will impacts you enough to deem life meaningless, it's on you. Maybe you should reflect and find new meaning.
Him not being able to become a rapper tomorrow as evidence for lack of free will seems like a premise as grotesque and wrong by definition as it gets.
yeah very weak proposal
We do have free will, the problem is so many people are so risk averse, to not face consequences So they choose to live and act within the Pavlovian structure we have created.
The hardest part of determinism is knowing theres no free will but also knowing u have to continue to act as though it exists in order to live.
@@jaysonp9426 we do but Nihilistic views sometimes enter my thoughts that never existed before discovering determinism, I like determinism because it helped me not regret the past knowing I always did my best in a way because I had no other option but sometimes trying at life seems pointless, theres a temptation to always just go with the flow - sounds good if the flow always leads to something positive but it's not always the case. Determinism is something sometimes I think is not always good to know, sometimes its better to enjoy the magic trick without knowing how its done.
I think the connection between Nihilism & Determinism is interesting, because the adoption of the DeterminismTheory (and it IS only just a theory-not all theories ever theorized have ended up true btw) does tend to lead one to think their actions/decisions don’t really matter.
IF it was true that Free Will didn’t exist, and if you actually believed to your core that it didn’t exist, then you would only put 1% of your energy into decision-making and be indifferent about the outcome ie) go with the flow, because wouldn’t it all be the same either way?
It’s because we actually know there’s weight in our decision-making, and the outcome DOES matter to our life, that we actually have to grind out a decision with the limited info and processing power we have to make a decision. We’re not robots as Harris and most materialist scientists would like to believe … Free Will is an emergent phenomena and therefor is limited, it also syncs up nicely with the evolution of all things.
@@jaysonp9426 when I first believd it to be true yes the first couple of weeks It actually helped me deal with regret and blaming myself for things in the past, then a week of feeling it was all pointless about everything and now mostly not....... I was going through some deep issues at the time so although I am quite philosophical & self reflective generally this was a particularly acute analysis I was putting myself through. I do think of it occasionally but no not often.
Nihilism has literally nothing to do with free will.
Is a movie meaningless because it’s already written?
The two have zero relation.
Critiquing an argument without understanding it is just sad.
The problem i see with the argument is that he is saying some proportion of what happens is based on a causal chain, and the rest is not. Sam would argue, that the stuff that appears to not have a causal chain is simply just because we can not explain it at this point. And even if you do decide to be a rapper based on this information or the hypothesis that free will doesnt exist that too is still a causal chain. If all things are set in motion by causal chains, then that is exactly what Sam Harris is saying. Whether or not 'it doesn't matter' or 'do we really exist' are existential and metaphysical questions that are still potentially up for debate.
I think what he argues is that - you are the causal chain. Also causality does not necessarily flows only from part to the whole, it also can flow from the whole to the part after establishing the pattern. Check the work of Michael Levin for example and also Karl Friston.
He thinks himself out of existence is the best description of Sam Harris ever.
I love Lex but sometimes he looks like he's passing out on his guests..
The illusion of free will has a lot to do with the illusion of the self. And as long as you are that egotistical to not even realize that you haven’t understood Sam’s argument proves to yourself why you can’t get it.
never heard of lee cronin, really enjoyed hearing him express his ideas
“disagreement on free will” 😂
the irony
This whole notion of free will being an illusion is ridiculous navel gazing.
So would I be unconsciously not paying my mortgage or willingly not paying my mortgage or vice versa
This question is so boring! Noone even knows what conscious is. And Harris has gone on about it so much that it feels like I’m back in 2010! Never heard a single new argument since then! No joy in this repetition!🤮
Amen Baby Yoda! I agree… the mystery of Consciousness, that it’s still a black box, seems intertwined with Free Will. How can we claim to be absolutely certain about Free Will when it rides along with something we know little about. Also, I see both Consciousness and Free Will as emergent phenomenon… both are outcomes of evolution. Dolphins, some apes, have a sense of self -an evolved state of conscious awareness, that other animals don’t possess. At one point we didn’t possess self-consciousness, now we do. How is it not then the case that our FreeWill exists along a spectrum, sure it’s limited, but it’s being born in all of us to a differing degree. That’s the theory I subscribe to anyways.
And yeah … Sam doesn’t seem to have had a new thought in a long long time.
I don't understand how people can't see that the point being made by Harris is that, whatever choices you make, you don't choose what you choose. Him saying about dropping it all and becoming a rapper is exactly Harris' point. Why did he say rapper and not painter? He doesn't know. And even if he offers up a reason as to why he said rapper and not painter, he didn't pick that reason - it just occurred to him and he said it. Also, I can understand why people don't understand because the whole point of free will being an illusion (which is an illusion in and of itself) is that, if I were them, with their genes and experiences, I would literally do exactly the same as them.
"1+1=2" - Yes, but no, that's not right & here's my intelligent argument for why it's wrong.
- Yeah bro, you sound intelligent, but the guy that said 1+1=2 makes way more sense than you do.
Lex, just imagine if this guy really believed he could break the rules of the laws he discovered.
Free will is interesting because I know for myself I always try to make the right choice so my path through life turns into what I thought was going to be the right course of action. So even though I have the ability to purposefully do the wrong decision I know that if my life were restarted with the same environmental phenomenon I would most likely make the same decisions.
Nietzsche’s argument was that we don’t know all the forces that intervene in a decision. Thus, a conscious decision is improbable. However, he proposed the eternal recurrence, a way to act as if what we do will be repeated eternally. Nietzsche’s idea was closer to almost no free will, although each person is the sum of all pressures at any instant, he being “guilty “ was more a result of “moralism” than actual responsibility.
People are completely overthinking free will as demonstrated by this video.
I played dragon's Lair as an 8 year old and knew right away that you just had to time your movements right to unlock the next cinematic. I never imagined it was generating anything. Was he on drugs ?
If Lee becomes a rapper, I’m definitely buying that album.
The idea of free will is what i believe ,is the lego theory, were everyone of us are given a bunch of lego pieces ... and wat we make out of them is free will... whereas we have no choice on wat lego pieces we get
Pretty good analogy. You have no choice on how impulsive you are, how strongly you can feel, how much empathy you have. But you are free to make choices based on your personality.
Wow this is a horrible assumption about Sams views considering all he's said on free will
I don't want to dispute this guys brilliancy. But it's pretty fishy that 90% of the time when philosophy is being discussed in Lex' podcast Nietzsche is coming up, when Nietzsche is seen by many philosophers not even mainly as a philosopher but rather as a poet, his main work being "Also Sprach Zarathustra". On the other hand Platon, Aristotle, Kant, Heidegger, Hegel, Marx, Rawls, etc. are never discussed.
the fundamentals are: is proof of the soul, there is an interplay between destiny and freewill.. they are in intimate partnership, a feedback loop, of life after life
Lex and Lee here, it has been your destiny to be in this life situation to explore with freewill the what, where, how and whys of as you are, you were both born into particular families, time, place and form, in this destiny, to learn, to choose and to create, that has enabled you to be living the lives you are, this was the result of the freewill feedback loop of your previous incarnations, that has reafirmed your destiny in this life, the soul is the aggregate/conglomerate/solution of this interplay
Everyone has will and none of it is free.
No Sam doesn’t think his unconscious brain has free will, if you think that you’re completely missing the point.
I like to think of us as deterministic beings with an infinite backstory. The universe is flat as far as we know, and if it is flat it would be infinite in space. If we are deterministic, and the big bang was real, we would have had at least one interaction with everything. I think this would create "true randomness" due to the infinite number of possible interactions at the first moment of time.
'Why did you punch me in the face when I said "there's no such thing as free will"?'
"Because I don't have free will."
Lex is on top of his game today!
People are so confused about the topic, and it’s not that complicated.
Free will isn’t even a coherent concept and when people talk about it they’re jumping from one thing to another without realizing it.
Why is it so hard for people to understand?
Free will is an easily observable natural phenomenon. Just because you can't work out a coherent concept doesn't negate the very thing on which the concept is based.
@@caricue exactly lmao. When something doesnt align with your worldview, you should maybe change your worldview.
Materalists are doing exactly what theists do in trying to fit everything into the worldview
9:20 Some people would do radical stuff and other people wouldn’t, depends and the person, and that person is as they are.
If there is no free will. Why destroy sick and not heal them. You are just like them untill you help them.
I think free will is not that you can do anything, but that you can try.
Is consciousness a consequence of free will or is it a perception .Can you even have free will without consciousness or consciousness without free will . What is perception if it is not the consequence of free will and or consciousness.
I dont think this addresses Sam's points directly at all.
I'm with Sam on this one.
If free will doesn’t exist, than is the uncertainty principle wrong?
Consciousness is just as part of the brain as an accelerator on a car. But consciousness is just the input like the accelerator on a car. If we had to consciously make decisions, we would die. We can be responsible for our heart beat rate. How much oxygen we need in our blood. Just the same as the accelerator, if it had to also be the pistons and fuel injection system then it would be over encumbered with tasks.
Consciousness has to be seperate from decision. But it doesn’t mean we don’t have free will. It’s our brain making the decision. But consciousness is part of the brain so you are making the decision.
It baffles me how this ass-backwards view on consciousness is held my so many people.
@@Chris-wm7zt you could expand on that. With reason.
@@Chris-wm7zt Didnt think so
@@Chris-wm7zt rekt boi
He had no choice but to disagree.
One of the best Lex interviews ever. Awesome and deep, you can see some of the despair on Lee Cronin's face when the free will crux arrives. But I like the fact that he does not give up. Keep striving for answers guys. How about the origin of truly original thoughts, like a string of notes that creates a never before made melody. Many composers say it came from 'nowhere'. Unconcious? Outside agent? Metaphysical? Facinating stuff.
I read and listened to a lot of Sam and learned a tremendous amount. However, his TDS and his hard stance on everyone getting vaxed, as well as his pro censorship stance on cccchhhccccovvvvidddd has me questioning his widely heralded objectivity as of late. Lastly, his stance on free will never really satisfied me. It definitely makes you think...
Sam Harris takes an hour lecture to tell you that in order to have free will you have to be able to choose "who you are" and "what you want." That's his whole shpeel. If you understand that free will is there so that you can try to "get what you want" then it isn't really so complicated. You generate behaviors that you predict will bring about a favorable outcome depending on the situation.
You’re on the wrong side of every single thing you brought up in this reply lmao
I agree his stance on covid vaccines are the only thing that I've ever disagreed with Sam on.
@@paullampl1 The worst part is that the whole mandate was based on the belief that the jab would keep you from spreading it to others who couldn't get one. This was not true, and once all the science was in and it was proven untrue definitely, they still kept saying it as if it was true, to this day.
@@caricue you mentioned “they” kept stating it prevented transmission, though it didn’t… but did Harris ever correct himself on that position? Or is he unable to update his worldview as I suspect is the case? Think he’s suffering from a touch of Scientific hubris.
Look at me! I have free will. I can think thinks outside of causal reality. I can think thinks that don't require antecedental causes. My thinks are not caused by anything. I am outside of causality.
Doesn't the notion of Free Will come down to the idea that there is a little person in the machine running things. Where would you find it and how would you define it?
Humans aren't machines, we are organisms, so we are the little person.
I hate to say it, but I think Lee is fundamentally missing Sam's point. And I also think it's possible to recognize that, after the fact, we can say we had no choice but to do something given that our brain had to follow the same laws of physics as everything else (which reacts based on the physics of the environment, its own memory systems, etc), while also recognizing that fact doesn't reduce our responsibility to be moral or follow the same principles we would have followed.
becuz you don't have the access to my mind, you [can only guess] what's going on in my mind
and becuz I also don't have the access to your mind, I also [can only guess] what's going on in your mind
and becuz neither of us has the access to Lee's and Sam's mind, both of us [can only guess] what's going on in their mind
if every single one of us is exactly doing the same [guessing game]
have you ever wondered... what are we trying [to guess] from the first place?
not to mention every thought that we have and every action that we undertake always derives from our own subconscious selves
so you could say that even conscious people are essentially playing [guessing game] with their own subconscious selves
it goes on and on at infinitum
who am I really? what exactly am I doing here on youtube?
Please explore free will and the block universe. Thank you.
Lee says that our sub conscious has free will, but it doesn’t seem to fit with Sam’s definition of free will. For Sam, free will means that things are not externally causally predetermined. The subconscious is external because it is outside awareness. We are subject to the subconscious. I don’t think Lee has really disagreed with Sam, has he?
Speculation around what the UNCONSCIOUS mind does doesn't remotely produce a convincing arugement for free will. Sam's approach (which makes perfect sense to me) does not mean our 'choices' don't matter. I think this is a common misunderstanding of what Determinism means
If you accept there is no free will, it doesn't free you to do whatever you want. The whole point is that you have no control over it. Your brain is constrained in the things it will allow you to do.
True, but it frees you from thinking or worrying about it too much. That's why I believe in free will and don't really worry that I may be completely wrong. If I am wrong, no worrying is going to change it. Therefore I continue to live my life as if I have it, knowing I may not, fascinated by the fact that so many people consider their perception of it (whether they assert or deny it) as infallible.
Lex, I wanna see your humor, even if its totally self deprecating. That is after all, the best kind of humor. It's honest, and shameless, and because of that, you may find the consequences aren't actually a variable.
What could it possibly mean for your unconscious to have free will? Who or what is controlling that?
I think that free will is just a question of physics.
But it could be a new physics categorie
My takeaway, it's all about selection
These guys all accept human level concepts as features of nature rather than human constructs. Determinism, reductionism, causation, chains of causation are artifacts of the human mind, so while useful for understanding, if taken literally, they lead you into nonsense and confusion.
I find it hilarious when people try to tie nihilism and determinism and act like they’re somehow related. 😂
Now you guys have to drop a mixtape to prove the existence of free will
Jesus is my nigga comes to mind.
OMG ! So many points of this discussion point towards Human Design system. Conscious and the unconscious. The basic duality soo much !
How do you get a tiny bit of freedom within a material world where what we experience is chemical reactions within the laws of nature (physics)?
Thank you I totally agree Sam Harris doesn’t make any sense. If he is correct nobody should ever go to jail for anything they do no one should be responsible for anything. It makes no sense he’s taken Eastern believes of nonattachment in arguing in western philosophical terms a basic eastern argument. Sam Harris sounds like he knows what he’s talking about because he uses big words and he has a good vocabulary he’s simply a salesman
This isn't Sam Harris's theory, this has been discussed since time in memorial. Lex always pitching it like sam made the theory 😂. I mean, lots of far more important intellectuals like robert sapolsky or steven pinker have similar opinions, yet here lex is making it like its Sams theory. It isn't
You actually do have free will it’s just that it’s really easy to manipulate. Psychedelics also offer the ability to break out of any conditioning weather it be religion, science or government and corporate manipulation. Free will is attainable.
He reminds me of a condescending agent from the Matrix
Thanks, for all the Philosophy!
Follow the motivation.
If we see someone making huge sums of money by doing something, we do not then assume what they're doing has no connection to the motivation of getting money.
The principle works in reverse too.
Why do some people insist that there's no such thing as free will? Because everything they wish to force on people is a violation of free will. If they can condition people to agree there's no such thing as a free will to violate, then there's no such thing as violating that free will.
People don't actually choose to have sex. So if that's true, then there's no such thing as rape.
People don't actually choose to have things or trade with others. So if that's true, then there's no such thing as theft.
And so on, and so on.
Without free will, there's no such thing as consent. Without consent, there's no such thing as right or wrong.
Thank you for stating the obvious. Morality is the stumbling block for arguing the absence of free will. Sin and evil is seen as a blockchain phenomenon and people like Sam Harris are building castles out of sand.....
I was a super big fan of Dragon's Lair!
Sorry Sam Harris would eviscerate this guy on his free will hot take.
I consider man to be the line where fate and free will meet.
I'm so close to finishing this whole podcast and it is so fascinating, brilliant and so enjoyable!!
Neither exist. But only constructs projected by the observer.
I love this conversation, but I wish they explained more what it means for the unconscious brain to have free will. At that point, what's the definition of "free will"?
I wouldn't look at human behaviour throug a lense (religion)
Is there a semantic error occurring here ?
individual will always succumb to the will of the group. therefore, there are rules. from the smallest particle to a collection of primates. I bet if we run into ET, they may not look like us, but if we're at similar times in our respective evolutions, we will see the exact same fundamental rules of operation in their society.
That *is* fascinating. Another example of selection... beautiful eh?
A conversation between Lee Cronin and Sam on the topic of free will would be really interesting!!!
This is really thought provoking.
You clearly don't understand the topic nor sam harris' position.
This guy seems quite arrogant
This man is in denial
Awesome guest!
We can only experience consciousness in ourselves and we cannot with science prove that another person is conscious. If free will really is an illusion… then who is it an illusion to? An illusion means that somebody is being tricked. That means there is something else inside people that is perceiving this illusion of free will. That something is your consciousness. But if free will really is an illusion and our world is limited to particles and energy interacting with each other in a causal chain, then consciousness cannot exist. We know consciousness exists because it’s is the only real sense we have. Sight, sound, touch, etc are all plugged into it. We only know the physical world through our consciousness. People who have been deprived of all senses are still conscious. So free will is real and consciousness is real but neither of them are detectable by scientific observation, while at the same time the visible universe that is detectable by scientific observation is purely deterministic, one long causal chain, no randomness. This supports the theory of two trains on parallel tracks that never touch each other, but travel beside each other consistently. One train is the deterministic material world and the other train is the unseen spiritual world right beside it. And only God could have synchronized those.
Your mostly spot on
Lexs reaction at the end as he giggles to himself about that enormous question. Oh yeah. Never thought of that. Rabbit hole incoming.
There's something refreshing at that kind of laugher in the middle of such weighty conversations. It's like a little peek at the fact that both sides are missing a bigger truth waiting for us all.
A life without free will is to live our life in some Truemanesqu Show. What would be the point, so you think we are playing are life as a cruel joke, where we in our very life are powerless to set for a larger goal then us? It must suck to be you, when you have such a bleak picture of life, like ants marching to our deaths? I say once again, sucks to be you.
just because you don't like the implications of something doesn't mean it's false
Not even gonna watch the video but yeah Sam Harris views on free will are junk. Picked those arguments apart a long time ago. Really disappointed by Sam Harris reasoning
It's my understanding that "free will" only means we are free to reject Holy God...and many do... much like a young man or women might leave their parents home so they are free to live as they please, and out from under the burden of and "not much fun" parental standards of behavior.
In His words to us (bible) and by His Holy Spirit, the Uncreated Jesus gives us every reason not to reject His Way, and every reason not to prefer Lucifer's way (who distracts, tempts, manipulates, bullies and lies to all humanity in his goal to enslave or destroy humanity)...but, sadly, many sophisticated well educated or, conversely, truly animal-like humans (or just lazy and shallow people) souls do reject Holy God and choose the path of worldly ambitions and fleshly, even deviant, impulses.
Yup, many deceived souls, either as an individual or as a collective group, use their "right to choose" to follow after Lucifer and not after Jesus.
In the end, Holy God, Jesus Christ, as His Sovereign Majesty, will respect your free will and your God-given right to please yourself.
But, it's important to know...just as a human soul travels through life first as dependent (child) and, second, as an independent young adult (teen) and, third, as an interdependent & mature soul (adult). However, n the psychology of humans we know many people remain teenagers their whole life.
Well, it's the same with Holy God...and in this regard, some never actually reach the interdependent stage in their spiritual life...many souls remain reman childish in their relationship with Holy God...but, many souls also go on to be independent of God and, like so many teens, scorn and despise what they don't understand.
The mature Bible Believer is INTERdependent n their relationship with Holy God, still having free will, but, preferring/choosing to be guided by a Greater Wiser Being than themselves.
Human free will isn't all it's cracked up to be...not with so many young people now uncovering their private parts for sex as casually as some people scratch their butts in public, and this kind of free will sex leads to slaughtering babies not yet ready to take care of themselves...but, hey, we call it abortion or termination as if it's merely a business project that's being shut down...
So maybe free will with no Holy God guidance can produce only teenager independence, self absorbed, shallow of experience, scoffers of maturity (since they don't have it)...???
Dependent
Independent
Interdependent
Humanists have only their own self serving self preserving intellect to guide them...and no otherwise no one else other than similar type humans to assess free will...while some of us have Holy God to answer our questions.
I'm just saying 😏
@@CptVein To you...not to me. I've met Jesus. Yes, there are Bible Believers who actually meet Jesus, but, not all. Why He chooses some and not others, I don't know. As for Jesus, absolutely every belief system, religious or humanist, believe Jesus is created. Only pure unadulterated New Testament Christians believe He is "begotten" of God and not created. I suppose it's a bit like David and Goliath??? A whole earth filled with humans who do not believe Jesus is created and they keep trying always to diminish His status and glory...while a small group of Christians resist those Luciferian lies. As God says "the path to destruction is broad (many people) while the path that leads to life is narrow and few there are who find it.
May Holy Uncreated Jesus, through Whom all things are made, make His presence known to you sooner than later.
@@CptVein What part? If it's the part where I wrote "...whole earth filled with people who do not believe Jesus is created"? I'd meant to say "uncreated"...not created. Does that help at all?
@@CptVein Maybe this could help...if an earthly physical human father can also be a son, brother, husband, father, nephew, uncle, employer, employee, sportsman, hobbyist, perhaps a king too....each role having a different perspective and a slightly different 'personality' in each separate relationship (e.g. the man doesn't treat his mother like an employee nor does his relate to a daughter like a spouse)...how much more so in the spirit realm can Holy God be Almighty Sovereign Majestic and Omnipotent etc...as well as "Abba" ("Dad") or Only Begotten Son (named Jesus) and King (over all other kings) or a Helper and Comforter known as the Spirit of God? Mainly so He can communicate with all His people...and they, too, can more easily relate to Him.
As well, and most Christian Church Goers do not believe this...the first 2000 years of Bible history is about God creating a People for himself (flesh, culture, dependent, only a few special people got to hear from God), then the next 2000 years God created a nation for Himself (soul, civil, independent, now a group of people Israel who could hear or refuse to hear from God) and THEN (for 2000 years) God revealed and still reveals Himself as the Son (perfect sacrifice, inherits all) and the Returning King (to rule over all) and it's this last revelation of God, as Son, Inheritor and King, which is the glory and culmination of God's 6000 year Plan of Salvation, first, for "all Israel" (not the False Jews Jesus condemned, nor False Christians) and, second, for all humanity. Whereby, each individual soul (not just special people like Abraham, nor a special group like OT Israel) can now each interdependently "walk and talk with Jesus" if he or she and God are so inclined.
Also, I think the first 4000 years of the Holy Scriptures (Old Testament) reveals the masculine "law & order" (governance) expression of Holy God...while the last 2000 years (New Testament) reveals the more feminine "grace & mercy" (compassion) expression of Holy God. No!...God is NOT " two spirited", God is NOT "gay", and God is not "three separate gods" or supernatural entities or beings, but, in the Only Begotten (not created like angels, humans) Son of Jesus (God in the flesh) can we find the perfect and full expression of both justice and mercy, both law and grace, both masculine and feminine, and the latter not to be confused with the deviated beliefs of the Deviant Community.
As for us humans in general...basically, God's masculinity is deposited into the male (to govern, guard, protect,p and labor on behalf of the female, children and human community) and His feminine expression is deposited in the female (to offer all people and relationships empathy, intuition, wise counsel and, especially, to support godly, good or decent men as they typically battle their way through life...unlike the female who can remain at home, by the hearth, if she so desire...but, I tell you no lie! the man who is hostile, disdainful of or indifferent to the feminine and the female is in serious trouble with God. Equally, the woman who doesn't support and encourage the masculine and the male is also in deep trouble...we have less than 100 years to figure out Who is Holy God and what does He want from His human creation.
For me 😇 the Holy God Creator IS Jesus Christ. If you 🙃 don't agree...take it up with Holy God on Judgement Day.
Well, I could go on, but, I'm old, tired and sick...can only do so much now and, CptVein, if all you do next is tell me I'm "wrong!"...I'll likely consider that intellectual laziness your "third strike" and will stop playing this 'game' with you...
PS I don't find in the Holy Bible half of what I hear taught by Christian Church Goers these days (and for sure not in Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism or Jehovah Witnesses and other such worldly or fleshly, or Phariseeical 'cults' and they, in turn, are often horrified or unsettled by my questions and comments. In fact, after 12 years trying to fit into Churched Christendom, I had to leave and go it alone...almost companionless...but never without Jesus!