Sam Harris's "Free Will" -- Are we truly in control?

In a nutshell, this book uses neuroscience to justify the argument that we as humans do not truly have control of our conscious selves. At the fundamental level everything that occurs in our minds are chemical reactions that our out of our control.

"We do not have the freedom and free will that we think we do. Yes, you can make conscious choices, but everything that makes up those conscious choices (your thoughts, your wants, your desires) is determined by prior causes outside your control. Just because you can do what you want does not mean you have free will because you are not choosing what you want in the first place."

Each of us have different neural structures, shaped by evolution, which dictate what we do from a biological level.

A simple example is the idea that some men are biologically wired to cheat on their wives, seek out multiple partners to best "spread their seed" while other men are wired from birth to invest all their energy into one spouse.

The same can be said for criminal behaviors in children versus their parents.

What do you think of Harris's arguments?

I personally agree with the holistic idea and that we are pre-determined to behave in a certain way, but that environmental factors still play a significant role in "nudging" that behavior in another direction. It's not an end all, but definitely explains a lot.

Originally posted by Kurk
In a nutshell, this book uses neuroscience to justify the argument that we as humans do not truly have control of our conscious selves. At the fundamental level everything that occurs in our minds are chemical reactions that our out of our control.

Each of us have different neural structures, shaped by evolution, which dictate what we do from a biological level.

A simple example is the idea that some men are biologically wired to cheat on their wives, seek out multiple partners to best "spread their seed" while other men are wired from birth to invest all their energy into one spouse.

The same can be said for criminal behaviors in children versus their parents.

What do you think of Harris's arguments?

I personally agree with the holistic idea and that we are pre-determined to behave in a certain way, but that environmental factors still play a significant role in "nudging" that behavior in another direction. It's not an end all, but definitely explains a lot.

What's more, I don't even understand how such a thing would matter if it were somehow able to be proven. Trying to use "I don't have free will" as an excuse falls flat because it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Men who are hardwired to cheat don't deserve any kind of consideration from partners who are against cheating and people who are hardwired to be criminals should still be kept out of society. If anything, this theory promotes the idea that no one deserves a second chance because they're destined to repeat their bad behavior.

Also Kurk, a lot of Genetic Evidence exists much of our behaviour is not free will too.

Is this anything you think will ever be taken seriously? Not commenting on if it's correct or not. Just thinking about what it would mean for things like our legal system. If some guy goes and robs a liquor store, is he now not responsible for it? If he truly has no free will, is it justice to punish him?

As I see it, such *freedom* implies independence from context. Since nothing actually exists out of context (ie, everything is interconnected, a staple of the mystical paradigm for millennia, and shown more and more to be the case by science, especially since the advent of quantum mechanics), *free will* is, at best, a reliable as-if.

Demonstrably it can easily be shown people are not in command of themselves: try to quiet your thoughts for more than a few minutes. Or, resist something you really, really want ('Betcha can't eat just one"😉. People have fragmented will, poor self-discipline, resulting in default thinking that is typically emotional and shortsighted.

We are still responsible for our actions, though, as we have the power to correct the above. We can be more conscious, but that takes effort.

Originally posted by Surtur
Is this anything you think will ever be taken seriously? Not commenting on if it's correct or not. Just thinking about what it would mean for things like our legal system. If some guy goes and robs a liquor store, is he now not responsible for it? If he truly has no free will, is it justice to punish him?

Originally posted by Surtur
Is this anything you think will ever be taken seriously? Not commenting on if it's correct or not. Just thinking about what it would mean for things like our legal system. If some guy goes and robs a liquor store, is he now not responsible for it? If he truly has no free will, is it justice to punish him?

We justify punishment on utilitarian grounds. There have to be consequences to deter negative action.

Originally posted by Kurk
In a nutshell, this book uses neuroscience to justify the argument that we as humans do not truly have control of our conscious selves. At the fundamental level everything that occurs in our minds are chemical reactions that our out of our control.

Each of us have different neural structures, shaped by evolution, which dictate what we do from a biological level.

A simple example is the idea that some men are biologically wired to cheat on their wives, seek out multiple partners to best "spread their seed" while other men are wired from birth to invest all their energy into one spouse.

The same can be said for criminal behaviors in children versus their parents.

What do you think of Harris's arguments?

I personally agree with the holistic idea and that we are pre-determined to behave in a certain way, but that environmental factors still play a significant role in "nudging" that behavior in another direction. It's not an end all, but definitely explains a lot.

The topic is libertarian free-will vs. deterministic free-will. Libertarian Free-Will does not exist as an absolute fact due to some research recently in free-will and choice. However, Harris' position, which is shallow at best, is not correct either. It's not as simple as deterministic vs. nondeterministic free-will. Harris', due to his own biases, will always seek the naturalistic explanation or the explanation he feels is best fit within an empirical framework. It's his MO. It makes him quite amazingly grounded and well-reasoned most of the time but when he dips into philosophy, he sometimes starts to make conclusions that are not very sound like the above quote.

To be more brief, no, Harris is not right. He's not completely wrong, either. It's still a philosophical question that neuroscience and psychology is trying to answer. Some elements appear to be deterministic, some appear to not be.

"Which elements"?

It's not that simple. Study for years and figure that out, yourself.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
We justify punishment on utilitarian grounds. There have to be consequences to deter negative action.

How do you deter actions if people have no control?

Originally posted by Surtur
How do you deter actions if people have no control?

The brain still responds to stimuli. If I told you there was a lion behind a door would you still walk there?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The brain still responds to stimuli. If I told you there was a lion behind a door would you still walk there?

I know a lion would maul me. And yet people also know if they rob or kill they will most likely go to jail. It happens anyways.

Originally posted by Surtur
I know a lion would maul me. And yet people also know if they rob or kill they will most likely go to jail. It happens anyways.

Yes, but the consequence prohibits the likelihood of such behavior.

Originally posted by Surtur
Is this anything you think will ever be taken seriously? Not commenting on if it's correct or not. Just thinking about what it would mean for things like our legal system. If some guy goes and robs a liquor store, is he now not responsible for it? If he truly has no free will, is it justice to punish him?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
We justify punishment on utilitarian grounds. There have to be consequences to deter negative action.

Free will exists, if you define it as the ability to choose. If you're defining it as the ability to choose independent of who you are, then prolly not.

Lol what? The ability to choose independent of who you are? You are saying the ability to choose independent of who you have been chosen to be. Correct?

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol what? The ability to choose independent of who you are? You are saying the ability to choose independent of who you have been chosen to be. Correct?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yep.

Makes us seem more like videogame characters with some weird mass effect style dialogue tree.

No I won't be mean to you cuz it'll make my face glow.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Free will exists, if you define it as the ability to choose. If you're defining it as the ability to choose independent of who you are, then prolly not.

Your logic is very tautological...but...but...I think it is fairly correct.

I can summarize what you are saying:
Your choices are made by who you are because who you are makes your choices.

This is mostly correct. You make choices based on your genetics, epi-genetics, the summation of your memories and experiences, and the environment. There are factors throughout a timeline that can also affect a choice and, oddly enough, some factors that are relatively minor can influence a choice far more than, say, a traumatic childhood experience. For example, the weather may influence a choice you make more than a sever bullying incident you experienced 20 years prior. Choice is odd like that.

But there is an element of choice that always seems to defy almost everything I'm talking about. Sometimes, humans do this weird thing. They make a choice despite or in contradiction of the entire set of variables that influence choice. While this does not happen too often, humans still do it often enough that it makes you scratch your head. Humans are ****ing weird.

DDM, I'll be honest, I think as we learn more about the cloud of neurochemical connections that is the brain and how it relates to our genetics, I think nurture will have less and less of a role even in choices that appear to be free.

A choice to keep your hands in your pocket, or bring them out and risk prison, is still a choice.

The problem with "free will" arguments, is they leave the topic undefined.

I choose to have an egg wrap for breakfast. I ate, because I am hungry. Because hunger compels me to eat, does this mean I am not exerting will?

If I wasn't compelled by hunger, why would I eat?

And by that token, what does free will in a vacuum look like? Without compulsions, without context informed by prior experience, without culture...? If one lacked all external forces, by what reason would one act at all?