Sam Harris' argument against free will (video lecture)

[The AntiChris]

The word in question is 'free'.

The referent is 'will' (deterministic human decision making).

Our only disagreement is over the use of the word 'free' to describe 'will'. You say there is no circumstance in which the 'will' can ever be described as free. I disagree (I claim there are meanings of the word 'free' which don't entail freedom from deterministic causes).

This is a dispute about the meaning of the word 'free'.

Disputes about the meanings of words are semantic disputes.

Then why not give an example of what you mean by 'free' or 'freedom of will?''

Give your definition of the word 'free' - a definition that is compatible with the deterministic nature of a brain (which you say you agree with), thereby giving a reasoned argument for compatibalism and free will?

Thank you

Can I take it you now accept this is a semantic dispute - a dispute about the possible meanings of the word 'free'?

 

[DBT]

Then why not give an example of what you mean by 'free' or 'freedom of will?''

Give your definition of the word 'free' - a definition that is compatible with the deterministic nature of a brain (which you say you agree with), thereby giving a reasoned argument for compatibalism and free will?

Thank you

Can I take it you now accept this is a semantic dispute - a dispute about the possible meanings of the word 'free'?

I have already pointed out that words are normally used in reference to actual things, events, concepts, etc, for the purpose of communication (the word brain has a specific reference, as does the word neuron, synapses, for example) so it's not just 'semantics' unless we are engaged in an ontological dispute about something that does not exist? gods? free will?

All the same: ontology, philosophizing, and basically inseparable from each thinker/believer's epistemology.

Given free reign with semantics/ontology/personal/epistemology you can construct practically anything that lie in the realm of concepts, but ultimately futile and meaningless. Just like the semantics associated with the poorly defined and irrelevant term 'free will'

Which is of no practical use, but nonetheless, a cherished ideology for some folks.

 

[The AntiChris]

Can I take it you now accept this is a semantic dispute - a dispute about the possible meanings of the word 'free'?

...so it's not just 'semantics'

I'm afraid this just demonstrates your failure to understand the nature of my criticism of your arguments.

You appear not to have appreciated that we agree on all the (relevant) material facts and that we only disagree on the language used to describe those factual states of affairs.

I can't think of any more I can say to convince you that this really is just a dispute about word usage.

 

[DBT]

...so it's not just 'semantics'

I'm afraid this just demonstrates your failure to understand the nature of my criticism of your arguments.

Or it demonstrates your inability to understand that what I said does in fact relate to your so called criticism, which clearly was a comment on the nature of semantics and word use.

And you ignored my request that you give a definition of 'free' or 'freedom' that allows compatibility between freedom (in the form of free will in this instance, and determinism, be it hard determinism, the soft determinism of QM probability or the deterministic architecture of neural networks.

I have to say, it doesn't look hopeful.

You appear not to have appreciated that we agree on all the (relevant) material facts and that we only disagree on the language used to describe those factual states of affairs.

Of course I realize that we have agreed on the material facts of brain architecture and function and your objection is related to the semantics of the words 'free' and 'freedom' - you have stated it several times and I have read what you said.

From my perspective it appears that you cannot relate what I said about the nature of semantics to your objections, which is related to semantics.

I can't think of any more I can say to convince you that this really is just a dispute about word usage.

And again: word usage (communication, semantics) must relate to something more than just 'word usage" in order for words that are being used in the context in which they are being used to have some sort of meaning!

And my request to you was: please provide your definition/meanings/references (semantics) in realtion to the words 'free'' and 'freedom'' that allow compatibility between 'freedom' and 'free will' and determinism...this being a dispute about word usage and word usage having meaning and references (words being symbols)

 

[The AntiChris]

I'm afraid this just demonstrates your failure to understand the nature of my criticism of your arguments.

Or it demonstrates your inability to understand that what I said does in fact relate to your so called criticism, which clearly was a comment on the nature of semantics and word use.

And you ignored my request that you give a definition of 'free' or 'freedom' that allows compatibility between freedom (in the form of free will in this instance, and determinism, be it hard determinism, the soft determinism of QM probability or the deterministic architecture of neural networks.

I have to say, it doesn't look hopeful.

You appear not to have appreciated that we agree on all the (relevant) material facts and that we only disagree on the language used to describe those factual states of affairs.

Of course I realize that we have agreed on the material facts of brain architecture and function and your objection is related to the semantics of the words 'free' and 'freedom' - you have stated it several times and I have read what you said.

From my perspective it appears that you cannot relate what I said about the nature of semantics to your objections, which is related to semantics.

I can't think of any more I can say to convince you that this really is just a dispute about word usage.

And again: word usage (communication, semantics) must relate to something more than just 'word usage" in order for words that are being used in the context in which they are being used to have some sort of meaning!

And my request to you was: please provide your definition/meanings/references (semantics) in realtion to the words 'free'' and 'freedom'' that allow compatibility between 'freedom' and 'free will' and determinism...this being a dispute about word usage and word usage having meaning and references (words being symbols)

Ok. I give up.

 

[fromderinside]

Ok. I give up.

Causal Determinism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

 

[The AntiChris]

Ok. I give up.

Causal Determinism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Useful link.

 

[fromderinside]

NSRR

 

[DBT]

Or it demonstrates your inability to understand that what I said does in fact relate to your so called criticism, which clearly was a comment on the nature of semantics and word use.

And you ignored my request that you give a definition of 'free' or 'freedom' that allows compatibility between freedom (in the form of free will in this instance, and determinism, be it hard determinism, the soft determinism of QM probability or the deterministic architecture of neural networks.

I have to say, it doesn't look hopeful.

You appear not to have appreciated that we agree on all the (relevant) material facts and that we only disagree on the language used to describe those factual states of affairs.

Of course I realize that we have agreed on the material facts of brain architecture and function and your objection is related to the semantics of the words 'free' and 'freedom' - you have stated it several times and I have read what you said.

From my perspective it appears that you cannot relate what I said about the nature of semantics to your objections, which is related to semantics.

I can't think of any more I can say to convince you that this really is just a dispute about word usage.

And again: word usage (communication, semantics) must relate to something more than just 'word usage" in order for words that are being used in the context in which they are being used to have some sort of meaning!

And my request to you was: please provide your definition/meanings/references (semantics) in realtion to the words 'free'' and 'freedom'' that allow compatibility between 'freedom' and 'free will' and determinism...this being a dispute about word usage and word usage having meaning and references (words being symbols)

Ok. I give up.

Not a surprise, I knew what would eventuate from the moment we started.

I was hoping that you'd give your version of compatibility before you departed, I was interested to see if that had changed.

But in this episode the timing was a little bit off.

Not to worry.

Cheers.

 

[DBT]

Basic as it is, if what I said about words being symbols that are used to represent objects, events, ideas, etc, for the purpose of communication is difficult to grasp, this article may help;

''A symbol is an object that represents, stands for, or suggests an idea, visual image, belief, action, or material entity. Symbols take the form of words, sounds, gestures, or visual images and are used to convey ideas and beliefs. For example, a red octagon may be a symbol for "STOP". On a map, a picture of a tent might represent a campsite. Numerals are symbols for numbers. Alphabetic letters are symbols for sounds. Personal names are symbols representing individuals. A red rose symbolizes love and compassion.''

 

[Togo]

But it is not just a semantic dispute. Words being merely symbols used to represent objects, events and concepts, etc, for the purpose of communication of information.

What I did was provide references to the meaning of the concept of 'freedom' just as the word represents, nothing more, nothing less, in relation to what is currently understood about the workings of the brain.

If decision making is determined by brain condition, as the evidence from neuroscience supports, decision making has no independent 'freedom' whatsoever. It cannot do whatever it pleases because it is neural information exchange that determines decision making and not 'free' will.

Semantics? Yes, indeed, but semantics with references to actual states and actual processes.

I'm afraid this response makes no sense to me. If anyone has been following this exchange and thinks they can help out, please do.

It's not just you.

The argument DBT is making is that his definitions are correct, and yours are not. Thus he's talking about reality, not semantics, because he's discussing what the words really mean.

 

[The AntiChris]

I'm afraid this response makes no sense to me. If anyone has been following this exchange and thinks they can help out, please do.

It's not just you.

The argument DBT is making is that his definitions are correct, and yours are not. Thus he's talking about reality, not semantics, because he's discussing what the words really mean.

What you're describing is semantics.

 Semantics:

Semantics (from Ancient Greek: σημαντικός sēmantikós, "significant") is the study of meaning.

The standard way of resolving these disputes is to look at how the word is commonly used to find out what people really mean when they use the word.

My impression is that there are at least two meanings of 'free will' in common usage.

 

[Togo]

Yes, I know.

I think the logical flaws in his approach are obvious to you. He is claiming that he must be right, because he meets the definition, and that the definition must be right, because it matches what he means. Thus if you mean anything different, you must be wrong.

As I said, it's not just you that has difficulty with this.

There are indeed several different meanings of the term free will, that depend largely on what will is and what it is supposed to be free from. Compatibalism is generally about freedom from coercion, although there's a popular straw man argument that tries to claim it's about freedom from any form of influence and is thus incoherent. Libertarian Free Will is about freedom from determination (or predetermination), although there's a popular straw man argument that tries to claim it's about rejecting any form of cause and effect and is thus incoherent. Arguments about determinism tend to feature Libertarian Free Will, while arguments about moral responsibility tend to feature compatibilist free will.

 

[DBT]

That's utter nonsense, Togo. I clearly use standard definitions for all words, terms and references...and support these with links and quotes to relevant source material.

 

[Juma]

That's utter nonsense, Togo. I clearly use standard definitions for all words, terms and references...and support these with links and quotes to relevant source material.

But who decided what is a "standard definition"?
Definitions are totally arbitrary, you and who you discuss with must first acknoeledge the same definitions. If not then the discussion is totally meaningless.

Discussing "free will" is espacially hard in this respect since there are many totally different things that people have chosen to call "free will": everything from a totally autonomous soul (libertarian free will) to not human behavior when being at gunpoint (and beyond). Theese are really totally different subjects and having the same name for them is catastrophal.

 

[DBT]

Yes, I know.

Yet your response demonstrates that you in fact don't know.

I think the logical flaws in his approach are obvious to you. ''He is claiming that he must be right, because he meets the definition, and that the definition must be right, because it matches what he means.'' Thus if you mean anything different, you must be wrong.

No, that is you twisting what I said to suit your own needs and thereby grossly misrepresenting my argument.

Your claim - ''He is claiming that he must be right'' is just an example of your underhanded tactics, I made no such claim, or any suggestion of it.

I simple presented a standard argument from the perspective of incompatibalism, and on top of that included some reasons why quantum indeterminism is not a good argument for free will.

So I get some self styled mind reader response - ''He is claiming that he must be right, because ...'' yet my [standard] argument that freedom of will is incompatible with determinism has not been addressed.

Which is a working definition of 'free' or 'freedom' (which I provided), this being the nature nature and attributes of freedom, in relation to either determinism, or an argument for free will related to QM.

As I said, it's not just you that has difficulty with this.

Duh, anyone who happens argue for any given proposition against someone who disagrees with that proposition may complain about difficulties. Talkfreethought is full of arguments for and against this, that, or the other. And someone regularly gets their nose out of joint.

 

[DBT]

That's utter nonsense, Togo. I clearly use standard definitions for all words, terms and references...and support these with links and quotes to relevant source material.

But who decided what is a "standard definition"?
Definitions are totally arbitrary, you and who you discuss with must first acknoeledge the same definitions. If not then the discussion is totally meaningless.

I used dictionary quotes for the word 'free' and 'freedom' - which may be taken to mean that this is what people understand the words 'free' or 'freedom' to mean.

Nothing added, no unusual interpretations, just standard definitions. Straight from an English dictionary.

Discussing "free will" is espacially hard in this respect since there are many totally different things that people have chosen to call "free will": everything from a totally autonomous soul (libertarian free will) to not human behavior when being at gunpoint (and beyond). Theese are really totally different subjects and having the same name for them is catastrophal.

Sure, it's a mess. The subject matter is a dogs breakfast.

I'd say the idea of free will has to be related to nature of the brain and how it produces decisions and their related actions. The brain and brain state being the sole agency of decision making and motor response. This is true regardless of the presence or absence of external coercion. It is still brain state that determines response to coercion. Being free from coercion is not free will, just an absence of coercion.

 

[fromderinside]

That's utter nonsense, Togo. I clearly use standard definitions for all words, terms and references...and support these with links and quotes to relevant source material.

But who decided what is a "standard definition"?
Definitions are totally arbitrary, you and who you discuss with must first acknoeledge the same definitions. If not then the discussion is totally meaningless.

Discussing "free will" is espacially hard in this respect since there are many totally different things that people have chosen to call "free will": everything from a totally autonomous soul (libertarian free will) to not human behavior when being at gunpoint (and beyond). Theese are really totally different subjects and having the same name for them is catastrophal.

Standard definition and common usage generally have the same important attribute of being useful for advancing communication among parties. Once in a while there may be a need to rethink definitions, but even then, the goal will to be an improvement in communication.

Its like some idiot trying to impute genomic meaning to language structures and then trying to redefine what genomic understanding means when they fail, for some altogether different reason like not understanding genetics, at all to be coherent.*

*^{_{My Chomsky synopsis all wrapped up with a ribbon.}}

 

[untermensche]

The most a dictionary definition can do is throw you a few hints.

They are not the final word on anything, barely the first.

 

[NobleSavage]

Just don't bring it up when you're flirting with a cute girl at the bar.

If you have to misrepresent yourself to get a phone number, do you really want the phone number?

If she has a cute face and nice ass, yeah! My current girlfriend would have absolutely no interest in a free will discussion. She is far from dumb, but she just doesn't enjoy intellectual BS that servers no purpose other than mental masturbation. We have other interests in common though.