Philosophy Now Forum

Sam Harris is ultimately a mage who is attempting to alter reality. But this is what makes him so awesome. Biggs's and other's point is that if what Harris is saying is true, these people have to believe in freewill because it was determined... so why become a militant determinist?

Basically, what Sam is doing is trying to access the quantum border field of our particular reality brane and cause a self-referential determistic loop to spontaneously form and set a four dimensional arrow of time determined by non-euclidean freewill in motion at the very moment of the conclusion of one of his lectures on freewill.

Science supports the existence of free will
By Neil Mahto at the Johns Hopkins News-Letter April 2024

In classical physics, I can use Newton’s equations to predict exactly how something is going to move: I know with exact precision where something will be at any given time. At the quantum level for subatomic particles, this argument fails.

I can only note that given the gap between what scientists think they do understand about quantum interactions "here and now" and all that can be known about them, some will basically just shrug that part off and cling to the assumption they have already grasped the implications of that in their very own theory of everything on their very own one true path. God or No God.

Instead of Newton’s equations, we have wave functions mapping the probability that something is in any given spot at any given time. In summary, there is an inherent uncertainty about where and when particles are: They are purely random and dictated by probability. Because of probabilistic truths in the universe, I believe free will to exist.

Purely random interactions dictated by probability? Would someone here care to take a stab at how that is manifested in their own daily life in regard to value judgments. What, just assume that QM and cosmogeny will never be probed deeper such that startling new discoveries are made in the future?

It's just that sans God -- a God, the God, your God -- none of us are likely to be around to be properly astonished by them.

Neuroscientists argue that information about your decisions is present in brain activity several seconds before you are even conscious of this decision. This would surely disprove free will. This is known as “the readiness potential,” and it has been demonstrated experimentally many times, showing a delay of as much as several seconds between the neural processing of a decision and the agent’s consciousness of this decision.

On the other hand...

However, an article in Scientific American recently showed that these readiness potential experiments, while valid, do not signal the end of free will. Neuroscientist Benjamin Libet’s landmark study, which first demonstrated the readiness potential effect, focused that on the trivial task of pressing a button or participants’ flexing their wrists. I argue that these actions are irreflective of our consciousness because they are meaningless. A decision such as breaking up with a long-term romantic partner is not quite as subconscious and cannot be explained by the “readiness potential.”

Okay, what are some of the post-Libet's experiments indicating what really does unfold inside the brain when we do breakup with a long-term romantic partner. The part where a consensus among neuroscientists has now been reached indicating that human autonomy is all but a sure thing?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 12:01 pm Sam Harris is ultimately a mage who is attempting to alter reality. But this is what makes him so awesome. Biggs's and other's point is that if what Harris is saying is true, these people have to believe in freewill because it was determined... so why become a militant determinist?

Basically, what Sam is doing is trying to access the quantum border field of our particular reality brane and cause a self-referential deterministic loop to spontaneously form and set a four-dimensional arrow of time determined by non-Euclidean freewill in motion at the very moment of the conclusion of one of his lectures on freewill.

There is no compatibilism simply because there is neither free will nor determinism. The cosmos, like evolutionary biology, has no goal, no destination, it is an endless process without direction. As the cosmos, so the earth and its creatures, they are all indeterminate. They are one, ever in sync with the larger reality of the cosmos, plastic in nature, indeterminate in direction. So, a creature is Earth, a creature is the cosmos, indeterminate and ever new. The earth and its creatures, in a different sense, are compatible with the cosmos, in their common indeterminism, for they are one.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:28 pm As the cosmos, so the earth and its creatures, they are all indeterminate.

And by that, you mean there are things that happen that have no reason, even in principle, for why they happened?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 2:07 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:28 pm As the cosmos, so the earth and its creatures, they are all indeterminate.

And by that, you mean there are things that happen that have no reason, even in principle, for why they happened?

Everything you could say is process, the totality of which is beyond the human intellect. People do not act, they react, reaction is how one is part of the world. For all beings react to the presence of all other beings, one's being is cause to your outside world. There is a certain logic to the cause and reaction in a reciprocal process, within a limited timeframe, it is consciously understandable, but it is very limited. One should keep in mind that there is no such thing as an independent existence. If the cosmos and biological evolution have no goal, are indeterminate, what makes you think earth's creatures are anything but indeterminate? If one follows the indeterminate, does that mean one has direction?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 8:56 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 2:07 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:28 pm As the cosmos, so the earth and its creatures, they are all indeterminate.

And by that, you mean there are things that happen that have no reason, even in principle, for why they happened?

Everything you could say is process, the totality of which is beyond the human intellect. People do not act, they react, reaction is how one is part of the world. For all beings react to the presence of all other beings, one's being is cause to your outside world. There is a certain logic to the cause and reaction in a reciprocal process, within a limited timeframe, it is consciously understandable, but it is very limited. One should keep in mind that there is no such thing as an independent existence. If the cosmos and biological evolution have no goal, are indeterminate, what makes you think earth's creatures are anything but indeterminate? If one follows the indeterminate, does that mean one has direction?

I'm sorry but that just doesn't answer my question, and it just looks like word salad. I'm not even sure at this point what you mean by 'indeterminate', so you saying that word again another 3 or 4 times isn't helping me right now.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 9:11 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 8:56 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 2:07 pm

And by that, you mean there are things that happen that have no reason, even in principle, for why they happened?

Everything you could say is process, the totality of which is beyond the human intellect. People do not act, they react, reaction is how one is part of the world. For all beings react to the presence of all other beings, one's being is cause to your outside world. There is a certain logic to the cause and reaction in a reciprocal process, within a limited timeframe, it is consciously understandable, but it is very limited. One should keep in mind that there is no such thing as an independent existence. If the cosmos and biological evolution have no goal, are indeterminate, what makes you think earth's creatures are anything but indeterminate? If one follows the indeterminate, does that mean one has direction?

I'm sorry but that just doesn't answer my question, and it just looks like word salad. I'm not even sure at this point what you mean by 'indeterminate', so you saying that word again another 3 or 4 times isn't helping me right now.

Flannel Gee-Zeus!

Indeterminate means, that which has no direction. It is journeying to be. Biology is plastic to adapt to a changing world, it is following an indeterminate path, ever-changing, if ever so slowly. Your question, do things happen for a reason, do you mean other than cause and reaction, like a purpose to all things that happen? Possibly, if it is to follow the larger indeterminate reality of an ever-changing world.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:32 am Your question, do things happen for a reason, do you mean other than cause and reaction, like a purpose to all things that happen?

I was trying to gauge if maybe when you say indeterminate, you mean indeterministic. I'm pretty sure you don't but not completely sure.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:46 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:32 am Your question, do things happen for a reason, do you mean other than cause and reaction, like a purpose to all things that happen?

I was trying to gauge if maybe when you say indeterminate, you mean indeterministic. I'm pretty sure you don't but not completely sure.

Yes, indeterministic means without determinism, without a predetermined goal.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:50 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:46 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:32 am Your question, do things happen for a reason, do you mean other than cause and reaction, like a purpose to all things that happen?

I was trying to gauge if maybe when you say indeterminate, you mean indeterministic. I'm pretty sure you don't but not completely sure.

Yes, indeterministic means without determinism, without a predetermined goal.

Determinism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with goals. Most people talking about determinism aren't talking about goals.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:53 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:50 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:46 am
I was trying to gauge if maybe when you say indeterminate, you mean indeterministic. I'm pretty sure you don't but not completely sure.

Yes, indeterministic means without determinism, without a predetermined goal.

Determinism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with goals. Most people talking about determinism aren't talking about goals.

Determinism means everything is predetermined, if something is predetermined, it has a goal, its outcome is set

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:57 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:53 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:50 am

Yes, indeterministic means without determinism, without a predetermined goal.

Determinism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with goals. Most people talking about determinism aren't talking about goals.

Determinism means everything is predetermined, if something is predetermined, it has a goal, its outcome is set

So you're unfamiliar with causal determinism then?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:59 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:57 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:53 am

Determinism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with goals. Most people talking about determinism aren't talking about goals.

Determinism means everything is predetermined, if something is predetermined, it has a goal, its outcome is set

So you're unfamiliar with causal determinism then?

Explain please.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:08 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:59 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:57 am

Determinism means everything is predetermined, if something is predetermined, it has a goal, its outcome is set

So you're unfamiliar with causal determinism then?

Explain please.

Causal determinism (which is what most people are talking about when they say determinism these days) doesn't have any specific end or goal in mind. It's just a system that evolves from one state to another state, past to future, in a consistent (perhaps rule-based) way. Newtonian physics is an example of a deterministic system. It doesn't have a goal, it just has rules.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:29 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:08 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:59 am

So you're unfamiliar with causal determinism then?

Explain please.

Causal determinism (which is what most people are talking about when they say determinism these days) doesn't have any specific end or goal in mind. It's just a system that evolves from one state to another state, past to future, in a consistent (perhaps rule-based) way. Newtonian physics is an example of a deterministic system. It doesn't have a goal, it just has rules.

https://www.bing.com/search?qs=UT&pq=de ... A1&PC=ACTS

That inevitability is determined by what its collective past dictates it to be, meaning free will is not possible.