Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.

Disagreement with Sam Harris about Free Will | Yaron Brook and Lex Fridman

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 12 лис 2020
  • Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Yaron Brook: Ayn Rand ...
    Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
    - Blinkist: blinkist.com/lex and use code LEX to get 25% off premium
    - ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free
    - Cash App: cash.app/ and use code LexPodcast to get $10
    PODCAST INFO:
    Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
    Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
    Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
    Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
    CONNECT:
    - Subscribe to this UA-cam channel
    - Twitter: / lexfridman
    - LinkedIn: / lexfridman
    - Facebook: / lexfridmanpage
    - Instagram: / lexfridman
    - Medium: / lexfridman
    - Support on Patreon: / lexfridman

КОМЕНТАРІ • 386

  • @prachethire812
    @prachethire812 3 роки тому +116

    Let's have Sam Harris on Lex's podcast. It would be great.

    • @BodilessVoice
      @BodilessVoice 3 роки тому +2

      I think that Lex is too much more intelligent than Sam. That's when Sam is boring, whenever he is less intelligent than those around him. (Interesting with Joe Rogan, boring with Jordan Peterson. You understand.)

    • @collinsmcrae
      @collinsmcrae 3 роки тому +22

      @@BodilessVoice Madness. I don’t think Lex is half the thinker Sam is (yet, anyway). His show is fun, but he brings very little of his own insight or ideas to the table.
      I would also argue that Peterson is bombastic, clearly very intelligent and interesting, but Sam is a far more articulate and precise logician. I actually found Peterson to be the more boring half of their discussions. Dude couldn’t even land on a sensible definition of truth, which is what derailed the whole thing.
      Rogan isn’t even in the discussion. He’s just a comedian who interviews people.

    • @DaveJohnsonsuvam
      @DaveJohnsonsuvam 3 роки тому +12

      @@collinsmcrae When I first started listening to youtube debates I was really for fun trying to score people on just their rational clarity, I found out that more than anyone else that Sam Harris has unbelievable amounts of it. I do not always agree with him, but I just feel he tries to speaks from a very deep emotion-free and deconstructed perspective.

    • @takkiejakkie5458
      @takkiejakkie5458 3 роки тому +8

      ​@@BodilessVoice Sam Harris' realization about "free will" is actually one of the rare philosophical breakthroughs worth reading about. The realization itself probably predates Sam Harris by centuries, but it's being talked about way too little. What you're saying here about Sam's level of intelligence seems very ignorant.

    • @BodilessVoice
      @BodilessVoice 3 роки тому +5

      @@takkiejakkie5458 No, what Sam has to say about freewill is the least original and interesting thing he has to say. That you think he is original on that topic means that you are essentially ignorant about the way that the topic has been dealt with for millennia. He is dressing up fatalism in sciencey speak. That is but bullshit artistry, and no surprise, because bullshit artistry will do for most people in an era that hasn't any clarity on how to either perceive or actualize truth in practice.

  • @MrCBTman
    @MrCBTman 3 роки тому +102

    This dude doesn't understand the position he's criticizing.

    • @vtwintora
      @vtwintora 3 роки тому +3

      lol

    • @HarshAnalysis
      @HarshAnalysis 3 роки тому

      LEX FRIDMAN OUT OF CONTEXT. Hope you love this.
      ua-cam.com/video/UqD_blsiSD4/v-deo.html

    • @banorris49
      @banorris49 3 роки тому +2

      It comes across as if he’s given it very little thought

    • @afen5252
      @afen5252 3 роки тому

      @@kurokamei haha nice one

    • @jackallenproductions
      @jackallenproductions 3 роки тому +4

      Best thing about this comment is that is nearly universally applicable to any take Yaron gives.
      I havent once seen him avoid strawmanning a position he argues against.

  • @DaveSmith-mv8ex
    @DaveSmith-mv8ex 3 роки тому +46

    He massively misrepresents what Sam's standpoint on this is.

    • @seanbergam4344
      @seanbergam4344 3 роки тому +1

      I totally agree. If he listens to Sam’s latest podcast episode (#240) he lays it out pretty clearly. He’s telling people that free will doesn’t exist because he believes in their ability in to change in response to new information, regarding people as systems or processes whose behavior can be influenced by different inputs. Not because he believes they have a capacity to choose.

  • @OisinNolanChannel
    @OisinNolanChannel 3 роки тому +51

    But did you choose to introspect ? Did you choose to choose to introspect ? etc.

    • @andrew6846
      @andrew6846 3 роки тому +11

      Everything we think and do, and will think and do, was set off by a series of causes and effects that are well out of our control.

    • @MinecraftMasterNo1
      @MinecraftMasterNo1 3 роки тому +1

      @@andrew6846
      Observer effect: Am I a joke to you?

    • @andrew6846
      @andrew6846 3 роки тому +4

      @@MinecraftMasterNo1 is the observer not a part of the cycle of cause and effect?

    • @MinecraftMasterNo1
      @MinecraftMasterNo1 3 роки тому +3

      @@andrew6846
      You know that saying about insanity and doing the same thing expecting different results?
      Not so much with quantum mechanics.

    • @johndoesson
      @johndoesson 3 роки тому +1

      @@MinecraftMasterNo1 Isn't that just interference of instruments measuring, causing differences to occur.

  • @TRayTV
    @TRayTV 3 роки тому +29

    "He wants to change our minds so he believes we have the capacity to choose."
    Semantic argument: If he's changing your mind, you are not changing your mind therefore you don't need to choose.
    Empirical argument: We almost never choose what we believe. The world confronts us with sensory and cultural information and that which makes the most sense to us is what we believe.
    If freewill is an illusion and you know you have freewill because you observe it... how does that make it NOT illusion? Saying that we don't understand that we are being tricked, or how we're being tricked, does not mean we're not being tricked.
    The more we learn from Neuroeconomics the more we see the mechanics of decision making. Experiment shows decisions are made subconsciously before we even realize a decision has been made.
    For any given decision we should be able to answer, "What could have caused you to choose differently?" Anyone unable to name an environmental, experiential or genetic counter-factual that would have resulted in an alternate decision is being obtuse, probably deliberately. A possible exception might be randomly choosing between things we don't care about. But even then if you ask someone to pick a number randomly 1000 times some numbers will be favored suggesting preference or method are perhaps always present.

    • @A_friend_of_Aristotle
      @A_friend_of_Aristotle 2 роки тому +8

      "If he's changing your mind, you are not changing your mind therefore you don't need to choose."
      This makes absolutely no sense. If you are not changing your mind in response to an argument there is no mind to change. If two people disagree about something, an argument that provides one person the opportunity to examine their own premises in comparison to reality will only change their mind if they accept it...the accepting part being an act of free will.
      You can choose to accept a fact or ignore it. This is the agency Yaron is talking about...you have the choice to think or avoid the effort. Harris does undermine his own premise, and the fact that he does it at the semantic level means his error is in the language he chooses to use. He doesn't define his terms; Harris gets lost because he is attempting to turn his own reasoning mind against itself. *_Consciousness is identification._*

  • @andrew6846
    @andrew6846 3 роки тому +134

    The guest completely misses the mark here. It’s called the “illusion” of free will for a reason- because it’s convincing. His argument is essentially that we experience free will so it must be objectively real as well. What Sam and others like him argue is that our experiences and sense of free will is based on mechanisms that were either based in biology or our environment- both of which are out of our control. As an example, many people would instinctively say that love is a real thing, right? Well it’s really just a series of chemical reactions that happen in our brain that happens for a variety of complex reasons. At the end of the day though, we have no real control over how and when these chemical reactions are set off.

    • @aezakmei
      @aezakmei 3 роки тому +12

      The world isn't mechanistic and deterministic. Look up quantum mechanics. Surprisingly, Harris ignores quantum mechanics...

    • @andrew6846
      @andrew6846 3 роки тому +7

      @@aezakmei I’ve studied quantum mechanics a bit, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the argument for a deterministic universe. I suggest looking into Laplace’s demon. How quantum particles interact with one another is still based in cause and effect, even if we aren’t sophisticated enough yet to understand the causes and effects.

    • @aezakmei
      @aezakmei 3 роки тому +10

      @@andrew6846 ​ Here's an experiment for you. Try not to exert willpower on anything. Only let your impulses take over and watch yourself, relax your mind. Do that for a week. If will was as deterministic as our habits, then it would be easy and require no effort? Since habits go off automatically because they were practiced over and over.
      I know this isn't a proof per se, but it is a hint. I used to think there's no free will, but a lot of introspection and experimentation with my will proved the opposite for me.

    • @aezakmei
      @aezakmei 3 роки тому +4

      @@umblnc I don't believe in randomness either. There is something in between randomness and determinism.

    • @497novakl
      @497novakl 3 роки тому

      @@andrew6846 Not really. Isn't that based on differing interpretations of QM? Some of which conflict against others.

  • @zacharychristy8928
    @zacharychristy8928 3 роки тому +36

    I see his point, but I think the issue is that agency, and the illusion of agency are identical to the observer.

    • @Tyrgoth99
      @Tyrgoth99 3 роки тому +3

      @@doughntworry the other factor in his description of what he perceives as the definition of free will as the observer of the self retrospect, creates a self instantiating concept as the foundation for his argument. Meaning he rephrases the old 'thought is taking place, therefore there is that which thinks' and applies it to the existence of free will. An interesting hypothesis, but a very poor philosophical argument, just like Descartes' was. I agree with Zachary, how does he discern his perception as real from the classic Evil Deceiver? He doesn't.

    • @nocare
      @nocare 3 роки тому +1

      he alsos argues about defining terms then uses the term free will without defining it.
      The argument against free will is almost exclusively directed at religious definitions of it. That your choices and decisions are not a product of your brain and your environment but instead a nebulous undefined choice arising from (undefined location).
      Freedom of agency and Free Will should remain separate terms IMO.

    • @HarshAnalysis
      @HarshAnalysis 3 роки тому

      LEX FRIDMAN OUT OF CONTEXT. Hope you love this.
      ua-cam.com/video/UqD_blsiSD4/v-deo.html

    • @A_friend_of_Aristotle
      @A_friend_of_Aristotle 2 роки тому

      @@nocare Free will is selection in the face of an alternative. The fact that people choose things that lead to their demise proves that it is not an automatic function of the body. Ideas, values, tastes...all play a part in every choice we make. Some people hold bad ideas...some have no conscious values. They all make choices.
      Your respiration, blood circulation, digestion - and the countless other life supporting functions - are automatically carried out by our consciousness. However, human beings cannot survive on autopilot like other animals; we are helpless unless we _reason._
      Without free will - the potential to make choices - we would not be human. Without reasoning, we would have gone extinct long ago. Man is the Reasoning Animal. Guess who taught me that... 🙂

    • @nocare
      @nocare 2 роки тому

      ​@@A_friend_of_Aristotle I argue that what you are talking about does not agree with the religious definition of free will.
      What you are describing is what I would call Freedom of Agency.
      The religious definition of free will can be broken down as the ability to have chosen diffrent despite the circumstances being identical.
      I.E. that reasoning is neither a deterministic process or a random process or a combination of the two.
      I see this as an important problem for many reasons. One of the biggest is how we view other humans.
      Instead of viewing people's decisions as a products of their knowledge, circumstances, beliefs, and abstractions. They inherently are 100% at fault for any decision they make.
      There is no possibility for society to have failed a person or for someone to change thru rehabilitation.
      Only god can change a person because choices are an ethereal part of someone's nature not a product of any aspect of their lives on earth.
      Secondly this distinction removes the notion of free will being an excuse for god's decisions because Freedom of Agency is a trait that is both portrayed by other animals and possible to artificially create.
      Humans are not special in the capability to have freedom of agency only the degree to which it is useful.
      A human, a chimp, and a dog and all reason and make decisions that promote their personal agency. They just differ in how complex their models of the world are and thus how far into the future they can predict and how accurate those predictions are.
      Thus ultimately affecting how good the result of the reasoning is.

  • @patrickconnor2913
    @patrickconnor2913 3 роки тому +14

    I had no choice but to watch this video

    • @mirmarashi87
      @mirmarashi87 3 роки тому

      You ve free will but you ve to train it otherwise you re just a victim of manipulation

    • @mirmarashi87
      @mirmarashi87 3 роки тому

      @Trent Michael yes there exists natural borders where you are limited in your free will, but I know that we are capable of pushing the borders as humans.
      Humans tend to fall in that comfortzone and their psyche, intellect or whatever you want call it, to command over their soul.
      As human it is a pleasure for me to master the trinity of myself which is my body, mind(psyche, intellect) and soul.
      Of course I’m just one random dude on the internet but whoever is that far, will understand me.
      Peace

    • @HarshAnalysis
      @HarshAnalysis 3 роки тому

      LEX FRIDMAN OUT OF CONTEXT. Hope you love this.
      ua-cam.com/video/UqD_blsiSD4/v-deo.html

  • @TRayTV
    @TRayTV 3 роки тому +3

    This is baffling.
    He understands that the table exists but it is perceived differently.
    And surely he understands that the table is a collection of particles and fields even though he can't experience it that way.
    But for choice, freewill, he assumes that the perceived experience *is* the whole truth?
    This hardly seems scientific.

    • @TRayTV
      @TRayTV 3 роки тому

      @@kurokamei Yes, cogito ergo sum. But consciousness is imperfect (incomplete) and is insufficient to validate free will.

  • @John-lw7bz
    @John-lw7bz 3 роки тому +4

    No matter how deep you go in this rabbit hole you still end up with either a super chaotic physical system or magic. Even if that magic makes you feel good about thinking you are not a chaotic collection of neurons influenced by what you eat, what you see, what you read, input from other senses, electric fields(some cool stuff can be done by electrically stimulating certain parts of the brain or "combing neurons" making you more confident or act like a psychopath for a limited time etc. ), etc that makes some neurons fire somewhere.

  • @David-id6jw
    @David-id6jw 3 роки тому +1

    The subjective experience of free will is one among many definitions used to describe "free will". It's usually insufficiently related to the general definition of the term which is used to suggest that free will doesn't exist, and thus not a helpful argument or counterargument. Similarly for the moral perspective of "free will". Instead, I'll look more at the 'objectivist' version of "free will".
    Free will is said to not exist due to determinism, which means all your actions are predetermined. Predeterminism is the inversion of the idea of predictability. Predictability says that, given the state of a system at time t-1, you can know exactly what it will be at time t. Also, that this applies to all t from t=0 (or 1, if you want to ignore the singularity of the big bang) to now.
    There are three problems with that argument:
    1) You _cannot_ know the state of a system, as a whole. For example, even with infinitely perfect knowledge, knowledge of a position means you _cannot_ know the momentum. And if you don't know both, you can't perfectly predict the consequences of that item's behavior.
    2) The system's behavior is chaotic. Without perfect knowledge of the starting state, subsequent behavior will necessarily diverge in ways that you cannot predict. And we already showed that you can't have perfect knowledge.
    3) It is a dependency cascade. To know the state at t, you need to know the state at t-1; to know t-1, you must know t-2; etc. Even ignoring the other problems, you must know the state at t=0 in order to derive all the rest of the states, which means predictability requires knowledge on the scale of the age of the universe. It's not just that you 'can' know any universe state at any arbitrary time if you know the state at any other time, but rather that you _must_ know _all_ states in order to know _any_ state. Consequently, "If some entity knows everything about everything that ever has or ever will happen, it will know what any choice you make will be." Which is a bit of a tautology, and meaningless in terms of determining whether free will exists.
    So, given a universe at t0, predicting the state of the universe at t1 is fundamentally and intrinsically impossible. Thus predictability based on past state is impossible, which partly neutralizes the argument of predeterminism. The other half of predeterminism is the "hindsight is 20/20" effect. If state S0 can lead to S1, and you see state S1, you can say that it must be the result of the prior state being S0. However if S0 can _also_ lead to S2, saying that S1 is a necessary consequence of S0 is false. That's why predeterminism is insufficient a limit to suggest free will can't exist; you also have to take its inverse, predictability.
    However, while the universe is chaotic, it is not random. It's like the issue of predicting weather vs predicting climate. Predicting weather (the exact state of the system) out beyond a few days is impossible, but predicting climate (the bounds limiting what state the weather can be in) is doable out to a century or more. It's like a Julia Set, which are an infinite number of possible values constrained within a small range of movements. And the problem is that people use "free will" as the term to define both the weather analog and the climate analog.
    The deterministic universe argument essentially claims that "climate" can be predicted, and thus "weather" does not exist.
    This doesn't even get into the possibility of the brain maybe being closer to a quantum computer than a classical computer, and thus subject to quantum indeterminacy. And no, that doesn't make your decisions "random" any more than a Julia Set, or weather, is random. Rather, it introduces a chaotic (unpredictable) element to the decision-making process. This is relevant if you reduce the scope of observation to the individual, rather than the entire universe.
    Overall I believe free will exists because the arguments against it are done in a sort of "spherical frictionless cow" type of reasoning that fails to distinguish terms, and conflates problematic arguments on different scales in order to avoid addressing those problems. Your decisions are predictable in the broad "climate" sense, but that still leaves wide ranges for actual decisions to fall within (either from the broad state of the universe, or possibly even the local state of your brain).

    • @motorhead48067
      @motorhead48067 2 роки тому

      You framed it as “one must know *all* states of the universe to know *any* state of the universe” but it’s just as true that one can know *all* states of the universe by knowing *any* state of the universe.
      And the fact that we can’t in practice know all the variables that are necessary to make predictions about the universe does not mean that the universe is not in principle predetermined. You’re basically arguing that because we don’t know what we will do next, we therefore control what we do next. It’s pretty obvious that the latter does not follow from the former.
      Additionally, it sounds to me like you’re guilty of the fallacy fallacy, or argument from fallacy. The fact that you don’t like the arguments *against* free will as they are presented, does not itself constitute evidence *for* free will.
      You also used the tired compatibilist trick of changing the definition of free will to something like “the local capacity for the brian to make decisions that are not predictable,” as though that’s what anyone means by free will. No one doubts the brain is the proximate cause of decisions, people doubt
      1) that the brian is outside the causal structure in any significant way as to grant it transcendent freedom of choice
      2) that the conscious witness of mental activity can be equated with the decision making process of the brain

  • @patrickkissane4341
    @patrickkissane4341 3 роки тому +2

    Yes you can look at your conciousness, and if you pay attention closely, you witness that you do not choose what arises inside of it. The more aware we become of what arises in conciousness, the more freely we choose what we want to act upon. But still, as sam talks about, all of these happenings in conciousness arise based on a string of prior causes that happen throughout our lives. Somthin along those lines. For instance, all the external stimuli that our brains process throughout our day, happens without our knowing. An example of this could be, imagine walking into a conveint store, there are several posters on the window, you walk by, glance at them, but not throughly paying attention to them. Your conciousness seen them all, but "you" the agent of your conciousness did not. Let's assume there was a poster with a movie titled on their, later that night, "you" decide to watch that movie. Now in this moment, you don't know why you choose this movie, but if you were to rewind the day, you can see that this movie seeped into the subconscious mind, and then entered the concious mind somtime after. Not saying that is certainly the reason why that movie would be choosen, but it does explain how information gets into our minds without us knowing, in turn creating future decisions...its all mysterious

  • @Undone545
    @Undone545 3 роки тому

    Can someone in plain english, state what the characteristics of "free will" are and how that differs from what we have. If it differs? I don't think this particular point is made well enough to agree or disagree but there are interesting conversations being had below using jargon I don't know.

  • @Cavscout101
    @Cavscout101 3 роки тому +2

    Why does he have a picture of Ben Stiller on the thumbnail?

  • @LotusHart01
    @LotusHart01 3 роки тому

    To me, it’s obvious that free will is only a game we play with ourselves.
    But rather that there is a continuously streaming plethora of mechanics at play far before our human system begins picking up on stimuli that causes us to form a reaction, or perhaps an adjustment of sorts. Then, eventually, we adjust to the ever changing external world around us in the form a what our ego consider’s a choice. However, this short interval of awareness is only partial to the greater process. Much of which we don’t notice and are incapable of noticing. Hence, we cannot author a choice that is heavily influenced by what is beyond our comprehension can we? Of course not!
    We do this process every second. Sometimes its done in rapid wavelengths, like changing a radio station to find a pleasant tune. And other times in longer wavelengths, like developing a meaningful friendship with another human.
    It’s the entire concept of life itself. A relationship between the inner world and the outer word. And our singular perception is what limits our ability to know this truth without being helped to see it. So it’s understandable to believe you have free will. But honest self-analysis proves otherwise. Just try it. Try being completely honest with yourself about your life. Try not to make yourself look better than you are, that’s the ego fogging your lenses. But, I digress.
    In short, once our conscience becomes aware of these mechanisms, for lack of a better word, in the intellectually active stage of this process that pumps out reactions like a finely tuned machine, we mistake it for something we authored in our ego.
    *That’s the illusion*
    But really, being aware of our choices is just one stage the same process. The other stages we aren’t aware of, at least not consciously. And certainly not in manners that can be stored to our memory and conveyed with articulate detail later, which would be the case if we did completely author our choices and indeed have free will in the western conception of the term.
    I like to think of it in terms of the light spectrum. The infrareds and ultraviolet scant be seen by the naked eye. Doesn’t make them not real. Also doesn’t mean your eye created the light just because you can see it.
    For what it’s worth

  • @benharris144
    @benharris144 3 роки тому +1

    Speaking of which, when are we due to give that part back to the fish...?

  • @seanj6333
    @seanj6333 3 роки тому +23

    Feeling like you have an “I” is not scientific evidence that this “I” exists. Same goes for free will. All that tells us for sure is that we have these thoughts and feelings.
    We cannot prove an external world exists with 100% certainty either. I think this is likely the case but I’m agnostic on this point because we simply cannot see beyond our own perception. This guy has it all backwards!

    • @JimmyCroissant69
      @JimmyCroissant69 3 роки тому +1

      "We cannot prove an external world exists with 100% certainty either." What are your thoughts on the similarities between this and our current observations of quantum effects only occuring on an atomic scale? If we can experimentally prove quantum effects on a macroscopic scale then I would be inclined to give more credit to to the argument of the external world being influenced by a single observer's observation. Until then I believe that the external world exists in a way that multiple observers can collectively agree on.
      Note: Whether or not we believe in the simulation hypothesis, we can still be individual observers of the external world.

    • @MinecraftMasterNo1
      @MinecraftMasterNo1 3 роки тому

      @@JimmyCroissant69
      Pretty sure the observer effect has a marginal utility. Meaning once you have AN observer, adding a second, third and n-th one does not add much to the equation.

    • @MarioSpassov
      @MarioSpassov 3 роки тому +1

      This is tricky. It's interesting because the opponents of this view have always taken subjectivity to prove the precise opposite point, namely that "objectivity" is fiction. The literature on this is vast but the argument usually goes that whatever you take to be "objective" only makes sense in terms of subjective distinctions and assumptions. Assumptions that cannot be objectively proven to be true.
      Constructivists sound stupid until you talk to someone who has been well trained. In fact they argue as scientists do, that the lack of objectivity makes claims 'merely' subjective, they just go much further, showing that all claims rest on "merely" subjective distinctions. They can point to every single SUBJECTIVE assumption you make when talking about "objective" reality.
      Yaron Brook is right on this, we have absolutely no clue what we are talking about when we talk about causality. And the first thing constructivists will ridicule is a naive notion of push-pull-causality. They won't take causality for granted but make you prove the point "objectively". Which cannot be done. All arguments for causality are circular. They assume it.
      Do arguments like these make you furious? They should. Because they misrepresent what we mean by "objective" reality. We don't mean a reality that is devoid of any subjective perspective looking at it. And vice versa. The equally "offensive" move is to talk about objectivity while seeing subjectivity as a mere contingent fact or "defect". This in itself is a highly subjective idea.
      Do you see the irony in all of this? Subjectivity plays a more important role in what we mean by "objectivity" than both are willing to admit, constructivists and realists alike. Both in other words get subjectivity wrong.
      The most promising approach to bring the half-truths of both sides together that I know of is that of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's theory of framing. Yes, claims about objectivity are rooted in subjective primary metaphors and in subjective frames, but they are restricted by non-subjective and real boundaries.
      And once we have clarified our foundational concepts a space for free will opens up. Free will then becomes something much less magical and less spectacular. It turns out to be something that it always limited, as Aristotle already saw, something that exists within narrow boundaries. But also something that expands. Free will increases.
      As some have said, free will is at the core of subjectivity, to be found in the very act of focusing your attention on something within the spaciousness of consciousness. Attention is free will rightly understood. It is the only area where esse est percipi, where the experience of freedom brings forth the very phenomenon as real fact.
      This is an extended argument bringing together subjective reality and the objective world, not a matter of fact but a matter of conceptual clarification and thus illumination, but put trivially, we all know that the very "friction" we experience when we "activate" attention - attention is difficult, it is almost painful - leads in many cases to the expansion of consciousness.
      Think of any area of expertise. If you don't run away from that friction, your consciousness becomes more differentiated, it sees more distincions, perceives more colors, sees more forms, thinks more refined thoughts. This very act of perceiving these distinctions itself is free will in motion. Free will ends where your consciousness ends.
      And we all know this very effort and friction is a difference that makes a difference. Name it however you want. How it is possible, I don't know.

    • @gabrielduran291
      @gabrielduran291 3 роки тому

      But then what is having the thoughts and feelings?
      I don't know isn't a valid answer. As it presupposes an 'I' which is what you seem to be putting up for debate. Your not allowed to use I.
      If you answer with 'we', I would then ask what is your definition of 'we'? Remember you can't use I or individual members in defining 'we' because that is what you so freely want to doubt.
      This kind of reasoning is self contradictory.

    • @seanj6333
      @seanj6333 3 роки тому

      @@gabrielduran291 I’m not saying you or I (the homo sapiens) don’t exist. Those creatures are the ones having these thoughts and feelings.
      Since this stems from a critique of Sam Harris’s statement that the “self” is an illusion, I’ll let him describe what he means by that: ua-cam.com/video/fajfkO_X0l0/v-deo.html

  • @jaspalchanna4025
    @jaspalchanna4025 3 роки тому +3

    I agree with a lot of what Yaron believes about the role of government and coercion. But damn, he really mischaracterises Sam Harris here

  • @RGVNC
    @RGVNC 3 роки тому +6

    we all make decisions based on our own best interest, self preservation and reproduction demand it. research has shown that the brain will fill in incomplete data based on the sum of it's experience. so people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear and what they believe to be true, as far as they're concerned, is true.

  • @nirvanic
    @nirvanic 3 роки тому +5

    We all experience that we have an I, but an experience does not have to be equivalent to reality as it is. We allow things or thoughts that are not "real" to affect our subjective reality all the time, the feeling of an psychological I or self is just the most persistent and recurring thought.

  • @tux1968
    @tux1968 3 роки тому +30

    This guy is talking out his ass.

    • @blcklstd6156
      @blcklstd6156 3 роки тому

      Lol

    • @eVieww
      @eVieww 3 роки тому

      @@blcklstd6156 he really is though, brook clearly doesn't understand harris's view on this.

    • @HarshAnalysis
      @HarshAnalysis 3 роки тому

      LEX FRIDMAN OUT OF CONTEXT. Hope you love this.
      ua-cam.com/video/UqD_blsiSD4/v-deo.html

  • @boibrad
    @boibrad 3 роки тому

    We have free will within the boundaries of our mechanism. So we do and we do not. I always view it as something similar to a video game like wow or runescape. We have the power to direct our life in specific ways determined by goals and ideas presented to us, but the whole point is to enjoy the game and become better within the character. One could argue that the actions takin in video games are all illusion and there is a "force" beyond determining everything (colors, actions, etc.) and while thats true that doesnt mean we are powerless or that we should just give up. Structures or limits allows us to play, if there was no structure everything would be nothing.

  • @hankthayer7425
    @hankthayer7425 3 роки тому +1

    It always makes me laugh when people insist there is no such thing as free will. We have evidence of it all the time. Every morning I wake up and make a conscious decision about when to get my dead ass out of bed. The fact that we can't measure it does not mean it isn't there. It just means we don't understand it yet.

    • @maxygamer854
      @maxygamer854 9 місяців тому

      I know this is 2 years old, but I can’t believe you made the argument that we do actions therefore there is free will. Totally missing the argument.

    • @hankthayer7425
      @hankthayer7425 9 місяців тому

      @@maxygamer854 I was by passing the argument because the entire idea that there is no such thing as free will is absurd. Everyday people make thousands of decisions. They are empirical evidence of free will.

  • @failfection
    @failfection 3 роки тому

    Hmm observing that the table is there doesn't necessarily mean it's actually there. We assume it is based on consensus and the physical laws we currently understand and observe. Our reality, like consciousness is an assumption, that we think is true but cannot easily be proven.

  • @innerpull
    @innerpull 2 роки тому +2

    Absolutely agree about evolutionary psychology's hubris in narrative exposition. Let's not get ahead of ourselves... Also completely agree that the subjective is the vehicle of objectivity.

  • @mikechang6737
    @mikechang6737 3 роки тому +1

    Not sure if Yaron is Strawmanning Sam or genuinely doesn't understand. It seams like he really has no idea what he's talking about. All he does is define Free will in such a narrow way it becomes useless, it is still either deterministic or random, and is merely a term meaning the ability to choose or introspect. This doesnt even address Sam's argument.

  • @SK-om6tt
    @SK-om6tt 3 роки тому +2

    Get Spira or the monk at Vedanta Ny

  • @QualeQualeson
    @QualeQualeson 3 роки тому

    I mean,.. just because we're able to observe ourselves, that doesn't mean we've escaped our nature and the dictatorship of circumstance beyond our control. I think this is where our species, or brains if you will, faceplants. All these "what is consciousness and/or free will" questions that go round and round in these circles, are rather muddled to me and I suspect are due to our ability to generate complex narratives about ourselves rather than what is necessarily a difficult question. The fact that we possibly have the best brains on earth, does not necessarily make the whole thing mystical. We marvel at our ability to endlessly marvel at ourselves. In other words it's just an extension of the aforementioned narrative. If we could agree that the content of these narratives are the problem rather than our ability to create them, I believe things would look up for us in general.

  • @domaataajs
    @domaataajs 3 роки тому +1

    Weird that he mentions Harris because he speaks like someone who hasn't actually listened to his arguments.

  • @ImproveHumanity
    @ImproveHumanity 3 роки тому

    ACTUALITY VS. REALITY.... NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. ...There is an important difference!
    ...in Actuality, the table exists. And it may perhaps also not exist. ...because Reality is something like a filter... for example, some people who have had a stroke don't always see what is there. They will even draw half of a face because that's all they see [in their reality]. ...their reality is slightly different than one who sees the whole face.
    ...something that could clarify SO MUCH ideas about life. I feel like some of the smartest people overlook this.. and if only they realized it; how much more space and ideas would flourish in their experience of life.

    • @ImproveHumanity
      @ImproveHumanity 3 роки тому +1

      What defines "Reality"? What defines "Actuality"? ...what is possible in reality vs not possible. And what is possible in actuality vs not.

  • @SaranshAnandshowstopper
    @SaranshAnandshowstopper 3 роки тому +1

    no no no no Harris isnt suggesting you have the power to choose to want to change your life, hes just asking you to try and see if whether mindfulness can help you deal with life better. Everybody (in the neuroscience community) agrees that your ego will always exist as long as you have a frontal lobe of your brain intact. And that ego makes you think you have a choice.

  • @peterc.carrier8383
    @peterc.carrier8383 3 роки тому +2

    A lot of critics it seems are misrepresenting Sam Harris' work. He is merely saying that much of our choices are limited by our experiences and environment. Our free will is not absolute. We can only choose among the choices we are aware of. Akin to a multiple choice exam. Life subjectively provides us with limited options.
    My opinion is that the key to expanding our choices is creativity and education.
    I think neither sides of this debate is entirely right or wrong.
    Lex likes to take shots at Harris in a way that makes me wonder if he has really thought this though. It appears to me to be a knee-jerk reaction or confirmation bias on his part as it seemingly strikes a chord in him on an emotional level.

  • @ilhan5515
    @ilhan5515 3 роки тому +21

    Yaron says we can observe our self and there is an "i", but through meditation we also observe that there isn't an "i". I have nothing interesting to add but I thought that was a conundrum in itself.

    • @aezakmei
      @aezakmei 3 роки тому +8

      the "i" is formed from the chaotic potential of the unconscious. And if you, with meditation, break out of "i" and see the unconscious, that doesn't prove that there is no "i".. it just proves that you can break out of "i"

    • @aezakmei
      @aezakmei 3 роки тому +2

      @buymebluepills I don't think it's BS, having had a mystical experience myself. I felt my ego split apart, dissolving, but after that it formed again. To me it seems like they see their ego dissolving, and conclude that it is an illusion. It's almost like saying ice doesn't exist because when it melts, it's water....

    • @MultiJrcastro
      @MultiJrcastro 3 роки тому

      @buymebluepills word

    • @Circulism
      @Circulism 3 роки тому +1

      @@enotdetcelfer Recommending the book "no problem, no self" how nueroscience is catching up to buddhism.Describes experiments that show that the idea of a central observer in control of the brain is somewhat of an illusion and relates it to one of the main tenets of buddhism, the idea of no self, something people in many traditions and through many practices have realized.

    • @ryangee6754
      @ryangee6754 3 роки тому

      The observer is the I..

  • @GHCODPvZ
    @GHCODPvZ 2 роки тому +2

    Also what's funny is everyone's admiration of Sam Harris, while if determinism is true idk why you all praise him since he has no other choice as to be this way (ofc this means you can still like a person but praising someone for their work is a whole different story)

  • @alexeigleizer2225
    @alexeigleizer2225 3 роки тому +1

    If free will is a thing, then what is unfree will supposed to be?

  • @openup8027
    @openup8027 2 роки тому +1

    This guy seems very non nuanced in his understanding- like a smart cab driver .

  • @rikvlasblom4272
    @rikvlasblom4272 Місяць тому

    All one does, is that what is possible. Could have done differently, is a "prediction" (not really) about the past. Which is worthless.
    Basically one can only react with the other parts of the environment in such a way that it connects the past with the future. This leaves out all choice.
    But since we are almost always observing ourselves doing things, we are enormously biased into believing that we have control over these happenings. While in fact, we have no clue at all what exactly is happening within us, nor outside us in the universe. And in fact there is no inside, nor outside, untill we use words to devide reality into such abstractions.

  • @SteveSpears-Kuhlah
    @SteveSpears-Kuhlah 3 роки тому

    He doesn't understand what he is arguing against.
    Typical "Randroid"🙄

  • @austinlburke
    @austinlburke 3 роки тому

    Ignorance does not support an argument for magic. Imagine stumbling upon a black box that no one can open. Imagine smoke comes out of the box. One person claims that given our current, but surely incomplete, understanding physics surely the mechanisms inside the box are driven by physical processes like every other complex mechanism we've so far discovered. Another person says, "Well until we've been able to study and categorize samples from the box and open it up and have a good look around, there's no reason to assume that it conforms to our understanding of everything else!"
    One of these people are blowing smoke.

  • @ZachThom9
    @ZachThom9 3 роки тому

    Similar to Heideggers disagreement with Descartes. “I think therefore I am” - before that one have to reflect on what is this I who thinks. Some might argue that Heideggerian thinking undermines scientific values such as objectivity, which I don’t deny. However, I think he points to a blind spot of scientific inquiry and maybe even a border.

    • @Mutantcy1992
      @Mutantcy1992 3 роки тому

      Something is thinking, therefore that thing exists.

  • @SchlimmShadySmash
    @SchlimmShadySmash 3 роки тому +2

    im so happy seeing in the comments how i dont have to be the guy to call this guy's bogus criticism. he clearly didnt seriously engage with harris' free will stance.

  • @nenirouvelliv
    @nenirouvelliv 3 роки тому +11

    Ironically being an objectivist means denying objective reality when it doesn't match with your personal ideology.

  • @pedestrian_0
    @pedestrian_0 2 роки тому

    To believe you are the thinker is to be thinking without knowing that you're thinking

  • @Age_of_Apocalypse
    @Age_of_Apocalypse 3 роки тому +8

    Yaron Brook, a wise man! Totally agree, we need more information about the brain, way more information; we probably know next to nothing about how this extraordinarily complex thing that is our brain works. People try to compare the working of the brain to how a computer works and the two most likely have absolutely nothing in common.

  • @wingsuiter2392
    @wingsuiter2392 3 роки тому +2

    Flat Earthers use the same logic to prove the Earth is flat as this guy uses to prove freewill.

  • @acidtrungpa4760
    @acidtrungpa4760 3 роки тому +3

    Sorry Lex, but Sam would crash your dream about perfect world in the same way like Dan Carlin and Malice did.

  • @rmonjefferson4640
    @rmonjefferson4640 3 роки тому +1

    The mind is not to be quantified, it's meant not to be figured out period. In a sense, it's our path to existence (past, present and future). Trying to put a scientific measure on the mind is like trying to put a band aide on a broken bone, it won't work. It's like trying to figure out who God/ creator is whether you believe in it or not. There are certain answers we are not meant to find in the state of being, meaning when we "die" we will receive more knowledge and then on to the next stage.

  • @gavingonzalez7174
    @gavingonzalez7174 3 роки тому +6

    Yaron is a breath of fresh air for a lot of people

  • @juliomarin3755
    @juliomarin3755 3 роки тому +1

    He talks jist like Barry Kripr i wonder if thats who he based his character

  • @gavingonzalez7174
    @gavingonzalez7174 3 роки тому +6

    I’ve been looking forward to this interview for soooooo long

  • @ivanzu2069
    @ivanzu2069 3 роки тому

    Evo psych is not unscientific. It's a science built upon two of the most successful scientific fields, Darwinian evolutionary theory and cognitive psychology.

  • @SLC-Smudge42
    @SLC-Smudge42 3 роки тому

    Dude should have just said, ”sorry, that topic is way out of my league. . Next question”.

  • @andyc3012
    @andyc3012 3 роки тому

    If he was not reasomable, he would not have came to this arguement.. there are many rational reasonabilities. He favors one, and that leads to favoring of a specific interpretation and conclusion.

  • @cestlavegan5793
    @cestlavegan5793 3 роки тому +13

    Interesting that the guest has the opposite experience I have when you introspectively observe your consciousness. Every time I try to closely observe the creation of my thoughts, it’s always so clear that they’re just appearing, seemingly out of nowhere. How can one truly author their own thoughts? Answer: they can’t. It’s an illusion, and so are you 🤪

    • @Dixitkushagra175
      @Dixitkushagra175 3 роки тому +2

      Nietzsche

    • @HarshAnalysis
      @HarshAnalysis 3 роки тому

      LEX FRIDMAN OUT OF CONTEXT. Hope you love this.
      ua-cam.com/video/UqD_blsiSD4/v-deo.html

    • @williamthe365dayicebathguy8
      @williamthe365dayicebathguy8 3 роки тому +1

      You can change your thoughts. You can observe and analyse your thoughts. And you don't have to act on thoughts. Stop with this spiritual bypassing no self/everything is an illusion delusion LMAO

    • @cestlavegan5793
      @cestlavegan5793 3 роки тому +2

      @@williamthe365dayicebathguy8 So you know what you’re going to think before you actually think it? You were somehow able to choose your reaction to my comment? I’d argue that you’re not paying close enough attention to your thoughts. Or maybe you’re just god lol

    • @williamthe365dayicebathguy8
      @williamthe365dayicebathguy8 3 роки тому

      ​@@cestlavegan5793 stop gaslighting yourself. it sounds like you have been brainwashed by Nonduality, You can change thoughts. just because some happen randomly doesn't mean you cant change them. Also you can choose your reaction to things. even when you cant there is this thing called having emotional intelligence and control of your emotions and not letting Them control you. clearly you are the one not paying enough attention to your own thoughts or are too scared to take personal responsibility to make changes. Because negative thought patterns and unwanted thoughts are easy to change. Even if what you said was true, like I said thoughts do not cause action or make decisions for you. all you have done is just created a straw man argument "Some thoughts happen randomly therefore everything is an illusion"

  • @thenon-gaapbillionaire3306
    @thenon-gaapbillionaire3306 3 роки тому +21

    This guy doesn't get it. All that we're saying is that your mind is subject to the same causal chain as the rest of the universe.

    • @frankslade33
      @frankslade33 3 роки тому +2

      And all he's saying is that it is not.

    • @luisalcantara9642
      @luisalcantara9642 3 роки тому +2

      @@frankslade33 but it is. Our mind cannot be a separate bubble as it all comes from the same place.

    • @samlloyd672
      @samlloyd672 3 роки тому

      Consciousness and mind aren’t the same thing.

    • @luisalcantara9642
      @luisalcantara9642 3 роки тому

      @@samlloyd672 True. However, it is still under the same causal chain.

    • @tptv5911
      @tptv5911 3 роки тому

      It seems to me that consciousness is the ability to observe the causal chain and the two are therefore separated. "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." The fact we doubt our free will shows that free will exists.

  • @samwise9122
    @samwise9122 3 роки тому

    There is no spoon

  • @alexeigleizer2225
    @alexeigleizer2225 3 роки тому +1

    Free Willy!!

  • @SelfierX3
    @SelfierX3 3 роки тому +1

    The arguments I keep seeing for determinism can be reduce to "we aren't gods therefore" .
    Or because I can't directly control my brain or biology therefore
    free will is an "illusion" because I'm constraint by reality.
    The set of actions I can manifest are directly confined by reality and time therefore the choices I make from the limited options I have are predetermine?
    So the only way to have a will is to be an infinite? That can simultaneously do everything and create everything else that isn't? oh but you don't know what your subconsciousness is doing! and your consciousness is embedded in it so therefore everything you experience has been predetermine?
    Idk the way people argue for determinism is almost religious like. like they are appealing to a creation myth without the God

  • @kerryfry1857
    @kerryfry1857 3 роки тому +1

    This guy doesn't get free will. Or for that matter much else. Sam Harris would tear him a new one. Btw I had no choice but to write this.

  • @collinsmcrae
    @collinsmcrae 3 роки тому

    Experiential free will is certainly real. We definitely feel like it’s true, and conduct our lives as if it is. However, it’s fundamentally logically incoherent to believe that free will is at all consistent with our current understanding of the natural world. It very clearly violates the law of cause and effect. I don’t really even understand why this so difficult to grasp for some people.
    If free will is actually occurring in humans, what the hell does that say about AI? Do we need to build machines that are so complex that free will emerges somehow, completely independent of it’s machinery, and programming?

    • @BHTQ18
      @BHTQ18 2 роки тому

      Why do you think free will violates cause effect? It doesn’t you are just reducing everything to mechanical causation and sidelining a natural phenomenon of emergency and its causation

  • @alexspeciale7748
    @alexspeciale7748 2 роки тому

    This man is confused. He thinks making a choice is free will. The scope of the argument against free will is that there are constraints and external variables determining the thoughts that arise in our minds and choices that we make.

  • @misterparadise9542
    @misterparadise9542 3 роки тому

    He doesn’t seem to know very much about evolutionary psychology. It is scientific in the most basic sense: it’s a theory that generates surprising hypotheses, and then conducts experiments to test those hypotheses. Whenever I hear someone blithely assert that ev psych or anything else is unscientific, I find myself asking, “what exactly do you know about science, anyway?”

  • @endeuinable
    @endeuinable 3 роки тому +11

    It never ceases to amaze me to witness grown ass men being so confused about core topics like free will after a lifetime of thinking and having a fairly large audience/following of their work. His mind resists the idea that free will is an illusion because he thinks it would undermine his belief in personal accountability. The twist is that it wouldn't because free will doesn't have to be real for us to realise that personal accountability is useful and makes everyone's life better. It doesn't matter if you could not have done otherwise, life is better when people are thrown in jail when they commit a crime regardless of whether free will is an illusion or real.

    • @LotusHart01
      @LotusHart01 3 роки тому

      Nice catch

    • @endeuinable
      @endeuinable 3 роки тому

      @@kurokamei Correct. For any given choice, we could not have voluntarily done it otherwise. This applies regardless of a brain choosing a preference or applying reason.

    • @LotusHart01
      @LotusHart01 3 роки тому

      @@endeuinable The way I see it is, yes we have volition. But if you imagine the process of everything involved in human decision-making as a complete portrait inside of a frame 🖼 that volition is only one attribute of the entire picture.
      So we step back to see it more comprehensively.
      And in this volition stage, so to speak, we are cognitively aware of it happening. Then our ego mistakes it for something we authored. But I believe it’s important to realize that mechanics beyond our knowledge were happening before this stage that prevent us from having free will in the western sense of the word.

    • @laoso8776
      @laoso8776 2 роки тому

      What does this have to do with crime?

    • @endeuinable
      @endeuinable 2 роки тому

      @@laoso8776 It was an example of free will not being necessary for establishing consequently based on moral judgements. Some people believe that jailing for crimes only makes sense if the perpetrator has free will. That's not the case and the reason is that even if the perpetrator wasn't ultimately free to not commit the crime, jailing him is still a net benefit for society and possibly for them too.

  • @Talleyhoooo
    @Talleyhoooo 3 роки тому +2

    Omg you disagree with Seth Harris? watch out his minions will destroy you

    • @aezakmei
      @aezakmei 3 роки тому

      exactly...
      and sadly...

  • @trandyan
    @trandyan 3 роки тому +6

    If it is seen that there is a "You", then what is it that is seeing that? (I think it'd be so amazing if more scientists practice nondual self inquiry)

    • @seanj6333
      @seanj6333 3 роки тому +3

      Dead on, I doubt this guy knows what Harris means by no self

    • @trandyan
      @trandyan 3 роки тому +2

      @@seanj6333 Yes. It's so tough though, right? Because it sounds completely contradictory for a seeming Self to say it's not a Self, so the whole notion is dismissed by any subject-object view. Oh well. 'Tis the ultimate cosmic joke!

    • @seanj6333
      @seanj6333 3 роки тому +1

      @@trandyan True it’s counter intuitive. Directly experiencing it is probably the best way to understand it

    • @trandyan
      @trandyan 3 роки тому +1

      @@seanj6333 wouldn't it be awesome if Lex read these comments or a series of them through time, and all of a sudden we see someone like Rupert Spira or Jim Newman on the show? (*Hint hint)

  • @sisyphushappy5200
    @sisyphushappy5200 Рік тому

    I think this guy's talking about volition and not free will.

  • @Mutantcy1992
    @Mutantcy1992 3 роки тому +4

    I'd love to see Lex and Sam Harris talk

  • @steppinrazor4390
    @steppinrazor4390 3 роки тому +1

    Great clip!

  • @peterkirby7546
    @peterkirby7546 3 роки тому

    Nah this guy misses the point. The argument for the deterministic mind is based on fairly irreducible logic. We accept that 'a causes b causes c causes d' as a basic concept in all of physics past a particular size and set of conditions, and part of this is accepting the idea of every action having an equal and opposite reaction. As far as we are aware, 'something' does not ever come from 'nothing' - at least this is true almost all of the time, outside of certain phenomena that we currently just don't yet understand. His two main arguments in this clip seem to be that a) consciousness is one of these things that we don't understand, and b) denying your own personal perception of your own free will is a non-starter. To point 'a' I would say, just because you don't yet understand something doesn't mean that you shouldn't still base your 'best current hypotheses' on overwhelming logical precedent. He seems to me to just not like the idea of a deterministic mind, and so appears to be looking for excuses to discount it. I would argue that he doesn't have a good enough excuse. To point 'b' I would say, well... not meaning to be rude, but it's almost not worth arguing: the fact that personal perception is not reliable, or often even remotely accurate, can be demonstrated in an almost infinite number of ways. Added to this, I would even argue that it is demonstratably possible to 'train' yourself to observe just how unbidden your own thoughts and decisions are, in which case, to use his own position against him, one might use perception to argue that free will is indeed not a thing. (Disclaimer: I am not a qualified scientist, engineer, philospher or anything like. Just a guy who watches youtube videos :) )

  • @CaptainLang
    @CaptainLang 3 роки тому

    Yaron Brook should know from his reading of Ayn Rand that free will is limited to the choice to think or not to think, everything else is determined. I am very disappointed he didn't use this opportunity to explain this important concept of Objectivism!

    • @takkiejakkie5458
      @takkiejakkie5458 3 роки тому

      It's not just limited. It's just not there. It's something we map onto something that will happen the way it will anyway.

    • @CaptainLang
      @CaptainLang 3 роки тому

      @@takkiejakkie5458 Thinking takes a lot of effort... you have to choose to do it. The thinking I talking about is where you gain understanding and form new concepts. This is making new maps! I suggest you check your premises.

    • @takkiejakkie5458
      @takkiejakkie5458 3 роки тому +1

      @@CaptainLang The fact that thinking takes effort doesn't change anything about the fact that free will is an "illusion". It's like people don't understand the concept of a brain being matter just like anything else and that it therefore is tied to the laws of nature. Free will and pure randomness are terms that start to break down once you really try to define them. I challenge you to. And even if you'd suppose there was some magic happening inside our brains: what would make that thing non-deterministic? In fact: what would it even mean for anything or any existence to be non-deterministic?

    • @CaptainLang
      @CaptainLang 3 роки тому

      @@takkiejakkie5458 Nothing mystical here. The brain is a computer but that doesn't mean you can't learn new tricks! You have to choose to learn it isn't automatic! You have to program your own mind . But it's your choice you can monkey see monkey do or you can choose to put in the hard work and effort to think and learn by understanding of principles. My definition of Free Will is the choice to think or not to think. It is not governed by a given situation, not by the cards one has been dealt, just one's conscious decision to put out the effort.

    • @takkiejakkie5458
      @takkiejakkie5458 3 роки тому +1

      ​@@CaptainLang No one choose his or her own brain. No one choose his or her surroundings. Consciousness most likely is just an emergent property. In other words: it's a movie you actually have no influence on since you can't control the only three things that actually make up reality: the laws of physics, your (material) surroundings at birth and the configuration of your brain (and thus how it will predictably react to reality from second to second). At no point does something special happen which suddenly makes you have any more agency over your actions. From birth to death actual agency (not the illusion of it) remains 0. We're like conscious stones on the bottom of a river being taken by the current thinking we're doing it all by force of will.

  • @libertarianonwheels1172
    @libertarianonwheels1172 9 місяців тому

    Any topic raised surrounding free will seems to ALWAYS attract determinists. They voraciously deny the freedom that they exercise daily. That's funny to me,

    • @caricue
      @caricue Місяць тому

      Apparently, this all started with Isaac Newton and his laws of motion. He saw that you could calculate future positions from current conditions for celestial objects and this made the future knowable, or determinable, which is a mental function. Somehow, this got morphed into determinism which wants you to believe that everything that happens now is preset by what happened a moment ago, which is a metaphysical idea, or even a mystical one like Fate. We don't live in a deterministic universe, so while celestial mechanics is very useful, it isn't some secret key to the deep workings of the universe, but it is something that taps into the deep workings of the human brain.

  • @slothlovechunk
    @slothlovechunk 3 роки тому +1

    Lex is arguing against a straw man.
    And of course emotions are programmed and also partially controlled by hormones.

  • @Diss_hearten
    @Diss_hearten 3 роки тому +4

    It's really unfortunate that he doesn't see how liberating the finding of selflessness is, this man needs to meditate. Saying we all "feel" like we have an "I" so therefore a seperate "me" exists in my head is not scientific. We have self-awareness, but that's not the same as saying there is a mini-me inside my head that is seperate from experience.

    • @seanj6333
      @seanj6333 3 роки тому +1

      Fine taste in profile picture I must say

    • @Diss_hearten
      @Diss_hearten 3 роки тому +1

      @@seanj6333 lmao to you as well, if I may be so bold, sir.

    • @michaelbeardsley776
      @michaelbeardsley776 3 роки тому

      This is a misrepresentation of Yaron's explanation for free will. He said that individuals can perceive free will through introspection and that introspection is a valid way to observe one's consciousness. He didn't say "feel."

    • @seanj6333
      @seanj6333 3 роки тому +1

      @@kurokamei He never said introspection isn’t valid. We can introspect and notice that we think and feel there is a separate subject or “me” in our heads. But that’s only proof that we have such thoughts and feelings, not that this me exists

    • @seanj6333
      @seanj6333 3 роки тому +1

      @@michaelbeardsley776 the point is, thinking or feeling that you are in control is only proof that you have those thoughts and feelings

  • @phalanxcuthalion9664
    @phalanxcuthalion9664 3 роки тому

    What does a determinist yell out during sex? Oh causality! But seriously, I enjoy treating determinists exactly how they deserve.

  • @stillnotchill2560
    @stillnotchill2560 3 роки тому

    You don't need science to realize that choice is an illusion. You just need logic and reason. You didn't chose your parents, your DNA, your environment, or even your soul (if it exists) was predetermined. This guy may be very intelligent but on this particular matter he does not understand, or perhaps he doesn't like the idea and just wants to push back however he can rationalize in his mind.

  • @markdelej
    @markdelej 3 роки тому +1

    Here’s a simple explanation of why free will cant exist. Can you ever create a robot with free will? The answer is no, because you either program the robot to behave a certain way, or you build in a system which makes the robot behave randomly. Either way the robot is not freely behaving, cos to freely act it would be outside the laws of physics and would break the laws of physics

    • @A_friend_of_Aristotle
      @A_friend_of_Aristotle 2 роки тому

      What you've constructed is not a robot but a straw man.

    • @markdelej
      @markdelej 2 роки тому

      @@A_friend_of_Aristotle we are biological robots. We arent made from metal but we are made from chemistry. The structures are completely different but fundamentally the logic is the same

    • @heinzditer7286
      @heinzditer7286 Рік тому

      We don't know everything. I seems logical to have no free will, but you have to prove it. Andbyou cant prove it.

    • @markdelej
      @markdelej Рік тому

      @@heinzditer7286 actually no. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of something. You cannot prove god doesnt exist because god can always be hidden in the place you dont look. Same with free will. It science it is always impossible to prove something does not exist. All you can ever do is provide evidence that something does exist and with free will no evidence exists apart from that we feel we have it

    • @NewCyrenaic
      @NewCyrenaic Рік тому

      Your challenge would also undermine the existence of life and consciousness, since we cannot create a robot with either of those qualities either.

  • @HiawathaNenad
    @HiawathaNenad 3 роки тому +1

    He didn't understand Sam's point.

    • @caricue
      @caricue 3 роки тому

      That's because Sam doesn't have a point. At the end of Sam's arrogant and condescending concoction of seemingly coherent ideas, he has to point out that even though you don't have any freedom of choice, if you want something to happen in the world, you have to think and figure things out, make a plan and then use your own initiative to make it happen. That really doesn't leave determinism with much of a role, does it? Unless you want to do all the work, then have some egghead come along and tell you that it was going to happen no matter what. Geez Sam, you could have saved me all that work if you had told me sooner, said no one ever.

    • @HiawathaNenad
      @HiawathaNenad 3 роки тому +1

      @@caricue And you didn't understand Sam's point either. 😁 Oh well...

    • @caricue
      @caricue 3 роки тому

      @@HiawathaNenad It is possible that I missed
      Sam's point. It's also possible that you missed Sam's point, but think you didn't. It's also possible that you did understand Sam's point, and Sam was wrong. Maybe you and me and Sam are wrong. None of this changes my point that you still have to live as if you had free will, and determinism adds nothing to the mix.

    • @HiawathaNenad
      @HiawathaNenad 3 роки тому

      @@caricue You're missing the point and talk to yourself about your own point that's not connected with what Sam is saying but with what you understood from that. The most obvious thing possible.

    • @caricue
      @caricue 3 роки тому

      @@HiawathaNenad Sam Harris is so scared of being sent to hell that he will believe anything to escape judgement. I don't believe in judgement or hellfire, so I am free to explore many ideas, and Sam's ideas are so ridiculous that I don't waste my time on them usually, but I do enjoy listening to myself and my ideas. So thanks for nothing pal.

  • @VB83280
    @VB83280 3 роки тому

    Isnt determinism more theistic and supernatural than free will?

    • @VB83280
      @VB83280 3 роки тому

      @Brett Sylvester because it is all set in stone, everything that happens is predetermined (if i am getting the right idea of determinism)

  • @allenjames4808
    @allenjames4808 3 роки тому

    Totally misses the point. Free will exists in some capacity, but the genes that have allowed humans to continue do not lie (they dictate our actions to help promote our species). And to say that something exists whether you think it does or not, does not factor in how people have different minds to interpret things. Colors for instance, are the easiest way to see how people can see the same thing but come away with a different result.

  • @dionysusyphus
    @dionysusyphus 3 роки тому +1

    Nothing he said even remotely proves free will, and this is coming from someone who spends 50% of his day trying to prove it myself. But his arguement is an old arguement that can easily be duped and his calls to his own intelligence as some how proof and his trying to point out sam harris's(I dont like Sam's arguement either) paradox/contradiction while completely obviously to his own is just like *channels Biden* "come on man"

  • @MichaelaBrooke18
    @MichaelaBrooke18 3 роки тому

    Unless we live in a simulation made by something bigger we absolutely have free will!

    • @stillnotchill2560
      @stillnotchill2560 3 роки тому +3

      Did you choose your parents? Your environment? Your DNA? You're soul? You are simply a passenger in your body. Your thoughts are not your own, and you are not your thoughts. Free will is an illusion. You did not choose to post this comment, your body and mind simply reacted to this content and based on your DNA/upbringing and all external influences you have experienced up to this point resulted in your body writing that comment, but you were determined to write it, you did not choose.

    • @MichaelaBrooke18
      @MichaelaBrooke18 3 роки тому

      @@stillnotchill2560 I believe there is a space outside of this one I call somerland where we can make a conscious effort to decide on the next vessel or imma a kook that is programed... Who knows

    • @ViDeTool
      @ViDeTool 3 роки тому

      @@stillnotchill2560 this is overly simplifying life as a series of consequences and actions, again, acting like we know more about reality than we actually do. we don´t have nearly enough knowledge of what consciousness is or how it actually works to say if we have free will or not. So assuming that we know the answers with such a lack of knowledge is just being pedantic.

    • @stillnotchill2560
      @stillnotchill2560 3 роки тому +2

      @@ViDeTool it's not assuming we have the answers, it's just the conclusion you come to with the information humanity has access to.

  • @phalanxcuthalion9664
    @phalanxcuthalion9664 3 роки тому

    It's fine if you want to believe in determinism. You can choose to do that.

    • @phalanxcuthalion9664
      @phalanxcuthalion9664 3 роки тому

      @Brian Andersen I guess that depends on how you choose to define "convinced" or the process of being "convinced" and what is being "convinced".

  • @dryburn
    @dryburn 3 роки тому +1

    This guy clearly does not understand evolutionary psychology. Everything he claims evo psych has trouble explaining, evo psych has explained. It’s always hilarious to watch non-scientists try to grapple with scientific concepts. Nothing new here.

  • @voidoflife7058
    @voidoflife7058 2 роки тому +3

    This might be the biggest misunderstanding of Sam’s argument against free will that I’ve ever heard

  • @leandrobello04
    @leandrobello04 3 роки тому +3

    That is a miss representation of what Harris says about free will. We know that people react to stimulus, if you know there is a good outcome from that stimulus, then that is what you do. At no point free will comes into the equation.

    • @leandrobello04
      @leandrobello04 3 роки тому

      @Joshua William One doesn't follow after the other. You can be conscious, inquisitive and someone that chooses options and it doesn't follow to say you have free will. You don't even know what your next thought will be, think about that for a second. I can ask you to name a random movie, you will say the name of a movie and then I can ask you about the movies you didn't mention and you will say they didn't come to mind, right there you can noticie how you didn't decide to ignore the other movies you didn't mention, you were simply a witness of the movie that came to your mind and then shared that.

  • @gothicknight5538
    @gothicknight5538 3 роки тому

    Sam Harris argues that our conclusions and decisions are made by impulses. Impulses that are an effect due to preceding causes. So trying to change someone’s mind does not become redundant. You may contribute to a new cause that makes someone make a more rational decision. I barely understand what Brook’s argument is suppose to aim at.

  • @booJay
    @booJay 3 роки тому +3

    How is determinism unscientific? Einstein would agree with Harris. It doesn't matter what we think we experience if we understand that what we experience may be flawed and not representative of the whole picture.

  • @connormelnick3576
    @connormelnick3576 3 роки тому

    I think Yaron is making a moot point here. He is essentially trying to redefine the classic definition of free will. Just because you can feel and converse with your own "I" does not mean free will exists. One does not need to understand the inner workings of the human mind to come to the conclusion that free will does not exists. If we understand all the pieces that make up the human mind and determine that each of these pieced works in a predictable way then isn't that enough?

    • @reneahn5908
      @reneahn5908 3 роки тому

      No, because it seems to me you just assume that materialism is true. I think that is highly improbable, given the hard problem.

    • @connormelnick3576
      @connormelnick3576 3 роки тому

      @@reneahn5908 It is a good point. I do assume that materialism is true. For a moment, lets assume it is not. I believe that the laws of the container that our consciousness exists in are also predictable. What about the hard problems makes this highly improbable?

  • @AV-TDer
    @AV-TDer 3 роки тому

    Not everyone experiences introspection in the same way that Yaron is speaking about here. I have Aphantasia and my mind is quite silent. I don't have the dialog of thoughts that many people do. This leads me to believe that free will doesn't exist. I think others are just caught up on an experience that they have no control over.

    • @caricue
      @caricue 3 роки тому +1

      Maybe some people like Sam Harris and you don't actually have free will like some of us do. I run into people all the time who seem to be on perpetual autopilot, and get a blank look on their face when I try to point out things that to me are perfectly obvious. The fact that these zombie-like people seem perfectly adapted to living in the world relying on stimulus and response only, may actually tell us something about how reality works.

    • @Kaamiil89
      @Kaamiil89 2 роки тому +1

      @@caricue so you decided to not live according to stimulus, but you missed the point that this decision is also made of stimulus. Not beliving in free will doesnt mean you cant make decisions.

    • @caricue
      @caricue 2 роки тому

      @@Kaamiil89 Not believing in free will is only a vanity since you then must continue to live your life exercising your free will every moment of every day. It's easy to imagine others not having free will since most of what they do seems stupid and useless to us, but once again, this says more about us than the other person.

    • @Kaamiil89
      @Kaamiil89 2 роки тому +1

      @@caricue i know it's rather impossible for human being to not live according to free will illusion. This entire debate is about logical reasoning that ends up with no field for free will and it seems like you took it too much personal.

    • @caricue
      @caricue 2 роки тому

      @@Kaamiil89 No amount of logical reasoning can negate a natural phenomenon like free will. Just because you can't figure out how a thing works doesn't then mean that the thing is an illusion. Besides, I have no problem logically understanding free will. Maybe you're the one taking things too personal.

  • @mirmarashi87
    @mirmarashi87 3 роки тому +1

    You ve free will but you ve to train it otherwise you re just a victim of manipulation, tho his arguing is weak

  • @epicbehavior
    @epicbehavior 2 роки тому

    This has nothing to do with free will. It’s so simple. You cannot experience free will directly. If you think you do, you aren’t playing close enough attention.
    It’s funny how sure he is that reality is there without consciousness.

  • @psizadeh4637
    @psizadeh4637 3 роки тому +2

    “We all experience the fact that we have an I”. By the same token, the earth us flat then because we all "experience" it that way. The whole thing about earth being round would be totally unscientific.
    There are different levels of truths. To get to the truth of "non-self" one must do a huge amount of work, on par with the work of Copernicus, Galileo, etc.

    • @ShinSheel
      @ShinSheel 2 роки тому

      When it was the last time you actually experienced Earth flat? Unless you live on some perfect plain you see Earth has a complex topology

  • @ballsohard1345
    @ballsohard1345 3 роки тому +2

    “Everyone is afraid of free will” - Yaron Brook
    It seems to me he is the one afraid of NOT having free will. I don’t understand why that bothers so many people. If tomorrow you found out everything up to this point in your life hasn’t happened because of your free will, does that make your life any less meaningful? NO!
    And in fairness to Sam, Yaron’s argument for free will existing wasn’t any more scientific than Sam’s. “I experience it. I can see it” isn’t really much of an argument especially considering how easily our mind can play tricks on us

  • @shanepringle
    @shanepringle 3 роки тому +7

    I think Hulu's show Devs does a pretty good job explaining Sam Harris' beliefs of free will to a lay person. It is simply the idea that given a set of all inputs, a person would make the same choice 100% of the time. So when Sam Harris or others wants to give you more information to change your mind, it is still consistent with those beliefs. They are providing another data input, when factored in, may change the choice you make. But that is still not free will because now given the new input, you would still make whatever choice you ended up making 100% of the time.

    • @nicolasescobaravila7910
      @nicolasescobaravila7910 3 роки тому

      I don't get this. Would you care to clarify?

    • @kevineiford2153
      @kevineiford2153 2 роки тому +1

      I think you're making a stronger claim than Sam is making. I think Sam's belief is that if you went back in time, and even if you 90% of the time make one decision and 10% of the time make another, you still don't have control of which choice you make

  • @mikemcmillan
    @mikemcmillan 3 роки тому

    Ouch. If you honestly love Harris' stuff, as you said, then at least pay him the courtesy of understanding his position. It sounds like you didn't even the read the first couple of pages of Free Will. Your point: Why is Harris even trying to convince us when his whole argument is that it's not in our will to be convinced? You don't need free will to be convinced of an argument. Try to observe your own mind when someone persuades you of something: What persuaded you? Why were you persuaded? Can you take credit for it? No. The merit of arguing for something does not lie in your interlocutor having free will. Please read the book next time.

  • @cnhhnc
    @cnhhnc 3 роки тому

    Have to agree. As an Anthropologist, what I find is a lot of hypotesizing on the basis of cultural assumptions. People have to remember that SCIENTISTS are NOT culture-neutral. They often have prejudices and influences that come from our common everyday understandings so it is quite easy to smuggle in ideas about what is innate, natural, which might NOT be. For example, we are naturally competitive, aggressive, or that there are UNIVERSAL differences between men and women, that coincidentally, reflect what WE in the west think are gender universals, etc. BE CAREFUL! Even Free Will and Determinism. When you look at the life of a citizen in an advanced Capitalist country you can CHOOSE ONE of two options:
    1. The individual exists within a massive globalized Capitalist system of production, distribution and consumption in a way that he/she is simply a cog, reactor to the movement of something that subsumes and commands him/her so that yes, he/she seems to be wholy determined. Destined to play whatever part this GIANT PROCESS provides for him.
    or
    2. The so-called Libertarian delusion: That we are all EQUAL. We start on an EVEN PLAYING field and all outcomes are simply the additive action of individual automata determining their futures. These actions
    sum to the global process described above. The Free Market activity of countless individuals where some rise to the top and have a more influential role in the whole than others, but where all individuals exert their will.
    REALITY is probably neither ONE nor TWO. But something more subtle and more complex. Perhaps even beyond understanding for an individual human mind of consciousness.
    When you see the pronouncements of many neuroscientists, they often seem absurd, or unsupported by real understandings of what consious processes are. Rude, crude, correlations between actions and MRIs of large areas of the brain lighting up or seeming more active than others. Areas that are NOT fully mapped or understood, that may have more functions or interactions with other parts of the brain and other processes ad infinitum. That might be so much MORE COMPLEX than the SIMPLE correlations those MRIs show us. Centuries from now future researchers will look back at this MRI magic as nothing more than the brain coloring books of an elementary school child, lol!
    Yet, that does NOT stop neuroscientists from an undeserved arrogance and hubris regarding their subject matter.

  • @scottreed5460
    @scottreed5460 3 роки тому +3

    Sam Harris ain’t even on, you trolled me..!

    • @stillnotchill2560
      @stillnotchill2560 3 роки тому +2

      I was never under the assumption that Sam was on. I don't think you were tricked, you didnt pay attention to the thumbnail and title.

  • @caricue
    @caricue Місяць тому

    Sam Harris talks for over an hour to say that you don't have free will because you can't choose "who you are" or "what you want". This is just sophistry. If you have anything like free will it is to enable you to try to get what you want and need in an ever changing environment. It's about action, not being.

  • @DeusExHomeboy
    @DeusExHomeboy 3 роки тому +2

    Yaron @ 1:02 "Emotions are too complex to have been programmed into our minds". *Yaron has to reassess his understanding of biological complexity.* He lost.

  • @MapleSoryxX233
    @MapleSoryxX233 3 роки тому

    I like this guy