Friday 26 December 2014

Refuting Sam Harris' Free Will And The Reality Of Love

A closer inspection on "Free Will and the Reality of Love":

Many readers continue to express confusion—even outrage and anguish—over my position on free will. Some are convinced that my view is self-contradictory. Others are persuaded of its truth but find the truth upsetting. They say that if cutting through the illusion of free will undermines hatred, it must undermine love as well. They worry about a world in which we view ourselves and other people as robots. I have heard from readers struggling with clinical depression who find that reading my book Free Will, or my blog articles on the topic, has only added to their troubles. Perhaps there is more to say…"
 "Confusion", "self-contradictory","upsetting","undermine love", "people as robots" and "added to their troubles".These are the consequences of Atheist dogma and pretty much sums up Harris' position.But he rejects the inevitable conclusions drawn from the premises he so dearly clings to and aims to correct these misunderstandings...or does he?

First, I’d like to address the common charge that it is simply self-contradictory to talk about the illusoriness of free will while using words such as “choice,” “intention,” “decision,” “deliberation,” and “effort.” If free will is an illusion, it would seem, these qualities of mind must be illusory as well. In one sense, this is true. It would perhaps be more precise to speak of “apparent choices.” But the distinction isn’t generally relevant at the level of our experience. In terms of experience, there is no contradiction between truth and appearance. Even in the absence of free will, I find that I can speak of choices, intentions, and efforts without hedging"
 Okay,so far I've gathered that the contention amongst his peers and admirers lies in the apparent contradiction between Harris rejecting free will and still co-opting terms which are either synonymous with free will or implicates it,such as "choice,intention,decision,deliberation",etc. Perhaps Harris has found a miraculous way to bypass the laws of logic,namely the law of non-contradicition.Let's see how he does it.

 Consider the present moment from the point of view of my conscious mind: I have decided to write this blog post, and I am now writing it. I almost didn’t write it, however. In fact, I went back and forth about it: I feel that I’ve said more or less everything I have to say on the topic of free will and now worry about repeating myself. I started the post, and then set it aside. But after several more emails came in, I realized that I might be able to clarify a few points. Did I choose to be affected in this way? No. Some readers were urging me to comment on depressing developments in “the Arab Spring.” Others wanted me to write about the practice of meditation. At first I ignored all these voices and went back to working on my next book. Eventually, however, I returned to this blog post. Was that a choice? Well, in a conventional sense, yes. But my experience of making the choice did not include an awareness of its actual causes. Subjectively speaking, it is an absolute mystery to me why I am writing this."
 Skipping over what I can only assume are early symptoms of ADHD  - Harris rejects possible free will as a cause in favor of "mysterious" causes,that way his material beliefs are still intact.

My workflow may sound a little unconventional, but my experience of writing this article fully illustrates my view of free will. Thoughts and intentions arise; other thoughts and intentions arise in opposition. I want to sit down to write, but then I want something else—to exercise, perhaps. Which impulse will win? For the moment, I’m still writing, and there is no way for me to know why—because at other times I’ll think, “This is useless. I’m going to the gym,” and that thought will prove decisive. What finally causes the balance to swing? I cannot know subjectively—but I can be sure that electrochemical events in my brain decide the matter. I know that given the requisite stimulus (whether internal or external), I will leap up from my desk and suddenly find myself doing something else...
 Finally,I found the central thesis to Harris' article.What appears to many as "choices" are merely impulses and the strongest impulse takes center stage.That eliminates free will nicely but there are some obvious problems:
-All our behaviors have now been redefined as impulsive without proper justification.Irrational to say the least.
-What about those who choose to voluntarily abstain/refrain from instinctive activities be it food,drink,sex,etc.?Surely it's irrational to define the ability to self regulate such behaviors as also being based on an impulse or urge.
-Our ability to reason,to be cautious,to be discreet and to inhibit certain actions or processes are a few counter examples that can veto impulses or urges.
-Self-control is the ability to resist an impulse.Just because Harris lacks this ability doesn't mean everyone else does too.
-Harris needs to either provide evidence or get universal opinion on his side.Both are highly unlikely.


"As a matter of experience, therefore, I can take no credit for the fact that I got to the end of this paragraph."
Harris then ends the paragraph with a very "modest" tone.He just cannot allow himself to take credit.Humble indeed.Then upon whom shall we bestow the honor of this fine piece of work Harris?"

"But the apparent reality of choice remains intact. It isn’t wrong to say that I decided to write this post—and it certainly isn’t wrong to say that my writing it requires some conscious effort. I can’t write it by accident, or in my sleep. The writing itself is clearly the product of my unconscious mind—I cannot know, for instance, why one word or bit of syntax comes forward and another doesn’t—but the entire project requires consciousness to come into being. Certain things cannot be thought or done unless they are warmed by the light of conscious awareness. I am, after all, writing about what it is like to be me at this moment—and it would be like nothing to be me without consciousness"
 And the credit goes to... his unconscious mind but not to Harris because they are apparently two distinct and separate entities.Clearly his humility becomes suspect as it contradicts his position.

"What many people seem to be missing is the positive side of these truths. Seeing through the illusion of free will does not undercut the reality of love, for example—because loving other people is not a matter of fixating on the underlying causes of their behavior. Rather, it is a matter of caring about them as people and enjoying their company. We want those we love to be happy, and we want to feel the way we feel in their presence. The difference between happiness and suffering does not depend on free will—indeed, it has no logical relationship to it (but then, nothing does, because the very idea of free will makes no sense). In loving others, and in seeking happiness ourselves, we are primarily concerned with the character of conscious experience."
First of all,the truth of the premises has not been established,ie. they have no evidence attached,so any positive sides that may be implied are question begging.Secondly,we have to consider the full implications of living a life without the "illusion" of free will.That would remove consent,since we cannot agree to something over which we have no control over.For example,I cannot grant the weather permission to rain because I cannot influence it.All impulses an individual feel can be executed without considering the impact it has on others.To evaluate and veto any urges whether positive or negative imply I have a choice in the outcome of the matter and should be held responsible.


"Hatred, however, is powerfully governed by the illusion that those we hate could (and should) behave differently. We don’t hate storms, avalanches, mosquitoes, or flu. We might use the term “hatred” to describe our aversion to the suffering these things cause us—but we are prone to hate other human beings in a very different sense. True hatred requires that we view our enemy as the ultimate author of his thoughts and actions. Love demands only that we care about our friends and find happiness in their company. It may be hard to see this truth at first, but I encourage everyone to keep looking. It is one of the more beautiful asymmetries to be found anywhere."
What Harris is doing here is nothing short of an appeal to emotion fallacy.Instead of  demonstrating the link between love,impulses and Materialism - he simply gives assertions and not arguments,which requires justification.Also,if "True hatred requires that we view our enemy as the ultimate author of his thoughts and actions",then we could equally assert that true love requires that we view our fellow man as the ultimate author of his actions and thoughts.But either position validates free will and Harris does not seem to care about the implications of his reasoning.If the reader is confused at this point,it's because contradictions,inconsistencies,irrational reasoning and lack of evidence are common themes in Atheist articles.
Besides,Harris knows very little about love because it is not demanding and not limited to friends.Love is unconditional,it does not require recognition nor does it need to be reciprocated.
As an Atheist he is spiritually bankrupt.His pathetic attempt to explain what he deems to be mere chemical reactions or urges ,has by his own admission caused others even more despondency.



 

8 comments:

  1. 1) You need to make a distinction between absolute free will and practical/compatibilist free will. On a practical level we can say we make choices and can take credit etc. When Harris says he can't take credit he probably means in some ultimate metaphysical sense not in a practical everyday sense. For example you can't take "ultimate" credit for the fact that you are you and not say Adolf Hitler, but you can certainly take credit for things you have achieved in your life.

    2)A)You don't know you are going to choose before you choose it.b) You don't know why you choose what you did.

    3)A) Love is not devalued in any way by accepting determinism or in some way dependent on free will. B) Hate or punishment( just for punishments sake) however doesn't make much sense on this view. When we analyse what a human being is we find they are a collection of components - just like say a lion is a collection of components. Now what rational is there in hating a collection of components?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1) You need to make a distinction between absolute free will and practical/compatibilist free will. On a practical level we can say we make choices and can take credit etc.//
    Harris makes no such distinction.He rejects free will,period - that includes compatibilism and responsibility.See this quote from Harris' book Free Will:
    Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them. If a man's choice to shoot the president is determined by a certain pattern of neural activity, which is in turn the product of prior causes—perhaps an unfortunate coincidence of bad genes, an unhappy childhood, lost sleep, and a cosmic-ray bombardment—what can it possibly mean to say that his will is "free"? No one has ever described a way in which mental and physical processes could arise that would attest to the existence of such freedom.

    \\When Harris says he can't take credit he probably means in some ultimate metaphysical sense not in a practical everyday sense. For example you can't take "ultimate" credit for the fact that you are you and not say Adolf Hitler, but you can certainly take credit for things you have achieved in your life.//
    Sam Harris is a hard determinist,which means he takes the concept to its full conclusion.You cannot be held accountable or be credited for something over which you have no control.


    2)A)You don't know you are going to choose before you choose it.//
    Why do I need to know that?And how does that refute free will if I don't know it? That's like saying I need to be one step ahead of myself.

    b) You don't know why you choose what you did.//
    Yes I do know the reasons for my choices.I decided today that I'm going to the beach tomorrow because the weather looks great and I'm on vacation.Those seem like good enough reasons.

    3)A) Love is not devalued in any way by accepting determinism or in some way dependent on free will.//
    Determinism devalues love by demoting humans to biological machines or as you said a "collection of components",so are my gadgets and appliances.

    B) Hate or punishment( just for punishments sake) however doesn't make much sense on this view.//

    Under determinism,enforcing penalties which are aimed at rehabilitation are useless if the offender is a) not responsible for his actions b)cannot change his behavior.

    When we analyse what a human being is we find they are a collection of components - just like say a lion is a collection of components. Now what rational is there in hating a collection of components?//
    If that's all human beings are then there doesn't seem to be any rationale for loving them either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them." Yes people who are responsible are caused to be responsible and those who aren't are also caused.

      "If a man's choice to shoot the president is determined by a certain pattern of neural activity, which is in turn the product of prior causes—perhaps an unfortunate coincidence of bad genes, an unhappy childhood, lost sleep, and a cosmic-ray bombardment" If by that Harris means AFTER he has shot the president then its true he wasn't "free" in that moment to do otherwise but no one is talking about that kind of "freedom".

      "what can it possibly mean to say that his will is "free"?" It means to say he is a rational agent who can consciously choose between different courses of action. No compatiblist claims this choosing is magically independent of causality however.
      " No one has ever described a way in which mental and physical processes could arise that would attest to the existence of such freedom." No such freedom exists, we are talking about responsibility not this metaphysical/absolute freedom. Even according to the Christian apologist Richard Swinburne (I think) said even God doesn't have that kind of freedom.

      "Sam Harris is a hard determinist,which means he takes the concept to its full conclusion.You cannot be held accountable or be credited for something over which you have no control." Well the fact is we can - and indeed do - hold people accountable and give them credit etc. Doesn't Harris take credit (and money) for his books? Of course he does, he is not going to say he can't take it because what we call Sam Harris is ultimately a collection of components and those components are not in exactly the same state as when he wrote "his" book.


      2)A)You don't know you are going to choose before you choose it.//
      "Why do I need to know that?And how does that refute free will if I don't know it?" Because we can only know what we will choose AFTER we have chosen.

      "Yes I do know the reasons for my choices." You guessing you don't know and experiments have shown the reasons that people often come up with are completely fabricated by the unconscious mind. Even if you are right in this case however you still can't tell me why you choose that or why it had that effect on you that it did.

      "Determinism devalues love by demoting humans to biological machines or as you said a "collection of components",so are my gadgets and appliances" Humans are not gadgets just because they share some characteristic with gadgets (eg they are both made of components) doesn't mean they are the same thing. Does the fact that rats have eyes mean that humans are "demoted" to rats level because we also have eyes?

      "Under determinism,enforcing penalties which are aimed at rehabilitation are useless if the offender is a) not responsible for his actions b)cannot change his behavior." Unless the person is insane, a psychopath or an idiot, penalties do change the behaviour - of normal people.

      "If that's all human beings are then there doesn't seem to be any rationale for loving them either" Tell me why a person should stop loving their spouse or child because "ultimately" they and their loved ones are a biological machine? This argument is rather poor it's like saying if things such as love, mystical experience, empathy etc has a physical basis it is meaningless I think that view is rather ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. Yes people who are responsible are caused to be responsible and those who aren't are also caused.//
      On the one hand you defend Harris but then you contradict him by claiming people are responsible for their actions.He gives two arguments that both lead to the same conclusion:we are not responsible.

      If by that Harris means AFTER he has shot the president then its true he wasn't "free" in that moment to do otherwise but no one is talking about that kind of "freedom"//
      Harris is saying that prior to shooting the president the man had only a single option based on previous factors.He could not have done otherwise.Proponents of free will dispute this type of reasoning.

      You guessing you don't know and experiments have shown the reasons that people often come up with are completely fabricated by the unconscious mind. Even if you are right in this case however you still can't tell me why you choose that or why it had that effect on you that it did.//
      My belief that I have a choice is based on experience and observation.Atheists say they are an illusion and fmri experiments refute the notion.So what experimental evidence can you show me that proves free will is an illusion?

      Humans are not gadgets just because they share some characteristic with gadgets (eg they are both made of components) doesn't mean they are the same thing. Does the fact that rats have eyes mean that humans are "demoted" to rats level because we also have eyes?//
      I was challenging your definition of humans.If a collection of components are all we are then we have as much value as any other collection of components,be it rats or gadgets.

      Unless the person is insane, a psychopath or an idiot, penalties do change the behaviour - of normal people.//
      The penalty is the incentive to change the offender's behavior but ultimately the choice lies with the offender.According to determinism there's only one path,depending on the factors that are out of the person's control.

      Tell me why a person should stop loving their spouse or child because "ultimately" they and their loved ones are a biological machine? This argument is rather poor it's like saying if things such as love, mystical experience, empathy etc has a physical basis it is meaningless I think that view is rather ridiculous.//
      Because reducing humans to machines would make love pointless.

      Delete

    3. "On the one hand you defend Harris but then you contradict him by claiming people are responsible for their actions.He gives two arguments that both lead to the same conclusion:we are not responsible." He is talking about this ultimate metaphysical responsibility - which obviously doesn't exist. I am talking about practical/legal responsibility which certainly does exist and serves a practical purpose. Courts will pass judgements on people and will hold -morally competent - people to account. And they do all this without referring to metaphysics.

      "Harris is saying that prior to shooting the president the man had only a single option based on previous factors.He could not have done otherwise." True but we can only know that AFTER it has happened. The future is determined but we don't know what it is that has been determined - this leaves space for our free will. Also "could have done otherwise" just means you have the ability to do something different in roughly the same conditions - not in absolutely identical conditions.

      "My belief that I have a choice is based on experience and observation" We can say we have a choice BEFORE we make the decision but not after.

      "Atheists say they are an illusion and fmri experiments refute the notion.So what experimental evidence can you show me that proves free will is an illusion?" If you rewind the tape of a person's life to when they made a decision - whether that decision is to kill the president or to have vanilla ice cream - then that is exactly what will happen every time - even if you replay it a billion times.

      "I was challenging your definition of humans.If a collection of components are all we are then we have as much value as any other collection of components,be it rats or gadgets." This sounds very much like the creationist logic which states human beings are worthless if we are related to the animals and not a special creation of God.

      "The penalty is the incentive to change the offender's behavior but ultimately the choice lies with the offender. According to determinism there's only one path,depending on the factors that are out of the person's control." It's the offender who makes the choice - assuming the offender is a rational person capable of responding to reasons and making plans about changing their behaviour (in the future).

      "Because reducing humans to machines would make love pointless" No it wouldn't.

      Delete
    4. He is talking about this ultimate metaphysical responsibility - which obviously doesn't exist//
      Spot the contradiction:Harris does not believe people are metaphysically responsible because such things don't exist but he passionately advocates these ideas,(after all he is a hard determinist) but more importantly,you have demonstrated that Harris is intellectually dishonest and a charlatan,since he cannot consistently apply his principles to the real world,yet he propagates them.

      I am talking about practical/legal responsibility which certainly does exist and serves a practical purpose. Courts will pass judgements on people and will hold -morally competent - people to account. And they do all this without referring to metaphysics.//

      What this proves is that determinism is not compatible with our legal system.Implementing such principles would have disastrous consequences,therefore philosophical materialism is impractical,as opposed to the doctrine of free will which holds people morally responsible and is applicable.

      True but we can only know that AFTER it has happened.The future is determined but we don't know what it is that has been determined - this leaves space for our free will.//
      The future cannot be predetermined (the belief that all events and actions have been established in advance) and simultaneously allow the possibility for actions that are free from constraints or has not yet been established.They are a compatibilist's position and contradictory

      Also "could have done otherwise" just means you have the ability to do something different in roughly the same conditions - not in absolutely identical conditions.//
      "Could have done otherwise" imply there were alternative paths available - whether the conditions were approximate or precisely the same.

      We can say we have a choice BEFORE we make the decision but not after.//
      I'd rephrase it like this:We can say we were free from constraints before we made the decision.

      If you rewind the tape of a person's life to when they made a decision - whether that decision is to kill the president or to have vanilla ice cream - then that is exactly what will happen every time - even if you replay it a billion times.//
      You're conflating different concepts.Free will posits that the person were not influenced from external factors before deciding on said act.Free will does not claim to change the result of ones actions.

      This sounds very much like the creationist logic which states human beings are worthless if we are related to the animals and not a special creation of God.//
      False dichotomy.You don't have to be a creationist to believe humans are more than atoms.In fact,all dualists and theists,regardless of the spiritual or religious persuasion agree on this common factor.

      It's the offender who makes the choice - assuming the offender is a rational person capable of responding to reasons and making plans about changing their behaviour (in the future)//
      You must be protesting something else because you've just agreed with what I said.

      No it wouldn't.//
      Under philosophical materialism and determinism,love is limited to our offspring,sperm donor and perhaps extended to the clan but not beyond that.Using your previous example of persons loving their child:1) we're responsible for bringing it into the world and 2) passing on our genes.These are the only two reasons why we would see any value in our children and not in strangers.We have no moral responsibility because such things are illusions,only biological neccessities dictate our behavior.As for loving friends:Since people are a collection of components,they are only of value as long as they can benefit me,until then,I can discard of them or trade them for better friends that are more beneficial to my personal needs.I have no moral responsibility towards them because such things are non-existent.

      Delete


    5. "What this proves is that determinism is not compatible with our legal system.Implementing such principles would have disastrous consequences,therefore philosophical materialism is impractical,as opposed to the doctrine of free will which holds people morally responsible and is applicable." We have a legal system to hold criminals to account to society and to act as a deterrent to others. Courts don't penalise criminals because they are the cause of their own actions.

      "The future cannot be predetermined (the belief that all events and actions have been established in advance) and simultaneously allow the possibility for actions that are free from constraints or has not yet been established.They are a compatibilist's position and contradictory" We don't know what it is that has been predetermined to happen in the future that is how they are compatible

      "Could have done otherwise" imply there were alternative paths available - whether the conditions were approximate or precisely the same." No if you drive your car at 30mph we can say your car "could" go to 50mph but NOT in those EXACT same conditions.

      "I'd rephrase it like this:We can say we were free from constraints before we made the decision" We are never "free" from causality.

      "You're conflating different concepts.Free will posits that the person were not influenced from external factors before deciding on said act.Free will does not claim to change the result of ones actions." Believers in contra causal free will do indeed claim you could have done otherwise - even in the EXACT same conditions.

      "False dichotomy.You don't have to be a creationist to believe humans are more than atoms.In fact,all dualists and theists,regardless of the spiritual or religious persuasion agree on this common factor." Yes people believe in all kinds of crazy things.

      It's the offender who makes the choice - assuming the offender is a rational person capable of responding to reasons and making plans about changing their behaviour (in the future)//
      "You must be protesting something else because you've just agreed with what I said." This ability is not dependent on there being contra causal free will and a magical soul all you need is a functioning brain.

      "Under philosophical materialism and determinism,love is limited to our offspring,sperm donor and perhaps extended to the clan but not beyond that." This is your value judgement, determinism doesn't claim any such thing so please don't make things up.

      "We have no moral responsibility because such things are illusions,only biological neccessities dictate our behaviour." Since we are a social species we do indeed have responsibilities and obligations if your a sociopath go and live in the jungle and see how long you last

      Delete
  3. Wait so why are you trying to demolish an atheist instead of befriending him and converting him to your religion? Only an Anti-theist would try to demolish someone... are you an antitheist trying to demolish an atheist? Jesus would not demolish anyone - he would befriend them and help them. Demolish means violence. Although I guess it goes along with what God would do, demolishing people with lightning bolts as in the bible. Or killing them off in a flood and drowning people. Or consider the fact that 99 percent of all animals go extinct. It just reeks of "intelligent design" to me when you design something that 99 percent of the time fails... it makes sense. Now I understand your position of demolishing things. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete