tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post5776990003796886439..comments2023-08-20T01:05:08.501-07:00Comments on Refuting Atheism: Refuting Sam Harris' Free Will And The Reality Of LovePhoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-80777211243878996372015-07-13T19:27:00.270-07:002015-07-13T19:27:00.270-07:00Wait so why are you trying to demolish an atheist ...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.Retarded Engineershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00415876211261234010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-59409435289805060422014-12-29T16:05:24.833-08:002014-12-29T16:05:24.833-08:00"What this proves is that determinism is not ...<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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<br /><br />"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. <br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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)//<br />"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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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 lastJohn Nutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172216225753271915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-50177198855014458742014-12-29T07:06:00.331-08:002014-12-29T07:06:00.331-08:00He is talking about this ultimate metaphysical res...He is talking about this ultimate metaphysical responsibility - which obviously doesn't exist//<br />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.<br /><br />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.//<br /><br />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.<br /><br />True but we can only know that AFTER it has happened.<b>The future is determined</b> but we don't know what it is that has been determined - this leaves space for our free will.//<br />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<br /><br /> 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.//<br />"Could have done otherwise" imply there were alternative paths available - whether the conditions were approximate or precisely the same.<br /><br />We can say we have a choice BEFORE we make the decision but not after.//<br />I'd rephrase it like this:We can say we were free from constraints before we made the decision.<br /><br /> 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.//<br />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.<br /><br />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.//<br />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.<br /><br />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)//<br />You must be protesting something else because you've just agreed with what I said.<br /><br />No it wouldn't.//<br />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.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-42470497868904095402014-12-28T02:38:09.924-08:002014-12-28T02:38:09.924-08:00"On the one hand you defend Harris but then y... <br />"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. <br /><br />"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. <br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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).<br /><br />"Because reducing humans to machines would make love pointless" No it wouldn't.John Nutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172216225753271915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-63917829853440219792014-12-28T01:03:04.416-08:002014-12-28T01:03:04.416-08:00Yes people who are responsible are caused to be re...Yes people who are responsible are caused to be responsible and those who aren't are also caused.//<br />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.<br /><br />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"//<br />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.<br /><br />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.//<br />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?<br /><br />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?//<br />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.<br /><br />Unless the person is insane, a psychopath or an idiot, penalties do change the behaviour - of normal people.//<br />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.<br /><br />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.//<br />Because reducing humans to machines would make love pointless.<br /><br />Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-8912037545482402982014-12-27T17:45:36.263-08:002014-12-27T17:45:36.263-08:00"Either our wills are determined by prior cau..."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.<br /><br />"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".<br /><br />"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.<br />" 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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br /><br />2)A)You don't know you are going to choose before you choose it.//<br />"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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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? <br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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. John Nutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172216225753271915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-55769846267872373592014-12-27T05:12:23.293-08:002014-12-27T05:12:23.293-08:001) You need to make a distinction between absolute...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.//<br />Harris makes no such distinction.He rejects free will,period - that includes compatibilism and responsibility.See this quote from Harris' book Free Will:<br /><i>Either our wills are determined by prior causes and <b>we are not responsible for them</b>, or they are the product of chance and <b>we are not responsible for them</b>. 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</i>.<br /><br />\\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.//<br />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.<br /><br /><br />2)A)You don't know you are going to choose before you choose it.//<br />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.<br /><br />b) You don't know why you choose what you did.//<br />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.<br /><br />3)A) Love is not devalued in any way by accepting determinism or in some way dependent on free will.//<br />Determinism devalues love by demoting humans to biological machines or as you said a "collection of components",so are my gadgets and appliances.<br /><br />B) Hate or punishment( just for punishments sake) however doesn't make much sense on this view.//<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?//<br />If that's all human beings are then there doesn't seem to be any rationale for loving them either.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-9542236047530242462014-12-27T02:24:59.639-08:002014-12-27T02:24:59.639-08:001) You need to make a distinction between absolute...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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?John Nutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172216225753271915noreply@blogger.com