Free will, probability, losers and ballers.

[tomaszjot]

Not sure if it was posted here. I wasn't here for a long time and I will be gone soon but anyway... Lets talk free will.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g[/ame]

What is your stance on free will (as for now).

I guess this video + perhaps Nassim Taleb's Black Swan will make you think about you under or overachieving...

 

[Jameel]

Just read his latest book called Waking Up. Good read that helped with my meditation practice.

 

[galacon]

I wasn't here for a long time and I will be gone soon

WTF, Tommy? Are you out on bail?

 

[jerry55]

Even though he's a nutty Islamaphobe, Sam Harris nails it on free will. I really don't see how anyone can argue that there is free will. Most arguments that I've read against free will haven't been convincing.

 

[drave]

i gave him 30 minutes. what a waste of time.

 

[tomaszjot]

i gave him 30 minutes. what a waste of time.

Care to elaborate?

This is one of the strongest arguments against free will and pretty much beats all of the philosophical arguments by mile.

I would be delighted if you can point me towards some strong counterarguments or show some valid concepts of free will (apart from libertarian one - hopefully you didn't think about that one).

Thanks

 

[tomaszjot]

WTF, Tommy? Are you out on bail?

I came to say hello and get some gay love.

The problem with STS is once you visit it you feel alive again. You feel happy, fulfilled. You forget about reality.

It's not a place for a serious man like me who wants to focus on breading his Syrian hamsters.

 

[greenleaves]

Wow, your threads seem to break the limits of stupid.

I watched literally 2-3 minutes. Couldn't get through any more. I'd tear it apart, but it would be preaching to the choir to say it to most, and be incomprehensible to his target audience.

 

[tomaszjot]

Wow, your threads seem to break the limits of stupid.

I watched literally 2-3 minutes. Couldn't get through any more. I'd tear it apart, but it would be preaching to the choir to say it to most, and be incomprehensible to his target audience.

I'm sure you would. Actually, could you? I mean tearing apart Sam Harris would put you among world's intellectual elite, that would be huge man.

So could you tear apart this argument against free will? Or are you just all talk?

I actually challenge you to do it. You see, me myself, I'm too stupid to do it but if you manage I will be really impressed.

Thanks

 

[TeeBird]

I came to say hello and get some gay love.

The problem with STS is once you visit it you feel alive again. You feel happy, fulfilled. You forget about reality.

It's not a place for a serious man like me who wants to focus on breading his Syrian hamsters.

Finally, someone who likes eating "Breaded Syrian Hamsters." What a delicacy...

 

[drave]

Care to elaborate?

This is one of the strongest arguments against free will and pretty much beats all of the philosophical arguments by mile.

I would be delighted if you can point me towards some strong counterarguments or show some valid concepts of free will (apart from libertarian one - hopefully you didn't think about that one).

Thanks

how would i know if i care to elaborate? whether i elaborate or not, and even my caring about it, was already been predetermined by the demise of the dinosaurs. had i cared to elaborate (or been programmed to elaborate given the unique combination of universal conditions present at the time i read your post), elaboration would have poured forth from me like magic, prompted by a precise chain of events stretching back to the time before fish walked on 2 legs.

lulz.

(i don't lulz to mock sam harris. i say it because 15 years ago a butterfly took a shit, other stuff happened in the interim, and lo! today lulz burst forth on its own, the subconsciously-calculated response to the exact string of stimuli upon this humble meat puppet. how could it be otherwise?)

 

[tomaszjot]

how would i know if i care to elaborate? whether i elaborate or not, and even my caring about it, was already been predetermined by the demise of the dinosaurs. had i cared to elaborate (or been programmed to elaborate given the unique combination of universal conditions present at the time i read your post), elaboration would have poured forth from me like magic, prompted by a precise chain of events stretching back to the time before fish walked on 2 legs.

lulz.

(i don't lulz to mock sam harris. i say it because 15 years ago a butterfly took a shit, other stuff happened in the interim, and lo! today lulz burst forth on its own, the subconsciously-calculated response to the exact string of stimuli upon this humble meat puppet. how could it be otherwise?)

I see what you did here. Pretty funny, worth few WF likes for sure. Very high entertaining value.

Sticker for you Drave.

Now, if you watch the whole video you would know why you could respond to me "normally"...

I hope you understand that mocking the argument do not make it invalid...

Because it's scientific please provide scientific counterargument.

Can you try again Drave?

 

[cardine]

I think all evidence points to the lack of free will but since that lack of a free will is occurring at a level far beyond what we can recognize I'm not sure why it matters too much.

I don't control the thoughts that subconsciously pop into my head, and I agree that those thoughts are the result of a long chain of chemical reactions, but I still consider them to be my thoughts.

 

[greenleaves]

I'm sure you would. Actually, could you? I mean tearing apart Sam Harris would put you among world's intellectual elite, that would be huge man.

So could you tear apart this argument against free will? Or are you just all talk?

I actually challenge you to do it. You see, me myself, I'm too stupid to do it but if you manage I will be really impressed.

Thanks

World's Intellectual Elite...

I'm sure for some that sounds like a super smart thing to say. To me... it is just the term really smug people say about others who explain their own point of view better then they can themselves without ever daring to consider anything other than the standard views within their group of peers.

He says he has 'scientific proof' or that 'science' is close to demonstrating the lack of free will.

So let's start by going to the definition of science, so we can agree what we are talking about:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe.

If this guy has proof that we have no free will, he would then be able to predict human behavior.

If he could do that, he could be the king of the world pretty much. He could be the greatest stock market investor ever. He could earn billions with his insight and improve humanity. Or... he could convince me of his crack pot ideas.

But he can't.

Therefore, he does not have any PROOF of the predictability of pre-destined human actions.

All he has is his ramblings. Which are FILLED to the brim with pretty much all the logical fallacies in the book.

Before you shoot off one of the fallacies like a good puppy, let me just knock your first one out before you give it: There is no proof of free will. You are right. But I'm not claiming it exists. He is claiming it doesn't. The burden of proof lies on the one making the assertion.

He has some great rhetoric for targeting angst-filled young white males with self esteem problems who are just coming out of their super protected world to discover that not all is as they were once told. He does not engage in dialectics though. And he is VERY far from a scientist.

 

[drave]

I see what you did here. Pretty funny, worth few WF likes for sure. Very high entertaining value.

Sticker for you Drave.

Now, if you watch the whole video you would know why you could respond to me "normally"...

I hope you understand that mocking the argument do not make it invalid...

Because it's scientific please provide scientific counterargument.

Can you try again Drave?

when i started the vid, i intended to give him 10 minutes to prove out or say something useful. once i reached 10, i felt he may be close to getting around to a point, so i extended that to 20. repeat to 30. then i shut it off. i won't waste 50 more minutes for a guy that couldn't make a convincing enough premise in 30.

his main point during that 30 min timeframe seemed to be "we can't pin down the mechanism by which thoughts pop into our heads; therefore, they must be beyond our control". that, as greenleaves pointed out, is an obvious logical fallacy. there were others.

having not watched it all, i can't make counterarguments... but (again, as greenleaves said) it was his responsibility to prove his case, not mine to disprove it.

 

[tomaszjot]

To me... it is just the term really smug people say about others who explain their own point of view better then they can themselves without ever daring to consider anything other than the standard views within their group of peers.

I never said I share his views. In fact I disagree with him on most of the cases (like it matters anyway). His argument against free will however seems to be strong.

I posted this video because many guys here are libertarians, some are religious and so on and I though problem of free will may be interesting for some. Video gives different perspective - that's all. It was something new for me and I thought it may be worth sharing.

There were no other intentions of this thread.

If this guy has proof that we have no free will, he would then be able to predict human behavior.

...

But he can't.

Even if he has proof that free will does not exist how could he predict things like changes on markets or whatever? I doubt he ever made a claim it would be possible.

I guess you would need God-like creature to predict all human actions.

 

[greenleaves]

I never said I share his views. In fact I disagree with him on most of the cases (like it matters anyway). His argument against free will however seems to be strong.

I posted this video because many guys here are libertarians, some are religious and so on and I though problem of free will may be interesting for some. Video gives different perspective - that's all. It was something new for me and I thought it may be worth sharing.

There were no other intentions of this thread.



Even if he has proof that free will does not exist how could he predict things like changes on markets or whatever? I doubt he ever made a claim it would be possible.

I guess you would need God-like creature to predict all human actions.

If you have a formula for showing free will does not exist, it logically follows that the formula will predict human behavior. If you predict human behavior, you predict economies. Only with proof can this topic that is currently the topic of theologians, be brought into the realm of science without quackery.

Personally, I like to think of free will and destiny in the way that Tolstoy describes, as form and content. Where form is our destiny, content our control.

On a practical matter, I consider others to be pre-destined and myself to have complete free will. This forces me to be understand to others and hard on myself.

I have no problem with opinions.

But this asshole is messing with something that is near religious to me; science.

And you obviously agree with him to a great degree, otherwise you wouldn't reference him as "world's intellectual elite".

I'm sure someone smarter than I will have made the case that pretty much anyone who is alive and who's recent ideas are considered to be part of the 'worlds intellectual elite' by peers is almost by definition not the elite. Since the elite are ahead of their time and therefore, misunderstood by their peers.

 

[drave]

On a practical matter, I consider others to be pre-destined and myself to have complete free will. This forces me to be understand to others and hard on myself.

I employ the same perspective but for less noble reasons.

 

[tomaszjot]

If you have a formula for showing free will does not exist, it logically follows that the formula will predict human behavior. If you predict human behavior, you predict economies. Only with proof can this topic that is currently the topic of theologians, be brought into the realm of science without quackery.

I can hear you but still... even if you knew all the steps it would be almost impossible to compute all this data.

Also: even if Harris knew how to gather and compute all this data why do you assume he would like to be king of the world? (unless you've just predicted it, ha ha)

And you obviously agree with him to a great degree, otherwise you wouldn't reference him as "world's intellectual elite".

Lets go guerilla here and define "elite".

Because I know next to nothing about science or modern philosophy (or theology) my "elite" will consist of people who are popular. And I guess because I've heard of him he must be quite popular.

Is it elite in terms of quality? I don't know.

Let say you don't know nothing about opera. Then someone asks you who do you think belong to world's opera elite singers. You would probably name Pavarotti (RIP), Domingo and Bocelli. Are they a real elite? I have no idea.

So, my "eliting" him has no connection with me agreeing with him or not - it's just my perception of his person based on his popularity.

I guess in philosophy and other disciplines where a lot is a matter of opinion being elite do not depend on being right or wrong.

 

[greenleaves]

I can hear you but still... even if you knew all the steps it would be almost impossible to compute all this data.

Also: even if Harris knew how to gather and compute all this data why do you assume he would like to be king of the world? (unless you've just predicted it, ha ha)




Lets go guerilla here and define "elite".

Because I know next to nothing about science or modern philosophy (or theology) my "elite" will consist of people who are popular. And I guess because I've heard of him he must be quite popular.

Is it elite in terms of quality? I don't know.

Let say you don't know nothing about opera. Then someone asks you who do you think belong to world's opera elite singers. You would probably name Pavarotti (RIP), Domingo and Bocelli. Are they a real elite? I have no idea.

So, my "eliting" him has no connection with me agreeing with him or not - it's just my perception of his person based on his popularity.

I guess in philosophy and other disciplines where a lot is a matter of opinion being elite do not depend on being right or wrong.

Let's get down to it. You didn't think his argument could be refuted easily. I did so by saying that to prove a scientific Truth, you need, you know... evidence and he didn't present any. I think that qualifies as an easy take down of his entire speech.

Upon getting that reply you go quiet on the actual argument at hand.

Now you want to switch the argument to what is elite and how I would classify something as elite if I knew nothing of a topic.

I'll tear apart any new, extremely weak arguments you present only after having put to rest the original one presented: That Free will is false and it is now a scientific Theory. Admit he is states shit he has no proof of and therefore is no better than a theologian, or provide the proof requested.