The belief in free will is something that touches all corners of our life. It engages feelings of moral responsibility, accomplishment, and shame, and it underlies much of our criminal justice system and politics.
However, according to the latest science on the subject, there is almost undeniable evidence that free will is an illusion of an illusion. For an explanation of what that truly means, I defer to philosopher and neuroscientist, Sam Harris.
In the talk below Harris outlines the scientific arguments against free will and goes through basically his entire new book of the subject. If you are into enlightening talks that challenge your beliefs (and may change your life, as it did for me), take an hour to watch the talk below and to do away with the notion of a freedom of the will.
You can buy Harris’ short, engaging, and provocative book that this talk is based on here. Like his others books, it completely changed my view on something that I thought I knew something about. I highly recommend it.
You can disagree with this position (vehemently for some of you, I suspect), in the comment section below.
First of all, I honestly did watch the WHOLE video. I can’t believe I used my time like that, but the skeptic in me wants to be exposed to evidence, facts and ideas before I make a conclusion. As does any TRUE skeptic of course.
Since apparently I don’t have any choice, I’m not responsible for disbelieving this guy. ;) His arguments are not new, in fact they are thousands of years old, with a little scientific spin to it. But I give credit that his point seems like a fairly sound logical leap from evolution’s supposed “physical inevitability” to he mind’s. I.E. without God, every action is either random or pre-determined.
When you think about it, his case is one of the hardest issues to prove. “Think about why you cannot choose, and believe me.” Um…. how?
He glosses over a myriad of assumptions in his talk. (For example: “You didn’t pick your parents.” Given a human has a soul and existed before life and after, how does he know that?) And his “choice” exercises are contrived, their contexts unexplored. (Are they moral choices? Are they complicated choices? Are they major choices? These things matter.) I wonder how he would do in an in-depth discussion with a theologian or philosopher. My bet is they wouldn’t get anywhere. And it’s neither of their faults, since they can’t REALLY choose. ;)
Let me put it this way: in general, his argument is the best science can do against philosophy, which is the best thing against religion.
Overall, I like this guy’s primary message: had I been in his shoes, I would’ve done the same thing. Don’t judge others — that’s up to God. Love them instead, even your enemies. Amen.
P.S. I love how this guy tells athiests what we thiests think! (His audience is of course ripe for the telling.) Actually God’s justice is not “retribution” — it is reward/restoration, based on the person’s heart/soul/character which we can never know.
Dear Kyle,
I applaud your post on Sam Harris’ new book and research, but given that this is such a sensitive topic, could I suggest you to bring in Daniel Dennett’s view of the same subject? I suspect it is somewhat different. There is a dearth of evidence on this area and it is probably the power of the arguments that can help elucidate or convince the readers of what free will is (or what it is not, or what do you know or think we know about what free will is).
Cheers
Hugo Cardoso
Hey Hugo,
From what I heard in the lecture, I thought he rebutted the main position of “compatibilist” determinists like Dennett. My understanding of Dennett’s argument is that even though we are not consciously choosing our thoughts or actions, the organism that is us is still making a decision. However, to Harris’ point, because this holistic view of the self is not how we subjectively feel, that is to say we subjectively imagine to be the author of our thoughts and actions, this argument is missing the point. It is like saying we are all stardust, which is true, but we do not feel like stardust. Similarly, we do not feel to be anything but the part of our conscious brain that we are aware of at any one moment (not our feet, ears, lower back, etc.)
Harris also deals with Dennett’s argument at some length in the new book itself.
Dear Kyle,
I’m doing a school project on this subject at the moment, and i was wondering if you’d have any sources that proves Harris’ point when he claims that scientists have been able to track a person’s movement before thay actually make it.
Simen
Here is a good overview in Wired which explains the research and provides further reading and sources you could look up. These are what Harris was referencing.
http://m.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision
Thank you very much Sir.