On page 37 of Sam Harris's book, Free Will, he wrote, "You are not in control of your mind..."

If determinism is true, then he is correct - no one has any control over their minds. Everything that we think, say and do does not come from "us" but is just the product of the previous state of the physical world.

So if Harris is to be consistent he would have to acknowledge that he has no control of what he has written in his book. It just so "happens" that the words formed into sentences that are syntactically correct and sort of make sense.

If determinism is true we are all essentially uncontrolled, noise-making puppets with our strings pulled mindlessly by the physical universe.

Harris’s thesis of determinism being true is self-defeating. If one asserts that there are valid, comprehensible reasons for believing that determinism is true, as Harris does, then in doing so he shows that determinism must necessarily be false.

Resorting to "compatibilism" doesn't help either.It is only if we do have libertarian free will, where we could actually have done something other than what we did, that life makes any sense.

The reality is that we all live with free will as a reality. We do largely have control of our minds and that is why we can meaningfully hold each accountable for our behaviour.

«The reality is that we all live with free will as a reality»

The reality is that we all EXPERIENCE free will as a reality.

- This much we can affirm without hesitation.

We can likewise affirm without hesitation that we all SEE the sun rising and setting, but we cannot similarly affirm that the sun is in fact rising and setting: despite what we undeniably see, we know that it is the earth which rotates around itself which creates that impression.

It is, nevertheless, still very practical to live AS IF we had free will, just as it is very practical to live as if the sun will rise next morning and set next evening:

It is still true that if we choose wisely and treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves, then we will enjoy a pleasant and fulfilling life (and afterlife too, but we need not go into that now), while if we choose poorly and hurt others instead then we will suffer a miserable life (and afterlife as well). These observations do not depend on whether or not our will is free as it seems.

«On page 37 of Sam Harris' book, Free Will, he wrote, "You are not in control of your mind..."»

To even begin to assess Harris' statement, one first needs to know what Harris meant by the word "You", which can have at least 9 different and incompatible meanings.

I don’t agree Yuyutsu.

You say it is practical to live AS IF we have free will. To say that implies that we have control over how we live but if we don’t actually have free will then we have no control over how we live at all.

In the same way, we can only “choose wisely” (or choose foolishly) if we have a will that enables to genuinely choose between options. If determinism is true then things just “happen” and we have no control over anything.

As I pointed out above, arguing that determinism is true is logically self-defeating

Dear JP,

I do not believe in material determinism - the kind of determinism I believe in, is that all without exception is by God's will, including man's subjective sense of free will. I believe that things do not "just happen" - they happen by God's grace.

Like it or not, humans have no control whatsoever over how they live.
Humans (and animals too) have a will of course, that is an undeniable experience, but that will is not genuinely free like it seems to be, just as the sun does not genuinely rise and set.

Note carefully that I never said that you are a human (you are not!), but to the extent you believe yourself to be a human, it follows that this "you" has no control.

.

Dear Peter (the author),

.

You ask :

« Do we have free will ? »

I don’t know about you, Peter, but I do.

It’s kind of fun – even though it sometimes gets me into trouble !

.

Hello Yuyutsu - If everything that happens is due entirely to God’s will and humans have no control whatsoever over how they live, then this discussion, indeed everything is entirely pointless.

What Peter Bowden wrote, what you wrote, and what I wrote, is all caused by God. It seems that God is just talking to himself via human beings.

Perhaps “you” will now reply to this – no, you will certainly reply if God causes you to reply and you certainly won’t if he doesn’t. And if God causes you to reply you will write exactly what God causes you to write and . . . on and on it goes.

It is all a meaningless exercise, if you are correct.

Dear JP,

«If everything that happens is due entirely to God’s will and humans have no control whatsoever»

Man has no true control, only apparent control.
The sun never truly rises, yet regardless, it keeps providing us with light and warmth.

«indeed everything is entirely pointless.»

This conclusion is the very danger of half-digested information.
I have told you the truth, but in doing so I also subjected you to great danger.
I am sorry. I hope you are still reading my response and not jumped off a cliff or something.

It is not in the nature of this world for anyone to obtain all their desires.
Maybe in heaven, but if someone told you that you can obtain all you want bodily on earth, then they are the greatest deceivers.

While the typical human mind desires control, all it can obtain is a measure of apparent control.
People may refuse to accept this truth and throw a tantrum, but that will not change how things are.
However, just because something fails to satisfy your mind's desires, does not make it pointless.

«What Peter Bowden wrote, what you wrote, and what I wrote, is all caused by God. It seems that God is just talking to himself via human beings.»

This could be how it looks from a human perspective.
But God is not subject to cause and effect (cause and effect being part of God's creation).

People tried to understand God before you, speculating about the big WHY for ages:

Find God's reply in Job Chapters 38-41:

"Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
..."

Don’t worry Yuyutsu, I am not going to jump off any cliff! Maybe if I thought you were correct I might, but I don’t think you are.

But even if I did jump off a cliff that, according to you, would be God’s will – “all without exception is by God's will”. So if it should be God’s will for me to jump off a cliff, why should that upset you?

I presume that you believe that you also have only “apparent control”?

Do you believe that it is God who actually controls everything that you say and write?

Do you believe that it is God who actually controls everything that I say and write?

If you say ‘yes’ to these two questions, and I assume you must do so, then that is why I say that your way of perceiving the world makes everything pointless and meaningless. If we are not actually involved to some meaningful degree in what we say and write, then we are just God’s puppets. And puppets are just bits of wood, fabric and string, having no intrinsic worth or meaning.

PS If God is controlling everything that I write and believe, then how can I write or believe anything that is incorrect? Do you believe that God plays tricks on us, making us write and believe things that are false?

Dear JP,

«I am not going to jump off any cliff! Maybe if I thought you were correct I might, but I don’t think you are.»

This places me in a moral dilemma.
I can probably convince you that we have no free will, but could I live with the consequences?

So let me limit myself and concentrate instead on the issue of "meaning"
(as in «puppets are just bits of wood, fabric and string, having no intrinsic worth or meaning.»):

You may enjoy a good ice-cream, good music or good sex, you may enjoy the feeling of others appreciating you, you may enjoy the intellectual satisfaction of solving a difficult problem, and you may enjoy the feeling that what you do has a positive lasting effect: that we call "meaning".

If I take away a child's ice-cream, they might throw a tantrum, ditto for the other sources of pleasure.
A child whose ice-cream is snatched might jump under a car in protest, that's why the parent firmly holds their hand: as I don't have that option here, I must be careful.

Ice-cream is real enough, and so is the FEELING and/or THOUGHT that one is producing a positive and lasting legacy, but not the contents of such thoughts: if we analyse them objectively, then we must arrive at the conclusion that no legacy of ours can be eternal.

Objectively, all we ever do and create is like building sand castles.
That fact does not disturb me personally because I am not emotionally invested in leaving a legacy (or in finding a meaning, which is essentially the same). Instead, I joyfully accept God's gift of life and thank God for the present moment.

Since I have no emotional investment of this kind, I am not disturbed at all by the knowledge that I am not the doer of whatever God works through me - I am at peace with it.

Now, I think you can pretty easily guess my answers to your various questions in your last post: would you still need me to answer them explicitly one by one?

“I can probably convince you that we have no free will, but could I live with the consequences?”

Yuyutsu - I don’t know how you cannot see the internal contradictions within what you write.

You say that you think you can convince me that we have no free will – but if we have no free will, (1) how can you decide to convince me either way? (2) how can I become convinced? (3) how can you decide whether you can live with the consequences? The ability for us to be able to do all of these things depends on us having free will!

You continually write as if you and I have free will but then you deny that we have it!

But again, if “all without exception is by God's will” then, yes, you would be right that we have no free will.

You say, “I am not disturbed at all by the knowledge that I am not the doer of whatever God works through me - I am at peace with it”. But what about murderers – do they commit murder because that is God working through them? Can they, like you, be at peace, believing that God worked through them to commit the murder, that the murder was God’s will?

Yes, I would like you to answer my questions.

Dear JP,

«You continually write as if you and I have free will but then you deny that we have it!»

Exactly: In my very first post here, I wrote:
"It is, nevertheless, still very practical to live AS IF we had free will".

Note that I am not denying that we have a will, only that it is free, so the "AS IF" clause only refers to the freedom of our will, not to its existence.

«(1) how can you decide to convince me either way?»

Understanding how exactly it is done is complex and may require years (if not lifetimes) of research, but whatever is the mechanism [by which I decide to try and convince you], it can be carried out just the same whether or not my will is free.

«(2) how can I become convinced?»

By deciding that the evidence/arguments I presented are sufficient.
Yes, for that you need a will, which indeed you have. The capabilities of your will to make that decision, however, are the same whether it is free or otherwise.

«(3) how can you decide whether you can live with the consequences?»

This is again, as in (1), complex and requires research, so my answer is as in (1).

«The ability for us to be able to do all of these things depends on us having free will!»

It depends on us having a will, not on its being free.

«But what about murderers – do they commit murder because that is God working through them?»

To be pedantic, God is not subject to time, so we cannot truly say "God works", yet that is probably the closest to reality we can express in words from the perspective of time-bound creatures.

So yes, murderers do so by the will of God, but for any PRACTICAL PURPOSE they don't know about it, they don't see it this way, in their mind they believe that they work against God.

«Can they, like you, be at peace, believing that God worked through them to commit the murder, that the murder was God’s will?»

[...continued]

Can a murderer truly believe in their heart of hearts that it is only God working through them and they have no input in it?
I think that is rare, but if they can, then they can be at peace.

Alright, some older questions are pending:

«So if it should be God’s will for me to jump off a cliff, why should that upset you?»

There could be several reasons for me to be upset that you jumped off a cliff (though none of them is really justified):

1) unrelated reasons, for example if you owed me money and now you will never return it.

2) Because I feel guilty, or at least foolish, for revealing to you a secret truth which you could not [yet] digest.

3) Because I am afraid that a police investigation would find me responsible for your death (Judge: "If it was your god who made your friend jump, then lets see your god releasing you from jail").

4) Because I still have lingering doubts.

5) Because while I understand on an intellectual level that I was not the doer, I might still emotionally FEEL that I was.

«I presume that you believe that you also have only “apparent control”?»

True.

«Do you believe that it is God who actually controls everything that you say and write?»

Yes (but see below).

«Do you believe that it is God who actually controls everything that I say and write?»

Yes (but see below).

«If God is controlling everything that I write and believe»

The perception of "control" is only from the perspective of a time-bound creature: God does not truly control because God is not subject to time.

«how can I write or believe anything that is incorrect?»

It could be lack of knowledge, it could be lack of honesty, and several other things.

«Do you believe that God plays tricks on us, making us write and believe things that are false?»

Again, it may seem so from a human perspective, but God does not play tricks because God is not subject to time.

Okay Yuyutsu, I appreciate your efforts to try and make your position coherent but I don't think you succeed. In the end I think you just continually contradict yourself.

Presumably you will think that I have arrived at this conclusion because that is just what God causes me to think. If that should be correct, that God is causing me to think as I do, then there is nothing I can do about it! But again, I don't think that is correct.

Thanks again for the discussion, but I am going to leave it there.

Dear JP,

May God bless you, and keep safe.

We are driven by an elaborate set of instincts.
These make up the basic person.
We can add to these with learned behaviour.
We also have the ability to reason.
So we can control, to a useful extent, all of the above.
This ability to control is the free will of which we speak?
As long as we can reason, we have this 'free will'.
Whether we use it or not is another matter.
Some cannot.
Such as serial killers etc.
Their instinctive behaviour overrides all other considerations.

Are there boundaries on how we apply that great attribute of reason?
And hence our free will?
Yes there are.
We all realise that there is 'safety in numbers'.
So we willingly belong to a group.
In any group there will be a great diversity of attitudes and opinions.
So compromise will be needed to reach a set of common goals and behaviours.
These are largely outlined by our system of laws.
There are also other 'standards' to which we adhere.
These are usually of a relatively personal nature.
Together, they all contribute to the 'culture' which exists in our society.

I generally support Sam Harris but maybe that's the way he justifies his gayness to himself. I enjoyed the Sam Harris / Jordan Peterson's God debates. Physicist Roger Penrose wrote the Emperor's New Mind and refers to quantum consciousness. Determinism looks different from the point of view of quantum mechanics. The 'deterministic free will' view seem to be variations on the "End of History" "and why are we here" themes which have been done to death. Sam Harris is generally very thoughtful and so his arguments are bound to be interesting.

The comment that implies that the Dog/ Human cultural relationship is encoded genetically is interesting- and contradicts Marxist understanding of culture as being a purely nurture based phenomena.

.

Dear Canem Malum,

.

I understand that free will means autonomy.

I think we all have a certain amount of autonomy. The question is not do we have autonomy, but how much autonomy do we have ? That is a variable and there are limits to it – internal and external limits.

La Boétie wrote a book entitled “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” in 1547, when he was about 17 years old. I guess there are instances where voluntary servitude is a free choice and others where it is more of an obligation due to circumstances.

Though there may be important differences in the rate of development of autonomy among individuals due to all the variables that contribute to its evolution, progress is nevertheless achieved during the lifetime of each individual. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever-greater degree of complexity until the individual is no longer held to obey any particular predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will.

Deep Blue was a chess-playing expert system run on a unique purpose-built IBM supercomputer. It was the first computer to win a match against a reigning world champion under regular time controls. It first played world champion Garry Kasparov in a six-game match in 1996, where it lost four games to two. It was upgraded in 1997 and in a six-game re-match, it defeated Kasparov by winning two games and drawing three.

While Deep Blue, with its capability of evaluating 200 million positions per second, was the first computer to face a world chess champion in a formal match, it was a then-state-of-the-art expert system, relying upon rules and variables defined and fine-tuned by chess masters and computer scientists.

In contrast, current chess engines such as Leela Chess Zero typically use reinforcement machine learning systems that train a neural network to play, developing its own internal logic rather than relying upon rules defined by human experts.

According to my definition, Leela Chess Zero exercises a form of free will. It makes its own decisions.

.

Dear Banjo,

Having a sense of autonomy, big or small, does not imply that one has actual autonomy.
(like having a sense that the sun rises, does not imply that the sun actually rises)

Whether or not machines have autonomy is a different and separate question, but even if they had, they have no sense of autonomy like us: being machines, even possibly autonomous machines, they have no sense at all, of anything.

Humans, it seems, are machines too, and assuming that to be the case, the above must hold for humans as well.

That, however, does not change the fact that we do have some sense of autonomy, including the autonomy to use a human like a peripheral device for interacting with the world.

Banjo Patterson- It's a relatively complex question "what is free will" you've said "I understand that free will means autonomy".

This is part of the philosophy of the mind. Often philosophy deals with difficult perhaps unsolvable questions.

Some interesting perspectives ...

- free will implies consciousness awareness (Descartes- 'I think therefore I am' or in this case 'I'm aware therefore I have free will'). Could you have free will without awareness?

- If you repeated the same experiment would the chess program give the same answer?

- Mind Materialist's seem to believe that the mind is like the states of a billard table and if you know the speeds and positions of the balls you can predict the history of the mind. They say that awareness is an emerging property. But three body problems are often unsolvable and are probably 'practically unpredictable'. Quantum effects- The physicist Einstein said to his colleague Bohr that "God does not play dice" believing that hidden states caused the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem appears to show that there aren't hidden states. This implies that there are things in the universe that have inherently local randomness and 'non-determinism'. Free will could be a type of non-deterministic or practically unpredictable process