patrick.net

He's great, but his point on free will (that it is an illusion) is, well, not wrong, but misleading. We do have free will.

Heraclitusstudent says

We do have free will.

Define free will and then prove that it exists.

Ok, I would say free will means that at each point in time, "we" make a choice of what to do next.
The question is what is "we" in this sentence. What factors are considered in what we do next: our neurons connections, based on our genes, our experience, our knowledge so far. i.e. everything we consider to be "we" on a day to day basis.

Heraclitusstudent says

At each point in time, "we" make a choice of what to do next.

So does a computer. Does that have free will?

You have not defined free will. If you cannot come up with a meaningful, unambiguous definition, then your statement "we do have free will" is meaningless.

Harris' approach to issues is facinating.

Extremely sharp and articulate fellow.

Dan8267 says

So does a computer. Does that have free will?

The key concept here is that of layers. This is what Harris is missing.

On the layer of the processor or VM, a computer doesn't have a choice. Harris looks at the brain at the physical layer and says we have no choice.
At the conscious level (or software equivalent) a computer can have a choice and make a choice. Indeed even a chess program looks at possible alternatives and makes a choice.
This what Harris is missing. This is not a semantic trick. This actually what the words "choice" and "possible alternative" mean.
The contention that we have to violate the laws of physics to claim we are free to choose one way or an other doesn't make sense. This would only make sense if looked only at the physical layer.
Free will happens in us and could happen in computers but on a higher layer.

Also reentrant processes lead to chaotic systems. We know that at a physical level even a simple 3 body system with newton laws lead to solutions that are discontinuous after sufficient time. i.e. a tiny change in the start condition can lead to major change after enough time. So it goes for the brain. Harris makes it sound like because it is a deterministic physical process only one thing can happen. This may be true but this is totally misleading. Based on what we actually know of someone, virtually anything can happen at the physical layer.
On the "conscious" layer however, choices are very controlled: by logic, by knowledge, by preferences including very personal one. So the right layer to consider this, once again, is not the physical layer.

His reasoning is incomplete. It relies on deterministic nature of cause and effect. Specifically min. 10-10:30 where he talks about repeating cause/effect experiment trillion times in a row.
It's a bold assumption, and not necessarily correct. I don't know if there is free will or not, but if there is - it's nature probably has same underlying cause as quantum indeterminacy.

Or the other way around (wait for it... atheist's special is coming): quantum indeterminacy is a way in which God invalidates all that "well, as a combination of all factors the person had no choice but to act this or that way" reasoning and gives us free will.

mostly reader says

It's a bold assumption, and not necessarily correct. I don't know if there is free will or not, but if there is - it's nature probably has same underlying cause as quantum indeterminacy.

This is an other line of criticism, but I would refrain from saying free will is just based on random quantic noise.
Computers are designed to avoid such noise and I would think free will could arise in a program as well.

Heraclitusstudent says

mostly reader says

It's a bold assumption, and not necessarily correct. I don't know if there is free will or not, but if there is - it's nature probably has same underlying cause as quantum indeterminacy.

This is an other line of criticism, but I would refrain from saying free will is just based on random quantic noise.
Computers are designed to avoid such noise and I would think free will could arise in a program as well.

I'd refrain from using the word "just".
There is a multiplier involved (to put it in trivialized way - that whole butterfly thing).

mostly reader says

His reasoning is incomplete

Yes. I too don't agree with his assessment on free will. He suggests that his meditation got him to those insights. I get it and I think I get his point - still thinking about it, but I don't see it as anything close to a proof. He waves his hands and says you have to be a meditator to really get it (which I have been - on and off, over the years). I also have a problem with some of his other ideas, such as the angle he takes on god. But I do like him and agree his discussions are at a minimum always thought provoking. I think sometimes he's just intentionally provocative, such as with his argument with Chomsky which he lost. But I think that may have been more or less intentional - to get Chomsky's point out there, and knowing that Chomsky's might not be around too much longer (although I hope he is).

Very interesting points about AI, including some I never considered - regarding what if AI is never conscious, and yet can still lead to super intelligent entities ?

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

At each point in time, "we" make a choice of what to do next.

So does a computer. Does that have free will?

Heraclitusstudent says

The key concept here is that of layers.

This does not address the question I asked.

Heraclitusstudent says

The contention that we have to violate the laws of physics to claim we are free to choose one way or an other doesn't make sense.

Once again,

You have not defined free will. If you cannot come up with a meaningful, unambiguous definition, then your statement "we do have free will" is meaningless.

Sam Harris gave a clear and unambiguous definition of free will that accurately reflects what most people think of when they use the term. Free will means that the decision chosen is at least partially independent of the physical state of the universe. For example, if you make a decision about what color crayon to pick out of a box and then we reversed time to before you made that decision, you would make the exact same decision if every factor in that decision were the same. I.e. every atom in your brain and every atom and photon around you. Therefore, you don't have free will. You have freedom, but your choices are still deterministic. There is nothing supernatural at play.

If you have a different definition of free will then present it. But if it's not what people think of when using the term, then the meaning of any claims based on it are also altered.

Dan8267 says

For example, if you make a decision about what color crayon to pick out of a box and then we reversed time to before you made that decision, you would make the exact same decision if every factor in that decision were the same. I.e. every atom in your brain and every atom and photon around you. Therefore, you don't have free will. You have freedom, but your choices are still deterministic.

I would argue (but won't beyond this) that we don't know enough about consciousness or intelligence to reach this conclusion. I'm assuming that by "every factor" you mean all physical conditions and all history.

I see it as a hand waving argument.

And also it is a hand waving argument (in my view) to say that his conclusion not being true necessitates something supernatural being involved.

Note: I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying he hasn't provided a proof that I consider valid. I'm guessing that he knows this, otherwise he would not refer to his meditation as one of the reasons this is clear to him.