Critical Thoughts
This YouTube channel is dedicated to bringing you reason based videos from the most influential academics, philosophers, scientists, personalities, and public speakers on the internet. The purpose being, to promote critical thinking and bring together a collection of Critical Thoughts into an organized easy to access educational archive.
Source and Credit –
#39 – FREE WILL REVISITED
A Conversation with Daniel Dennett
https://samharris.org/podcasts/free-will-revisited/
Support Sam Harris – https://samharris.org/subscribe/
Source
Gandalf v Stiller
Damn That Dan Dennett is a really intellgent man , I wish I was as smart as him!
Sam won this debate hands down. Dan is making no sense.
Does anyone know what evidence Sam has that if we were to rewind time that it would play out exactly the same way?
Daniel Dennett is a dweeb. Geez.
One word, 'android'. Lt. Data is a fictional character, an automaton, but how long will it be before devices like that actually exist? How will Dan's arguments apply in that world? Well he has already answered this, saying that the maker of the android would be responsible for anything the android did. Well, since we are literally just flesh and bone automatons ourselves that seems like a diversion. By his logic our parents are responsible for everything that we do. He says "no, a person makes himself. His 21 year old self makes his 22 year old self." Well I guess you created and birthed yourself. That's good to know Dan, I was under the false impression that I was created in my mother's womb.
Harris requires sonsciousness to be external form te brain te conscious self is contorlled by te brain the conscio usness in arris' assumptions is te plane being piloted externally
Hrris spends a good chunk of te debate claiming tere is a script and Denettte points out tat arris as tus far been unable to prove te existenc eof te "script" as it were
Two very very confused atheists comical
Let's assume the boat analogy. Dennett is missing the fact he can't control anything on the boat. Not the wind nor himself.
"And I've made a career of saying that's not the core" – Daniel Dennett
Who cares what you've made a career of, Dan? Yeah, you've made a career out of it, you've sold books, you've made money. Doesn't make you right… you can make a career by bullshitting and obfuscating you know . . .
THE MATRIX IS PROOF OF GOD. Something to consider, from a former atheist activist: The Matrix is in the Bible five (5) times beginning in Exodus.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?hs=1&q=Matrix+
We are immortal souls in a test.
THERE EXIST "NO" VIRTUAL REALITIES WITHOUT A CREATOR
Only God is ultimately real.
And Only God can save us.
Through the Only True Gate, Jesus.
The Luciferian Elites are
trying to claim the Matrix is
only planet-wide and invention of aliens, which is a lie,
when the truth is the simulations are fundamental to the nature of the multiverse, the Electric Universe, as discovered by Nikola Tesla and illustrated beautifully by Walter Russell…
No virtual realities exist without a CREATOR.
The Matrix is God's.
This is a simulation and we are souls on trial in an interactive virtual reality that manifests at the speed of thought.
THE SIMULATIONS ARE FUNDAMENTAL
– The Planck Length proves our reality is pixelated.
HISTORICITY OF JESUS
– The Nag Hammadi Pistis Sophia further prove the historicity of Jesus as do Kabbala and Talmud.
– the debunking of the Shroud of Turin was debunked — it's real.
The only salvation for individual souls is very likely Jesus in this MATRIX this VIRTUAL reality.
Something to consider
– Peace to you
PS. To my Jewish friends — The highly esteemed Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri saw multiple visions of YESHUA for over a year before his death. (We Jews are mistakenly taught to expect a temporary political messiah instead of a savior for our souls for all eternity. Time to be humble in this DIVINE virtual reality. )
May the Lord Bless You.
Please share Proof of God if this helps you.
Save your soul.
The spiritual war is real.
And so is GOD.
Would anyone be able to explain Dennett's views to me in layman's terms? I had difficulty actually grasping his argument, as he often provided what seemed to me to be either obscure or just flat out incorrect analogies, which didn't actually negate free will.
I agree with Sam reluctantly on this one, as I do intuitively feel like the author of my own actions, and yet logically I can't make sense of it.
I wrote a bit about this on my medium account at : https://medium.com/@louisarthuroneill/do-we-have-free-will-59c3e5eab658
Dan still doesn't get it … and yes, as Sam likewise thought, Dan's previous stated view re compatibilism ,and moreover – his reasons for wanting to believe in it, or moreover, thinking it should be 'put about' to the masses – is VERY reminiscent of some justifications put forward for religious belief …
With all due respect, Dan still doesn't get it – or, perhaps more likely, still doesn't want to (publicly, at least) get it … he believes in his concept of a 'benevolent/useful lie' that needs to be maintained in the minds of the masses (that they have at least some degree of 'free will'), for their/society's own good … … … this, again, is why he reminds me (as he did Sam) of a theist/theologian, when it comes to this issue/topic … … … Incidentally, his sailor/ship on the sea 'analogy' is a TERRIBLE one, as will be obvious to anyone who has put much thought at all I tot he idea of (hard) determinism …
Sam is incredibly patient here – no doubt, out of goodwill and respect for his friend ..
Meanwhile, Dan keeps throwing out terrible 'analogies'/examples, as if from a huge tin of red herrings …
Daniel Dennett: the high priest of 'compatibilist "free will"' … ?
"sense of could have done otherwise", isn't 'could ha e done otherwise', Dan!!!! No matter how many times you repeat that phrase with "sense" slipped into it. Impressions/perceptions are faulty, all the time … Daniel Dennett: 'compatibilist "free will"' 's most 'determined' (pardon the pun!) apologist … ?
I've thought on this a bit more, and I've come to the conclusion that I've been sharing the same problem as most compatiblists – I've been trying to redefine what free will in order to justify maintaining certain pieces I find valuable in free will, while simultaneously exhibiting an obvious desire to simply use a different term, which I'm much more comfortable with. I don't believe free will works, at all, and trying to fit it in with a contradicting concept is apologetic and disingenuous, and I certainly won't let myself go down that path.
This makes the idea of addiction truly frightening.
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but where is the incontrovertible proof that if you could roll back the clock, you would absolutely make the same choice every time? Nobody can time travel to determine that. As we are not machines as described by Dennet (built to flip a coin the same way each time by design), where is the logic in this determination?
I was hit by a tornado loss building income and was looted by thieves. Did I choose this? Chaos defined.I will be forever in a different space and time.
You either believe in chaos theory or free will.
Sam messed up the book "freewill" in a big way. A simple question will show you how muddle headed Harris was. Instead of "Could I have done differently?", just ask "Knowing what I now know, can I now do differently?"
That answers the question from the perspective of a compatibilist. Without a time machine, Harris's question is nonsensical and unscientific – and thus not falsifiable. The second question is clearly falsifiable through careful experiment – and if falsifiable, then it can also be confirmed.
My bet is on question two and a compatibilist position. As Dennett says in his critique of the book "Freedom involves the ability to have one’s choices influenced by changes in the world that matter under the circumstances. Not a perfect ability, but a reliable ability. " Good enough for me.
That was an extremely fascinating conversation.
Dan understand he is wrong but it does not want to admit it. He is no talking clearly.
What beautiful minds.
Go! Daniel Dennet!
Screw Sam Harris! He's corrupt, supports LGBTM and gay dictatorship.
The fact that humans are the only species on the planet that I am aware of, that can choose not to reproduce, is the best argument for free will.
What a great example for the whole Christian Age— One microphone— for the orderly idea of "One Voice at a time", because for the last 50 years we have heard many voices. grown louder, more hostile, and thin-skinned and retaliatory and defensive and paranoid— and, we can't forget belligerent. Free will is a relationship of what's within you interacting with or upon the world outside us. Outrage comes from INRAGE.
Outrage comes from INRAGE— but it's your freewill that is the mediator within you . Remember that before you shoot your mouth off, there'll be the probability of several potential volunteers to shoot it off FOR YOU !
T S Eliot – On what happens after we die when we believe in no after-life
O dark dark dark. They all go into the dark,
The vacant interstellar spaces, the vacant into the vacant,
The captains, merchant bankers, eminent men of letters,
The generous patrons of art, the statesmen and the rulers,
Distinguished civil servants, chairmen of many committees,
Industrial lords and petty contractors, all go into the dark,
And dark the Sun and Moon, and the Almanach de Gotha
And the Stock Exchange Gazette, the Directory of Directors,
And cold the sense and lost the motive of action.
And we all go with them, into the silent funeral,
Nobody's funeral, for there is no one to bury.
I said to my soul, be still, and let the dark come upon you
Which shall be the darkness of God. As, in a theatre,
The lights are extinguished, for the scene to be changed
With a hollow rumble of wings, with a movement of darkness on darkness,
And we know that the hills and the trees, the distant panorama
And the bold imposing facade are all being rolled away—
Or as, when an underground train, in the tube, stops too long between stations
And the conversation rises and slowly fades into silence
And you see behind every face the mental emptiness deepen
Leaving only the growing terror of nothing to think about;
Or when, under ether, the mind is conscious but conscious of nothing—
I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love,
For love would be love of the wrong thing; there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the waiting.
Wait without thought, for you are not ready for thought:
So the darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.
Whisper of running streams, and winter lightning.
The wild thyme unseen and the wild strawberry,
The laughter in the garden, echoed ecstasy
Not lost, but requiring, pointing to the agony
Of death and birth.
I think this debate was relatively unproductive
Daniel Dennett's idea of free will is correct. Harris is simply stating, if I went back in time, all things the same, I'd mandatorily make the decision that I actually did; no s__t Sam, the agent nevertheless exercised and exercises an enormous amount free will in the moments he makes his decisions. "But wait!" Harris says, "if I went back in time, I'd make that same decision again!" Yes, you would. That in no way diminishes your ability to choose a course of action, at any present moment. Also, Mr. Harris, most criminals are responsible for their crimes that they chose to make.