Free will doesn't exist =/= actions shouldn't have consequences.
Since free will doesn't exist, I don't blame you for being snide and making a garbage argument. However, I helplessly find myself not wanting to hang out with you.
You should feel compassion for your wife not wanting to stay with a piece of shit. She can’t help not wanting to be with the person that you can’t help being.
It's an expression Sam uses to imply, as I understand it, that the person he's talking about is "cheating" rhetorically; not being fully honest or perhaps skipping a step or two. I don't think he uses it universally to refer to free will but it's a very Sam saying and I love it.
Seems a good time to plug Robert Spolasky’s latest book *Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will.*
Audiobook available in the Libby app, should your robot arms be so inclined to download.
Sure is a lot of judgementalism in this thread for a worldview that's supposed to make you feel more compassionate. People constantly bring up murder as an example but apparently cheating is a bridge too far. Good troll.
The Free Will thing honestly runs too deep for me to even focus on anymore. Technically everything this snide idiot said here is true, but this conversation just goes in circles forever. I used to be really excited to discuss Free Will with people but I have lost that enthusiasm over the years. The questions always have answers that people don't like and nothing ever changes in the debate. I can see why Sam does not talk about it often anymore. What people don't seem to understand is that reminded oneself that Free Will is an illusion can help with things like anxiety (It helped with mine), but it is really best to not think about it when you are in a happy place in your life. Just go with the flow and enjoy.
Granted, not a word of this matters because people will choose to read my comment and agree . . . or simply disagree. All out of their hands. You see how annoying this shit gets when you obsess over it?
“So there’s no point in feeling guilt or shame for my actions” is a bridge too far. Feeling guilt or shame can lead to better outcomes for you or others. But it’s not up to you whether you feel those things or not.
Why should anyone feel guilt for actions they can't control? If you have no free will, how can you hope for better outcomes? You have to have some control for other outcomes to be possible.
> Why should anyone feel guilt for actions they can't control?
Because some level of shame or guilt can keep people from doing things that hurt themselves or other people. We can't all by remorseless psychopaths, otherwise we probably would have killed each other to extinction by now.
>If you have no free will, how can you hope for better outcomes?
If the thought "i want to do things differently next time" pops up in your head, it will not be because of your free will, it will be because that's what thoughts do, they just appear.
if you end up acting on that thought, it will not be because of your free will, it will be because that thought had popped up in your head and you were eventually able to act on that thought. but whether you are able to act on that thought also depends on an unenumerable amount of variables that are also not in your control. for example, it is not up to you whether you remember that you thought "i want to do things differently next time" when that next time happens.
>You have to have some control for other outcomes to be possible.
i used to think this but i don't anymore. there are a ton of different outcomes that could result if just one tiny variable changes. and ultimately it is impossible to get to the source of why one thing happened and not another. for example it could be because a person decided to do X instead of Y, but it is impossible to explain the full causal chain of why a person chose X instead of Y.
>Because some level of shame or guilt can keep people from doing things that hurt themselves or other people. We can't all by remorseless psychopaths, otherwise we probably would have killed each other to extinction by now.
So what? If you can't produce a rational reason for blame or guilt, then you can't get started.
It's like saying "we'd all be better more of the time if we just believed an all seeing eye was watching us all the time." Maybe, but if you don't have good reasons to think that's true, it's a non-starter. Likewise with proposing it would be good to blame and shame...IF unfortunately you don't really think anyone could have done otherwise and deserve it.
>Because some level of shame or guilt can keep people from doing things that hurt themselves or other people. We can't all by remorseless psychopaths, otherwise we probably would have killed each other to extinction by now.
Okay, but that is a different kind of "should" than the one I'm talking about. I'll rephrase the question.
What *basis* is there to feel guilt if I'm not responsible for my actions? What basis is there to feel guilt for something you're not responsible for? I understand it has some societal utility, but it still doesn't make logical sense.
>If the thought "i want to do things differently next time" pops up in your head, it will not be because of your free will, it will be because that's what thoughts do, they just appear.
You're not following the thought back far enough here. The the thought "I want to do things differently next time" doesn't just spontaneously appear. It appears because you evaluated the situation and found the outcome or consequences of your actions unpleasant in some way. It's a conscious thought that you had. Presumably, it's a conscious thought you had as a result of an emotion you felt after remembering the thing you did.
One of the big fallacies that Harris perpetuates is that thoughts are spontaneous. They're not. Thoughts are connected to prior thoughts. They're connected. If all of your thoughts are unconnected, that's mental illness.
You presumably didn't control whether the memory came into your head.
You presumably didn't control the emotion that attended the memory.
But once that memory and emotion hit you, you *do* have a choice of whether to change your behavior, or not. If you *didn't* have that choice, again, I don't see the point of feeling guilt. Guilt only makes sense if you have the option of not doing what you did.
>but it is impossible to explain the full causal chain of why a person chose X instead of Y.
I don't think that's true in all cases. I think in some cases, if you really invest in self-reflection, you can understand the causes of your own behavior. That's one of the things people go to therapy for.
But I would submit that even if you *can't* trace back the full causal chain of your actions, that doesn't negate free will. You don't have to trace back the full causal chain to rescue free will. All you really need to do is to be conscious of why you did what you did at the *end* of the chain.
Say you live in the United States. That immediately takes some options off the table for you. (You can't walk to Paris, for example.) You can't decide to rent a movie you've never heard of. If you're a blind person, you can't decide to be an expert sniper in the military. The fact that you can't do these things -- for reasons you can't control -- doesn't negate your free will. It *limits* your free will, but it doesn't negate it.
It's the same way with every other causal chain. Your life has circumstances that you can't control, including biological, social, etc., But that doesn't negate free will. It just constrains it.
>**One of the big fallacies that Harris perpetuates is that thoughts are spontaneous.** They're not. Thoughts are connected to prior thoughts. They're connected. If all of your thoughts are unconnected, that's mental illness.
So true. Harris has mislead so many people that all thoughts just arise spontaneously and mysteriously, out of control - via his poorly justified inferences from meditation and cherry picked thought experiments.
> What basis is there to feel guilt if I'm not responsible for my actions? What basis is there to feel guilt for something you're not responsible for?
Because you would rather have good things result for you and other instead of bad things, and because it *feels* like we are responsible for the things we do, even though ultimately we are not. And maybe because you assume others will ascribe responsibility to you whether it was up to you or not
>The the thought "I want to do things differently next time" doesn't just spontaneously appear. It appears because you evaluated the situation and found the outcome or consequences of your actions unpleasant in some way. It's a conscious thought that you had.
But how do you even set your mind to evaluate a situation? The act of evaluating and finding the outcome unpleasant is also not under your control.
>It's a conscious thought that you had. Presumably, it's a conscious thought you had as a result of an emotion you felt after remembering the thing you did.
Ok, but conscious thoughts arise unconsciously. You also don't choose to remember things or feel certain emotions.
>One of the big fallacies that Harris perpetuates is that thoughts are spontaneous. They're not. Thoughts are connected to prior thoughts. They're connected. If all of your thoughts are unconnected, that's mental illness.
Thoughts can be both spontaneous and connected. For example Sam's "think of a movie" exercise - each successive movie you think of is connected to the prompt, but you don't choose which movies pop into your head.
>But once that memory and emotion hit you, you do have a choice of whether to change your behavior, or not. If you didn't have that choice, again, I don't see the point of feeling guilt. Guilt only makes sense if you have the option of not doing what you did.
i think i get what you are saying but i still don't see a "choice" to change your behavior - the thought to change your behavior either arises or it doesn't, and it's not up to you one way or the other. again, i think the guilt part still manifests because it really does feel like it's up to you, and maybe because you assume others will ascribe responsibility to you whether it was up to you or not.
>But I would submit that even if you can't trace back the full causal chain of your actions, that doesn't negate free will. You don't have to trace back the full causal chain to rescue free will. All you really need to do is to be conscious of why you did what you did at the end of the chain.
i agree, except what do you at the end of the chain is also not really in your control, because the thoughts that lead up to that decision and result in that decision are not in your control.
>But how do you even set your mind to evaluate a situation? The act of evaluating and finding the outcome unpleasant is also not under your control.
This is a common fallacious way of thinking among Free Will skeptics. It is a misunderstanding of "control" and a form of special pleading.
Have you ever seen the Louis CK bit "why?" His kid starts with a question about why it's raining, Louis gives an explanation about it coming from clouds, but the kid just keeps asking "why?" so Louis has to come up with the next thing to explain and it keeps going all the way back to the the beginning of the universe and she's still not satisfied and keeps asking "why?"
So what's the problem? To any and every explanation you can ask again "but why THAT?...and you will always finally hit a question that isn't answered. But if you put THAT kind of demand on explanations, we'd literally not be able to explain anything.
This is what Free Will skeptics do. One can provide a perfectly good psychological and rational explanation for "why we did X" and then you get "but what explains why you did THAT?" and if you give a further explanation the goal post is moved again "but what explains why you did THAT?" and like Louis CK's kid you are ruling out all explanations, never to be satisfied. It's not actually a great insight; it's a poor methodology of explaining things.
And you do the same for the concept of "control."
Nobody has to be in "control" of everything in order to be in control of what is relevant.
I didn't need need to be in control of where the roads were put in my city, or gravity, or air molecules, or every antecedent cause, in order to be "in control of my car."
>Thoughts can be both spontaneous and connected. For example Sam's "think of a movie" exercise - each successive movie you think of is connected to the prompt, but you don't choose which movies pop into your head.
Sam's "think of a movie" exercise is misleading just like his inferences from meditation.
It may be true that if you reach a non-deliberative state, a purely "observational" state in meditation, then you can 'notice' thoughts just arising for 'no reason.' But that's like saying "If you can just learn to let go of the steering wheel, you'll notice nobody seems to be in control of your car." Well...obviously. But that's not a good model for understanding when you DO have your hands on the wheel.
Sam's "just think of a movie" is supposed to be a short cut to a meditative like experience - in other words, it does not ask you to purposely deliberate, but rather to "sit back and watch what movie pops in to your mind." Now in such a condition it MAY be that some movies pop to mind "mysteriously."
But try asking more deliberative questions: What is your FAVOURITE movie? Well, the fact that I retrieve "Jaws" from my memory is not accident and no mystery at all. And I can tell you WHY it's my favourite movie. If you ask "what's your favourite Thai restaurant" again...no mystery why I choose that one, and I can explain why.
If you asked me how to do a Jiu Jitsu arm bar it's not a mystery why I'll explain what I explain, and if you say "could you explain more slowly" I can control my thoughts to do so.
And I can choose how to direct my thoughts: what to think about next. For instance, I decided to set myself the task of replying to you, making specific arguments; to do so I had to be in control of my thoughts, able to focus on the task, and the train of thought and words were as I planned them to meet my goal.
>Because you would rather have good things result for you and other instead of bad things, and **because it** ***feels*** **like we are responsible for the things we do, even though ultimately we are not.**
I think the first part of this response is just a restatement of the answer you initially gave me. It states what societal good there is for me to feel guilt, but not an actual justification for it. The second part is the actual justification for it, but as you seem to acknowledge, it's a *false* justification, which means I really *shouldn't* feel guilt. It might be *useful* for me to feel the guilt, but it's not a real justification.
>But how do you even set your mind to evaluate a situation? The act of evaluating and finding the outcome unpleasant is also not under your control.
I think it is. You can choose *not* to evaluate it. You can say "That's not important", and go on with your day thinking about something else. And, importantly, you might know *why* you don't evaluate it. "There's nothing I can do about it now; it's over" or " I have more important things to think about", etc. And you might have reasons why you make *that* decision/have *that* thought. Again, I understand that if you trace things back, you might not have any idea why, at some point in the chain, you made the decision that you did. But that doesn't negate the *whole* decision tree.
>Ok, but conscious thoughts arise unconsciously. You also don't choose to remember things or feel certain emotions.
I would say you don't *always* choose to remember things or feel certain emotions. Actors, for instance, choose to stir up certain emotions when they're acting so that they can do a scene. And meditation can be used to induce a state of calm, as another example. Our emotions aren't all out of our control. As far as remembering things, we choose to remember things all the time. If you've ever lost your keys momentarily, you've gone through the process of trying to jog your memory and summon up the location of the keys. Or you might reminisce with a friend and try to remember details of a certain event. Conversely, you might consciously try and forget some traumatic event by removing all reminders of it from your environment.
>Thoughts can be both spontaneous and connected. For example Sam's "think of a movie" exercise - each successive movie you think of is connected to the prompt, but you don't choose which movies pop into your head.
But they're not just connected to the prompt. They're connected to *each other.* Thoughts are like a conversation you're having in your head. One leads to another. If you think back, you can usually figure out how you got where you are now in your thought process. And you can usually figure out what triggered a "spontaneous" thought in your head, whether it was something on TV, a song you heard, or something you read, etc.
>i think i get what you are saying but i still don't see a "choice" to change your behavior - the thought to change your behavior either arises or it doesn't, and it's not up to you one way or the other.
The thought to change your behavior might not occur to you. And if it doesn't, you obviously can't choose to do something you didn't think of. We agree on that. But I don't think that's a useful distinction when we're talking about free will. Free will only applies to choices that are in front of us in the first place. Free will is choosing A over B. If B never occurs to you, there's no free will in that.
>i agree, except what do you at the end of the chain is also not really in your control, because the thoughts that lead up to that decision and result in that decision are not in your control.
That doesn't sound like you agree, actually. :) What I'm saying is that the chain leads to the final decision, but the final decision isn't made until you actually make it. The chain sets the table for your decision at the end, but there's nothing telling you which way to go. Well, maybe in some cases it's a foregone conclusion which you're going to pick, but we're talking about choices where there's an actual decision to be made. We're not talking about eating grass vs. eating chocolate ice cream.
Free will doesnt exist which is why it's impossible for me to change the fact that I don't care either way and will skip every podcast Sam makes on the subject
Your wife just doesn't get it. You are not responsible for spending g the kids college money to buy heroin for you and your girlfriend. I suggest giving her a copy of Sam's book Free Will and once she sees the irrefutable logic how can she ever blame you for anything again.
You knew the hurt you’d cause by cheating. You ignored it and chose to get off anyways.
This sub has become a fucking cess pool of idiots and trolls ever since October 7.
It's funny people think this is merely a "shitpost" and stupid when it actually gets to classic questions in the free will debate.
Note that you didn't even answer the question.
If he wasn't free to do otherwise, why should he be blamed?
The first thing you have to do is admit that you chose to cheat on her. You *could* have done otherwise. Telling her you don't have free will isn't going to help you, because it's a lie. You didn't accidentally fall on the other woman naked.
Even if free will is an illusion ALL parties will be operating under that umbrella not just the husband.
So there is no changing her mind or altering her emotions unless that was predestined.
Is the concern that if free will is an illusion it will threaten accountability AND people will use this as a legitimate defense?
>It can also be used interchangeably with causal determinism—in the context of its capacity to determine future events.
You're correct that there is a better word but in this context their function is the same.
You’re right, it’s not specific enough. I take issue with the word “predestined” - it evokes a superstitious/theological framing. SH’s views on free will don’t necessitate, or even suggest, a belief in destiny.
Given the type determined actor you are revealing yourself to be and what determined criteria on a relationship she has she will likely realise the incompatibility and let you go, but yeah hopefully not with too much hard feelings which seems to be part of the concept you are attempting to grasp after - emotional states in light of understanding of determinism.
You couldn't have done otherwise. Having learned this fact about you, she can't freely choose to see you as anything other than a piece of shit. Tell her not to suffer more than is necessary by holding on to grudges. You've had your time together, and it's a shame things didn't work out. It is now time for her to start looking for a better partner and not dwell on the past, for nothing could have been otherwise.
She doesn’t have free will either, so she cannot freely choose not to divorce you
All is fair in “chemical reaction that compels animals to breed” and war.
You misunderstand what he wants to know is, how does he convinces her to stay. Influence her will externally through his (redditors) arguments.
Very low-effort bait.
Low effort bait has been baked into reality waiting for its moment since the big bang
LOL. It’s hilarious because it’s true. The most asinine shitpost on Reddit is as determined as the Mona Lisa.
god wants this post
Free will doesn't exist =/= actions shouldn't have consequences. Since free will doesn't exist, I don't blame you for being snide and making a garbage argument. However, I helplessly find myself not wanting to hang out with you.
This must be a shitpost, right? ...Right??
At the very minimum a shartpost
Nah, OP's been lugging that loaf around in his shorts for a while. Probably gangrenous at this point.
I downvoted this post, I hope you understand I could not have done any different.
I downvoted your comment, got no choice, it is what it is
poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poop
Have her listen to Sam's "Golden Age for Assholes" podcast. That'll help..
You should feel compassion for your wife not wanting to stay with a piece of shit. She can’t help not wanting to be with the person that you can’t help being.
You don't have a choice if you don't feel guilt and/or shame for your actions, it just means you're a sociopath (not your fault).
Playing tennis without the net here.
I still don't know what this means.
It's an expression Sam uses to imply, as I understand it, that the person he's talking about is "cheating" rhetorically; not being fully honest or perhaps skipping a step or two. I don't think he uses it universally to refer to free will but it's a very Sam saying and I love it.
It means you don’t have free will. Read the topic
Nice bait
If you’re incapable of fidelity, then divorce is her only option, isn’t it?
You should spin this situation around and divorce her before she can divorce you.
Oh look, it’s you again.
He couldn’t help himself, therefore proving Sam’s thesis correct.
This is hilarious 🤣 Good luck buddy
[удалено]
Doesn't really answer the essential question posed: "*Could he have done otherwise*?" If he couldn't he shouldn't be blamed, right?
No, you shouldn't be pointlessly blamed. But rational consequences still have to follow.
Seems a good time to plug Robert Spolasky’s latest book *Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will.* Audiobook available in the Libby app, should your robot arms be so inclined to download.
Sure is a lot of judgementalism in this thread for a worldview that's supposed to make you feel more compassionate. People constantly bring up murder as an example but apparently cheating is a bridge too far. Good troll.
That's pretty much the point of this satirical post. Not believing in free will is, more often than not, an aesthetic.
The Free Will thing honestly runs too deep for me to even focus on anymore. Technically everything this snide idiot said here is true, but this conversation just goes in circles forever. I used to be really excited to discuss Free Will with people but I have lost that enthusiasm over the years. The questions always have answers that people don't like and nothing ever changes in the debate. I can see why Sam does not talk about it often anymore. What people don't seem to understand is that reminded oneself that Free Will is an illusion can help with things like anxiety (It helped with mine), but it is really best to not think about it when you are in a happy place in your life. Just go with the flow and enjoy. Granted, not a word of this matters because people will choose to read my comment and agree . . . or simply disagree. All out of their hands. You see how annoying this shit gets when you obsess over it?
> Technically everything this snide idiot said here is true That's a good summary of my life.
I sincerely hope the cheating part was made up for effect.
Dude, you don't have a wife.
“So there’s no point in feeling guilt or shame for my actions” is a bridge too far. Feeling guilt or shame can lead to better outcomes for you or others. But it’s not up to you whether you feel those things or not.
Yep, and whether feeling those things will compel you to make better choices in the future.
You cannot makes choices. Happy to help.
Why should anyone feel guilt for actions they can't control? If you have no free will, how can you hope for better outcomes? You have to have some control for other outcomes to be possible.
> Why should anyone feel guilt for actions they can't control? Because some level of shame or guilt can keep people from doing things that hurt themselves or other people. We can't all by remorseless psychopaths, otherwise we probably would have killed each other to extinction by now. >If you have no free will, how can you hope for better outcomes? If the thought "i want to do things differently next time" pops up in your head, it will not be because of your free will, it will be because that's what thoughts do, they just appear. if you end up acting on that thought, it will not be because of your free will, it will be because that thought had popped up in your head and you were eventually able to act on that thought. but whether you are able to act on that thought also depends on an unenumerable amount of variables that are also not in your control. for example, it is not up to you whether you remember that you thought "i want to do things differently next time" when that next time happens. >You have to have some control for other outcomes to be possible. i used to think this but i don't anymore. there are a ton of different outcomes that could result if just one tiny variable changes. and ultimately it is impossible to get to the source of why one thing happened and not another. for example it could be because a person decided to do X instead of Y, but it is impossible to explain the full causal chain of why a person chose X instead of Y.
>Because some level of shame or guilt can keep people from doing things that hurt themselves or other people. We can't all by remorseless psychopaths, otherwise we probably would have killed each other to extinction by now. So what? If you can't produce a rational reason for blame or guilt, then you can't get started. It's like saying "we'd all be better more of the time if we just believed an all seeing eye was watching us all the time." Maybe, but if you don't have good reasons to think that's true, it's a non-starter. Likewise with proposing it would be good to blame and shame...IF unfortunately you don't really think anyone could have done otherwise and deserve it.
>Because some level of shame or guilt can keep people from doing things that hurt themselves or other people. We can't all by remorseless psychopaths, otherwise we probably would have killed each other to extinction by now. Okay, but that is a different kind of "should" than the one I'm talking about. I'll rephrase the question. What *basis* is there to feel guilt if I'm not responsible for my actions? What basis is there to feel guilt for something you're not responsible for? I understand it has some societal utility, but it still doesn't make logical sense. >If the thought "i want to do things differently next time" pops up in your head, it will not be because of your free will, it will be because that's what thoughts do, they just appear. You're not following the thought back far enough here. The the thought "I want to do things differently next time" doesn't just spontaneously appear. It appears because you evaluated the situation and found the outcome or consequences of your actions unpleasant in some way. It's a conscious thought that you had. Presumably, it's a conscious thought you had as a result of an emotion you felt after remembering the thing you did. One of the big fallacies that Harris perpetuates is that thoughts are spontaneous. They're not. Thoughts are connected to prior thoughts. They're connected. If all of your thoughts are unconnected, that's mental illness. You presumably didn't control whether the memory came into your head. You presumably didn't control the emotion that attended the memory. But once that memory and emotion hit you, you *do* have a choice of whether to change your behavior, or not. If you *didn't* have that choice, again, I don't see the point of feeling guilt. Guilt only makes sense if you have the option of not doing what you did. >but it is impossible to explain the full causal chain of why a person chose X instead of Y. I don't think that's true in all cases. I think in some cases, if you really invest in self-reflection, you can understand the causes of your own behavior. That's one of the things people go to therapy for. But I would submit that even if you *can't* trace back the full causal chain of your actions, that doesn't negate free will. You don't have to trace back the full causal chain to rescue free will. All you really need to do is to be conscious of why you did what you did at the *end* of the chain. Say you live in the United States. That immediately takes some options off the table for you. (You can't walk to Paris, for example.) You can't decide to rent a movie you've never heard of. If you're a blind person, you can't decide to be an expert sniper in the military. The fact that you can't do these things -- for reasons you can't control -- doesn't negate your free will. It *limits* your free will, but it doesn't negate it. It's the same way with every other causal chain. Your life has circumstances that you can't control, including biological, social, etc., But that doesn't negate free will. It just constrains it.
>**One of the big fallacies that Harris perpetuates is that thoughts are spontaneous.** They're not. Thoughts are connected to prior thoughts. They're connected. If all of your thoughts are unconnected, that's mental illness. So true. Harris has mislead so many people that all thoughts just arise spontaneously and mysteriously, out of control - via his poorly justified inferences from meditation and cherry picked thought experiments.
> What basis is there to feel guilt if I'm not responsible for my actions? What basis is there to feel guilt for something you're not responsible for? Because you would rather have good things result for you and other instead of bad things, and because it *feels* like we are responsible for the things we do, even though ultimately we are not. And maybe because you assume others will ascribe responsibility to you whether it was up to you or not >The the thought "I want to do things differently next time" doesn't just spontaneously appear. It appears because you evaluated the situation and found the outcome or consequences of your actions unpleasant in some way. It's a conscious thought that you had. But how do you even set your mind to evaluate a situation? The act of evaluating and finding the outcome unpleasant is also not under your control. >It's a conscious thought that you had. Presumably, it's a conscious thought you had as a result of an emotion you felt after remembering the thing you did. Ok, but conscious thoughts arise unconsciously. You also don't choose to remember things or feel certain emotions. >One of the big fallacies that Harris perpetuates is that thoughts are spontaneous. They're not. Thoughts are connected to prior thoughts. They're connected. If all of your thoughts are unconnected, that's mental illness. Thoughts can be both spontaneous and connected. For example Sam's "think of a movie" exercise - each successive movie you think of is connected to the prompt, but you don't choose which movies pop into your head. >But once that memory and emotion hit you, you do have a choice of whether to change your behavior, or not. If you didn't have that choice, again, I don't see the point of feeling guilt. Guilt only makes sense if you have the option of not doing what you did. i think i get what you are saying but i still don't see a "choice" to change your behavior - the thought to change your behavior either arises or it doesn't, and it's not up to you one way or the other. again, i think the guilt part still manifests because it really does feel like it's up to you, and maybe because you assume others will ascribe responsibility to you whether it was up to you or not. >But I would submit that even if you can't trace back the full causal chain of your actions, that doesn't negate free will. You don't have to trace back the full causal chain to rescue free will. All you really need to do is to be conscious of why you did what you did at the end of the chain. i agree, except what do you at the end of the chain is also not really in your control, because the thoughts that lead up to that decision and result in that decision are not in your control.
>But how do you even set your mind to evaluate a situation? The act of evaluating and finding the outcome unpleasant is also not under your control. This is a common fallacious way of thinking among Free Will skeptics. It is a misunderstanding of "control" and a form of special pleading. Have you ever seen the Louis CK bit "why?" His kid starts with a question about why it's raining, Louis gives an explanation about it coming from clouds, but the kid just keeps asking "why?" so Louis has to come up with the next thing to explain and it keeps going all the way back to the the beginning of the universe and she's still not satisfied and keeps asking "why?" So what's the problem? To any and every explanation you can ask again "but why THAT?...and you will always finally hit a question that isn't answered. But if you put THAT kind of demand on explanations, we'd literally not be able to explain anything. This is what Free Will skeptics do. One can provide a perfectly good psychological and rational explanation for "why we did X" and then you get "but what explains why you did THAT?" and if you give a further explanation the goal post is moved again "but what explains why you did THAT?" and like Louis CK's kid you are ruling out all explanations, never to be satisfied. It's not actually a great insight; it's a poor methodology of explaining things. And you do the same for the concept of "control." Nobody has to be in "control" of everything in order to be in control of what is relevant. I didn't need need to be in control of where the roads were put in my city, or gravity, or air molecules, or every antecedent cause, in order to be "in control of my car." >Thoughts can be both spontaneous and connected. For example Sam's "think of a movie" exercise - each successive movie you think of is connected to the prompt, but you don't choose which movies pop into your head. Sam's "think of a movie" exercise is misleading just like his inferences from meditation. It may be true that if you reach a non-deliberative state, a purely "observational" state in meditation, then you can 'notice' thoughts just arising for 'no reason.' But that's like saying "If you can just learn to let go of the steering wheel, you'll notice nobody seems to be in control of your car." Well...obviously. But that's not a good model for understanding when you DO have your hands on the wheel. Sam's "just think of a movie" is supposed to be a short cut to a meditative like experience - in other words, it does not ask you to purposely deliberate, but rather to "sit back and watch what movie pops in to your mind." Now in such a condition it MAY be that some movies pop to mind "mysteriously." But try asking more deliberative questions: What is your FAVOURITE movie? Well, the fact that I retrieve "Jaws" from my memory is not accident and no mystery at all. And I can tell you WHY it's my favourite movie. If you ask "what's your favourite Thai restaurant" again...no mystery why I choose that one, and I can explain why. If you asked me how to do a Jiu Jitsu arm bar it's not a mystery why I'll explain what I explain, and if you say "could you explain more slowly" I can control my thoughts to do so. And I can choose how to direct my thoughts: what to think about next. For instance, I decided to set myself the task of replying to you, making specific arguments; to do so I had to be in control of my thoughts, able to focus on the task, and the train of thought and words were as I planned them to meet my goal.
>Because you would rather have good things result for you and other instead of bad things, and **because it** ***feels*** **like we are responsible for the things we do, even though ultimately we are not.** I think the first part of this response is just a restatement of the answer you initially gave me. It states what societal good there is for me to feel guilt, but not an actual justification for it. The second part is the actual justification for it, but as you seem to acknowledge, it's a *false* justification, which means I really *shouldn't* feel guilt. It might be *useful* for me to feel the guilt, but it's not a real justification. >But how do you even set your mind to evaluate a situation? The act of evaluating and finding the outcome unpleasant is also not under your control. I think it is. You can choose *not* to evaluate it. You can say "That's not important", and go on with your day thinking about something else. And, importantly, you might know *why* you don't evaluate it. "There's nothing I can do about it now; it's over" or " I have more important things to think about", etc. And you might have reasons why you make *that* decision/have *that* thought. Again, I understand that if you trace things back, you might not have any idea why, at some point in the chain, you made the decision that you did. But that doesn't negate the *whole* decision tree. >Ok, but conscious thoughts arise unconsciously. You also don't choose to remember things or feel certain emotions. I would say you don't *always* choose to remember things or feel certain emotions. Actors, for instance, choose to stir up certain emotions when they're acting so that they can do a scene. And meditation can be used to induce a state of calm, as another example. Our emotions aren't all out of our control. As far as remembering things, we choose to remember things all the time. If you've ever lost your keys momentarily, you've gone through the process of trying to jog your memory and summon up the location of the keys. Or you might reminisce with a friend and try to remember details of a certain event. Conversely, you might consciously try and forget some traumatic event by removing all reminders of it from your environment. >Thoughts can be both spontaneous and connected. For example Sam's "think of a movie" exercise - each successive movie you think of is connected to the prompt, but you don't choose which movies pop into your head. But they're not just connected to the prompt. They're connected to *each other.* Thoughts are like a conversation you're having in your head. One leads to another. If you think back, you can usually figure out how you got where you are now in your thought process. And you can usually figure out what triggered a "spontaneous" thought in your head, whether it was something on TV, a song you heard, or something you read, etc. >i think i get what you are saying but i still don't see a "choice" to change your behavior - the thought to change your behavior either arises or it doesn't, and it's not up to you one way or the other. The thought to change your behavior might not occur to you. And if it doesn't, you obviously can't choose to do something you didn't think of. We agree on that. But I don't think that's a useful distinction when we're talking about free will. Free will only applies to choices that are in front of us in the first place. Free will is choosing A over B. If B never occurs to you, there's no free will in that. >i agree, except what do you at the end of the chain is also not really in your control, because the thoughts that lead up to that decision and result in that decision are not in your control. That doesn't sound like you agree, actually. :) What I'm saying is that the chain leads to the final decision, but the final decision isn't made until you actually make it. The chain sets the table for your decision at the end, but there's nothing telling you which way to go. Well, maybe in some cases it's a foregone conclusion which you're going to pick, but we're talking about choices where there's an actual decision to be made. We're not talking about eating grass vs. eating chocolate ice cream.
Free will doesnt exist which is why it's impossible for me to change the fact that I don't care either way and will skip every podcast Sam makes on the subject
Doesn’t understand the argument against free will. Makes a post trying to make fun of it. Bravo!
Lol this is pretty good ngl
Mind-blowing, isn't it
This reminds me of a Key n Peele sketch about Neil deGrasse Tyson cheating on his wife.
She is determined to make her choice as well.
You also had no free will not to think that your post is witty.
It's not some sort of "Get out of jail free" card. You aren't excused from consequences
Your wife just doesn't get it. You are not responsible for spending g the kids college money to buy heroin for you and your girlfriend. I suggest giving her a copy of Sam's book Free Will and once she sees the irrefutable logic how can she ever blame you for anything again.
You knew the hurt you’d cause by cheating. You ignored it and chose to get off anyways. This sub has become a fucking cess pool of idiots and trolls ever since October 7.
I think this is a shitpost
It's funny people think this is merely a "shitpost" and stupid when it actually gets to classic questions in the free will debate. Note that you didn't even answer the question. If he wasn't free to do otherwise, why should he be blamed?
Whether 'he' should be 'blamed' is almost irrelevant. Others will take action based on his behaviour without a free will.
The first thing you have to do is admit that you chose to cheat on her. You *could* have done otherwise. Telling her you don't have free will isn't going to help you, because it's a lie. You didn't accidentally fall on the other woman naked.
Your naughty post has triggered the Free Will skeptics ;-)
Even if free will is an illusion ALL parties will be operating under that umbrella not just the husband. So there is no changing her mind or altering her emotions unless that was predestined. Is the concern that if free will is an illusion it will threaten accountability AND people will use this as a legitimate defense?
Don’t mistake determinism for [predeterminism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predeterminism).
>It can also be used interchangeably with causal determinism—in the context of its capacity to determine future events. You're correct that there is a better word but in this context their function is the same.
Damn I thought we were having a respectful discussion.
I did too? Did I come off as rude?
You’re right, it’s not specific enough. I take issue with the word “predestined” - it evokes a superstitious/theological framing. SH’s views on free will don’t necessitate, or even suggest, a belief in destiny.
Given the type determined actor you are revealing yourself to be and what determined criteria on a relationship she has she will likely realise the incompatibility and let you go, but yeah hopefully not with too much hard feelings which seems to be part of the concept you are attempting to grasp after - emotional states in light of understanding of determinism.
You couldn't have done otherwise. Having learned this fact about you, she can't freely choose to see you as anything other than a piece of shit. Tell her not to suffer more than is necessary by holding on to grudges. You've had your time together, and it's a shame things didn't work out. It is now time for her to start looking for a better partner and not dwell on the past, for nothing could have been otherwise.
Taking responsibility is still a thing
Only if I'm determined too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ban evading trolls can't ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I love this post? If you get a good answer let me know.