Sam Harris has posted a follow-up to his free-will article, here. He expands on his reasons for believing that our commonsense intuitions about free will are false (no argument from me), but says nothing further about the moral-responsibility issues we discussed in our recent post.
Posts in this series:
- Who’s In Charge?
- What You Mean “We”, Kemosabe?
- Wagging The Dog
- The Weakest Link
- Causes and Reasons
- The Choice Is Yours
- Causes and Cans
- Stopping The Buck
- Do True Scotsmen Have Free Will?
- The Buck Stops Nowhere
- More From Sam Harris On Free Will
- Facts Of The Matter
- Whither The Buck?
- Daniel Dennett on Sam Harris on Free Will
- Determinism And Predictability
25 Comments
I guess you’re right about Harris’s Buddhism. From the beginning of the second article:
The human brain must respond to information coming from several domains: from the external world, from internal states of the body, and, increasingly, from a sphere of meaning–which includes spoken and written language, social cues, cultural norms, rituals of interaction, assumptions about the rationality of others, judgments of taste and style, etc.
Buddhists like to speak of “three karmas,” i.e., three ways in which karma is generated. These are, roughly, thought, word, and deed. Harris’s above trichotomy is a neat parallel: the “external world” corresponds to the external notion of the deed-karma; the “internal states” correspond to the thought-karma, since our knowledge/consciousness of those states is mediated through our brain; and the “sphere of meaning” corresponds to the word-karma, which is all about significance.
At the end of Harris’s article:
Our sense of our own freedom results from our not paying close attention to what it is like to be ourselves in the world. The moment we do pay attention, we begin to see that free will is nowhere to be found, and our subjectivity is perfectly compatible with this truth. Thoughts and intentions simply arise in the mind. What else could they do? The truth about us is stranger than many suppose: the illusion of free will is itself an illusion.
A very strong whiff of Nagarjuna’s emptiness of emptiness, a major component of Madhyamaka Buddhism, one of the tradition-streams that fed into the formation of Chan/Zen Buddhism.
Wikipedia’s bio on Harris notes that he did spend time studying with Hindu and Buddhist teachers in Asia, so at the very least, he’s got Buddhist sympathies.
I wasn’t completely clear, however, on his take on compatibilism. He seemed to respect Dennett’s view, but also seemed critical of compatibilists for not recognizing that most people’s notion of free will lies at a metaphysical level. Was this supposed to be a critique of compatibilism itself, or more of a scolding, i.e., that compatibilists, in making their arguments to the masses, may need to readjust their aim?
I think all of this highfalutin’ cosmic debris about free will is a distraction from what your readership is really looking for: Anthony Wiener jokes.
I had trouble with that too. Harris is perfectly clear about free will itself, but seems to have a lot more trouble saying anything definite about compatibilism & moral responsibility.
Peter: Did you mean:
Anthony’s wiener [pronounced “weener”] jokes? Or,
Anthony Weiner [pronounced “whiner”] jokes?
Weiner’s being a whiner about his wiener, and he’s acting more like a wino than a winner.
I expect the Republicans to attack the wiener issue with relish.
Of course, it all depends on whether you think it’s better to be a wiener or a Boehner.
I think a Boehner musters more relish among men than a whining Weiner’s wiener with relish.
… and women, too.
Depends which member of Congress has the bigger member.
Dick Gephardt (Gethard?) held that member’s record.
I thought Bella Abzug had that record.
I thought her record was for the “best withdrawal” of a member?
You may recall the following joke:
Q: what’s the difference between Bella Abzug and a bowling ball?
A: if you really, really had to, you could probably eat a bowling ball.
I guess we have totally hijacked Mal’s post, Peter. Sorry, Mal.
Yeah; definitely the bowling ball … :)
Why do I bother?
You had no choice, Malcolm, and neither The One-Eyed Man nor The Big Henry is to blame either.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Good point, Jeffery.
Takes a lot of the pressure off, I have to say.
The Devil made me do it.
It’s true. As a teenager, I was reninded by our gracious host that the Devil.finds work for idle hands. However, the context was using a double album cover for seed and stem removal.
Peter, your obscure (to me) reference must be to some band that was popular at a time when I had little time for such devilry.
I was in grad school, concentrating on getting out so I could begin to support my wife and kid in the manner to which they aspired.
The album was Cream’s Wheels of Fire.
While I applaud your industry at Columbia to become an upstanding citizen and right-thinking American, I had a louche and dissolute youth.
Since this thread is filled with dick jokes, I hope I do not embarrass our host with the following story.
It was the day to have your picture taken for the high school yearbook. When it was Malcolm’s turn, the photographer looked at him and said “say penis.” The resulting picture was about what you would expect.
That’s a true story.
Well, since I would not venture to touch (verbally) “about what you would expect”, not with a ten foot pole, so to speak, I will do the next best thing:
I demand to see that picture!
I think it’s the same picture that Anthony Wiener got punk’d with.
Well, I haven’t got it, Peter — I lost that yearbook decades ago. Maybe you do.