The Best Explanation of Compatibilism is by Sean Carroll

I think that Sean Carroll has the best explanation of the difference between talking about the deterministic world of physics and the practical world of conversations about free will. Essentially, there are different levels in explaining the phenomenon and they are compatible as long as they are the best ways to communicate and understand the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK2PviGQiHk&t=649s 

My Thoughts On: Free Will Revisited: A Conversation with Daniel Dennett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFa7vFkVy4g


After listening to the conversation between Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris about free will was instructive and scintillating and I can not contain my thoughts and must put them down. I would like to offer a thought on a potential mechanism that acts as the bridge between determinism and free will.

During the conversation, you addressed the divergence in talking points which was an important distinction to make. There is a practical side to the implications of a free will concept on society and justice systems and then there is a scientific and physical reality to the mechanisms that influence and govern physical phenomenon. Dennett didn't seem to be convinced of the "all the way down" argument and instead talked about specific cases where behavior and randomness effects how we talk about and hold people responsible. While you both agreed that people have some control it wasn't clear from either person where this comes from or how it works.

I do not believe that free will is some kind of complete control over my thoughts and actions. I can see why people subjectively think this is the case when they observe themselves acting in a way they intended or taking credit for actions that turn out favorable. I think that free will is a skill that must be fostered and exercised and that most people are on the less than free side of the spectrum of potential free will. Now if authorship exists and free will can be attained I believe it is through the mechanism of observation and conscious conditioning. A kind of top-down feedback system that is where agency and free will come into play.

If all actions come from the bottom up then there doesn't seem to be an agent doing anything. It seems that people offer a special case where the conscious observer can take actions to affect subconscious processing. For example, breathing is automatic but if one were so inclined they can consciously control their breathing and effect their physiology. This requires observation and conscious effort and certainly involves an agent. One can permanently change their automatic responses by training their subconscious. One example occurs with immersion therapy for people with phobias.

Imagining what I might ask Sam Harris about his belief in Determinism

I get how you can stick with determinism and still hold people accountable purely as a logical way to maintain society but how do you hold yourself responsible if you truly believe that you are not the author of your behavior and thoughts? When you accomplish a goal how do you celebrate when there is no "one" to celebrate? When you make a mistake who do you blame if you truly believe that there is no "self". Do you go to bed at night attempting deeply to convince yourself that the thoughts in your head are completely out of your control? Isn't meditating an example of how thoughts influence behavior? And mediating, in turn, influences thoughts and behaviors but who decided to start meditating? If thoughts cannot affect behavior then why attempt to control them, understand them or otherwise think of them in any positive regard. They are just the whisperings of neurological fireworks. Just a show to keep some observer busy? When you sit to write, isn't that an example of thoughts directly influencing outward behavior? Then why is it so hard to imagine that thoughts can also affect the world? I guess Sam Harris doesn't think that thoughts cannot affect the world, just that there are no authors to thoughts. That they are outcomes of prior causes and effects and no more under our control than a rock falling down a mountain can control how it falls. But people can control how they fall? They build things and experiment and communicate. How is that not an example of the massive difference between people and everything else? If the universe is simply a series of perfectly predictable causes and effects then humans are no different so just because humans do things differently doesn't make them special or different. If the universe is fundamentally unpredictable due to the uncertainty inherent in physics doesn't that mean that determinism can't be true? Or at least that there is some room for chaos and uncertainty. Which might be where consciousness and free will preside. IDK. Maybe free will is a non-absolute term that simply refers to the perception that a conscious effort has been made toward realizing a goal. Or it is the ability to recognize the difference between the current state and an ideal state and working toward bridging that gap? Maybe it is just another name for taking responsibility even when we know we don't control everything.

Reformation not Jihad: Notes on Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur Conversation Published on Oct 23, 2014

Link to the conversation that sparked these notes:

Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur Clear the Air on Religious Violence and Islam

We don't worry as much about Christian violence because it isn't a major factor in the international violence in the world and to Americans right now. Sam says in the beginning that he could see a circumstance where he would shift his attention away from Islam is a different ideology such as Christianity was causing more harm in the world. 

Sam Harris does not talk about the reformation processes in the western world and how it undermined violent religious factors in the past. Moral progress has come from some of the western ideals such as free speech, gender equality, democracy and the separation of church and state. These moral reformations needs to happen in the Muslim world in order for this particular type of violence to cease. Sam seems pessimistic about this prospect. 

Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur are both pro government but I think Sam looks at belief as a bedrock of psychology and Cenk looks at political and economic motivation as the bedrock of psychology. 

Cenk thinks about government a lot and ascribes that thinking to others which blinds him to the real motivational power of pedestrian beliefs such as jihad. Cenk acknowledges that religious ideas play a role in violent acts but that Sam should "tone it down"? I don't fully understand the debate or where Cenk disagrees with Sam about religion. 

If you can admit that religion is part of the problem just like politics then why can't religion be a major factor in some cases? Especially cases where the perpetrator tells us explicitly that their motives are religious.

If it is a simple matter of the weight of the influence religion accounts for behavior then you have to admit that at some point religion could be 100% responsible just like any other case where variable motivations exist. If it possible for the motivation to consist of 25% religion, 25% nationalism, 25% economics and 25% politics then any combination of the variables could be possible in an individual. And getting to the exact amount may be impossible. But if reason is the best method then we must take into account the testimony of the person committing those acts. 

What are the proportions of psychopathology in the general population compared to Muslim suicide bombers? If the proportion of suicide bombers is higher then you can't explain it away that way.

Neither Sam nor Cenk are politicians, dictators, policy makers or in any other position of power other than as speakers and writers. A war of ideas is important but real wars make them difficult to enact. When people are really being murdered for their ideas it is hard to get the word out. 

Conversations, investigations and thinking about right and wrong are the best ways to learn and grow both as individuals and as societies. Reformation comes from the peaceful exploration of ideas and if an ideology meets free speech with violence then reformation can not occur within that ideology.

Cenk admits that Christianity plays a role in the psychology of human behavior yet struggles to downplay the role Islam plays in what Muslims do. Is it so controversial to talk about bad ideas and their role in human behavior? 

Sam has written, studied, debated and talked so much about the things that he takes seriously and explains the nuances of the topics with such eloquence and logical consistency that anyone that disagrees with him faces a formidable challenge. Sam's rigor and discipline for discovering the truth about the world is daunting and I think Cenk was not up to the task or at least I was not compelled by his position which is unclear to me still. 

I will give Cenk credit for sticking with the conversation and being very cordial and professional. I don't think Cenk defends the charge that he is propagating bad journalism and allowing people to lie about Sam's positions very well, if at all. 

All in all a really good conversation. Not the most efficient or effective one but very thought provoking. 

Causalism not Determinism and Some Ruminations on Free Will

One problem I have in accepting determinism is the word determinism. Determinism implies a determiner which assumes some sort of agency. This makes sense due to the roots of determinism being either religious or scientific. From the religious perspective all actions are pre-determined by a deity agent and from the scientific perspective knowledge is gained from observation from human agents. Determinism from the scientific point of view is based on cause and effect and the lacking of true human agency in the equation. Humans are simply subject to prior causes and the effects cascade toward more cause and effect chains. This would be better described as "Causalism", not determinism.

Because determinism rests of the concept of knowable causal forces it is simpler and more objection to call it causalism. If causality can be mapped with perfection then the future would, presumably, be predicted but not determined. Determination seems like inevitability based on an agent's word instead of an objective assessment of what physical forces should do. The future doesn't exist and I believed that no matter how precise we can observe reality there would likely be missing data, error, or other mysterious forces such as underlying quantum chaos that would make perfect knowledge and predictability impossible. We might get to 99.9% but it still wouldn't be determined, just very accurately predicted.

Are all physical forces consistent, constant and reliable? I am not sure. While logic has taught us to rely on physics due to it's reliable predictive power it doesn't mean that there is some room for variation and change. The universe is mysterious and science is a fairly new discipline. We should not be so vein to think that we understand what is immutable. For example, if the speed of light is not fixed then many calculations would be wrong. We should be skeptical about our assumptions. This is an interesting TedTalk about the potential misconceptions in science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

This doesn't mean we should discount science. The scientific method is certainly the best way to test truth claims about reality but I think there is room for philosophy as well.

Ruminations on Free Will:
Why can't a mind be a direct cause of an effect? If so why can't the agent, who owns the mind, be in control (choice) of that cause? Free will may lie somewhere in the chaos of the mind or somewhere in the conscious effort to change the future. The mind is just as physical as genetics and environment so why can't it have a discreet effect on reality and the future?

If all causes are products of prior effects and causes then can there be a first cause? This seems to lead toward a deity outside of time and space. The "turtles all the way down" argument doesn't lead anywhere.

If causes and effects can occur spontaneously or arise from complexity then the mind seems like a prime candidate for a machine capable of creating new chains of causation.

I do admit that I want Free Will to exist. I think it allows for more personal responsibility and change and I feel that I am free to make certain decisions. I do not believe in complete freedom and I admit that most actions are a product of prior or current physical forces acting inside and outside of myself that I can not control. But in those few moments where choice comes into play, and I can slow down and see the potential outcomes of an action I believe that "I" am free to choose. This may be rare and training myself to recognize them may be a lifelong discipline but it seems to increase my well being.

Here is a great conversation between Sam Harris and Dan Dennett about this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFa7vFkVy4g
Check out Sam Harris's podcast for great content here:
https://www.samharris.org/podcast

This is a great talk between Sam Harris and David Deutsch about the power of explanation and the limits of knowledge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J21QuHrIqXg