Ecurb Noselrub - 08 April 2012 01:42 PM

Nhoj Morley - 07 April 2012 01:41 AM

Tempers flared at the Met and there was no wild bonobo sex. Now, in his later years, Mr. Nosel sits by the pond and reflects upon all the narratives that might have been. His quiet breath makes little puffs in the chilly air. “the salad… the salad… “

Jeez, Nhoj, it’s as though you’ve been present on all my trips with my wife. Hmmmm.

Better watch your wife.

Ecurb Noselrub - 08 April 2012 01:42 PM

Nhoj Morley - 07 April 2012 01:41 AM

Tempers flared at the Met and there was no wild bonobo sex. Now, in his later years, Mr. Nosel sits by the pond and reflects upon all the narratives that might have been. His quiet breath makes little puffs in the chilly air. “the salad… the salad… “

Jeez, Nhoj, it’s as though you’ve been present on all my trips with my wife. Hmmmm.

Ha ha! I had a girlfriend once who may actually have possessed free will. It took her forever to decide about anything.

nv - 07 April 2012 07:38 PM

Here’s my guess at what’s going on, John. I don’t know what’s going on, but here’s my guess.

Harris is attempting to describe, portray and disseminate a certain attitude to be taken toward those among us who’ve failed in the world and ended up doing dastardly and even horrific things or just happen to find themselves living on the street. I’ve been loosely arguing toward spreading such an attitude for years. It’s an attitude that can be found with teachers and therapists who work with crazy and criminal people. It amounts to an objective approach toward others. It involves no thoughts of direct retribution. It’s recently become fairly widespread in the better communities. It’s relaxing to express such an attitude, which is sort of the opposite of a high-tone moralistic attitude. At times, one might need to raise one’s voice with a bit of emotion ejected into it, but for the most part, it’s without emotional content. Guess what? It works exceptionally well at allowing teachers and social workers to make their points and have their lessons heard and remembered.

But he’s chosen a really screwball method for this goal of spreading his faith in such an objective approach, a faith which I share to some extent. He’s chosen to delete from use a term made up of two crucially important words: will and free. He deletes free will and does not provide a replacement. He loses arguments in public when talking about free will and morality, his two latest obsessions. Couldn’t he have concocted something that would have boosted the importance of freedom and human will?

I think the problem is that Harris is attempting to solidify a framework which most people thus far have interpersonally cognitively earned through {years of} diligent reason. For us, the emotional roller-coaster that accompanied such thoughts did so while in check by the linear advancement of our intelligence. Simply teaching that free will is a myth is met with so many cognitive defenses it’s not even funny. But, the people who are susceptibile to its teachings may very well not be emotionally ready.

I think understanding free will and whether and to what extent it exists should be earned more organically by those capable of understanding without compromising their metal health. Otherwise, there may be many mental health risks to mass educating people on this topic. Yet, like you, I agree with it to a very large extent. hmmm?

jobyrne8989 - 15 April 2012 02:20 PM

I think understanding free will and whether and to what extent it exists should be earned more organically by those capable of understanding without compromising their metal health. Otherwise, there may be many mental health risks to mass educating people on this topic. Yet, like you, I agree with it to a very large extent. hmmm?

Mental Health is a consideration to address I suppose Jo, it crosses my mind often when I’m discussing free will with those who have the ability to grasp it and consider its wider implications. 
In a similar way to discussing the “afterlife” question with people who previously haven’t given it much thought.
You can see the implications of both sink in, possibly followed by despair or anxiety, as their idea of feeling and being in control may fade to varying degrees.

MARTIN UK - 15 April 2012 11:16 PM

You can see the implications of both sink in, possibly followed by despair or anxiety, as their idea of feeling and being in control may fade to varying degrees.

It makes me feel more like a spectator, just observing what happens to me and what I do. My brain makes decisions based on whatever went before, and I’m just here observing and spectating. I’m sort of a reporter with an audience of one.

I think it’s important to remember that an issue as complex as free will amounts to philosophical, rather than scientific, questions. Harris frames it as science, but Peter Hacker and others demonstrate that to be considered a scientific finding, far broader neuro understanding will be involved than is currently available.

Sorting the issue of free will into more managable linguistic packets would seem to be a sensible step to take. Science as it is can actually address an issue such as human decision-making processing, or human will, etc.

nv - 16 April 2012 05:41 AM

Sorting the issue of free will into more managable linguistic packets would seem to be a sensible step to take. Science as it is can actually address an issue such as human decision-making processing, or human will, etc.

That makes sense. I agree that the description of how free will( or the lack thereof) fits one’s life is more important than the definitions.

nv - 16 April 2012 05:41 AM

Sorting the issue of free will into more managable linguistic packets would seem to be a sensible step to take. Science as it is can actually address an issue such as human decision-making processing, or human will, etc.

That makes sense. I agree that the description of how free will (or the lack thereof) fits one’s life is more important than the definition.