Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • Worldview
    • Epistemology
    • Metaphysics
    • Logic
    • Ethics
    • Politics
    • Aesthetics
  • Applied
    • Know Thyself
    • 10 Tenets
    • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
      • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
      • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
      • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
      • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
    • 100 Thought Experiments
    • Elsewhere
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Store
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Evolution 101
    • Philosophy 101

Another Free Will Debate — Kaufman v. Harris (Part 1/2)

4/5/2021

5 Comments

 
Picture
Picture
On March 22nd, 3 Quarks Daily published my review of Gregg Caruso and Dan Dennett's new book Just Deserts: Debating Free Will. Ten days earlier, Sam Harris released his Final Thoughts on Free Will on his Making Sense podcast. Was he trying to scoop me? I wish! Did he even mention Just Deserts in his podcast? Surprisingly no! Why not? Probably because he and Dan Dennett have already had several heated conversations about free will. There was Dan's dismissive review of one of Sam's books, Sam's pissed-off response to that review, and then a 2-hour podcast discussion trying to smooth the water between them. No need to go back to all that!

So, what prompted Sam to speak out about free will now? Well, I think the real reason Sam posted his thoughts when he did was because it was fresh on the heels of a 3-hour discussion he had with Scott Barry Kaufman on The Psychology Podcast. Scott published his amazing book Transcend last year, which has the sub-title "The New Science of Self-Actualization". In other words, having a self that is free to be actualized is kind of an essential part of Scott's project. But Sam is famous for denying these things in his work, including his 2012 book Free Will.

Since I'm deeply immersed in the topic of free will right now, I thought I'd spend a few posts on these recent discussions. I'll get to Sam's "final thoughts" in a few posts, but first, let's take a closer look at Part 1 of Sam's conversation with Scott, which was posted on February 25th. 
Next time, I'll delve into Part 2, which was posted on March 4th. I won't bother transcribing all three hours of these free podcasts, so please listen to them for yourself for the full story. But here are some important bits that I'd like to comment on.


  • Sam: When I was in college, a girlfriend broke up with me and I just became this machine that was producing unhappiness until an MDMA experience showed me that that could be interrupted with no reason attached.

Sam has become a strong proponent of psychedelic drug use after this early experience kicked off his life as a contemplative and public intellectual focusing on consciousness and free will. I haven't used such drugs myself personally, but as a 49-year-old-man now, I have to say that every time Sam talks about the important lessons he got from the experience, I think I've already learned those lessons from other experiences. (Notably, in grand nature spots, but also while studying astronomy, geology, and deep evolutionary history.) Could I have learned these lessons earlier in my life on a drug trip? Maybe. But I tend to agree with Abraham Maslow who thought such experiences were cheating to try to get to self-actualization. Better to have reasons for your emotions and learn from those.

  • [Sam] studied for years with the leading Buddhist meditation thinkers. There are dualistic vs. non-dualistic forms of awareness meditation, with different sets of instructions for each one as to what to pay attention to and why. With these exercises, you aren’t meditating yourself into perfection; you are just learning to recognize something that is already there.

I've not been on any lengthy retreats yet, but I have done a fair bit of reading about meditation, and I have practiced it on my own for nearly 20 years now with the help of many guided meditation sessions along the way (including lots from Sam's Waking Up app). Meditating has been a good and useful experience in my life, but, a bit like using psychedelics, I think it's an artificial experience that doesn't have quite the relevance to everyday life that Sam thinks it does. I'll say more about that in the next post, but I wanted to flag that I have meditated and enjoyed it.

  • Scott: I want to read a sentence you wrote because I have issues and questions with it “Consider what it would actually take to have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions and you would need to be in complete control of these factors.” This sentence reads like you are an implicit dualist. Who is the “you” in that sentence?

This is a great observation that I also notice whenever I read or listen to Sam. He continually toggles back and forth between his cold declarations about the lack of a self or free will and then his hot instructions about what "you" need to do or notice about "your consciousness and its contents". In Dan Dennett's review of Free Will, Dan pointed this out too. He noted a sentence on p9 that said "I, as the conscious witness of my experience, no more initiate events in my prefrontal cortex than I cause my heart to beat." Dan said, "If this isn't pure Cartesianism, I don't know what it is. His prefrontal cortex is part of the I in question." That's exactly right. Consciousness is embodied and should not be spoken of so separately as Sam is wont to do.

What does Sam say about this sentence when Scott asks him how to understand it? He shifts into Zen Koan mode.
​
  • Sam: Yeah. It’s not really understandable in that way. What you’ve really just landed on is the problem with the concept of free will. It’s an incoherent idea. ... As you know, Dan Dennett has tried to purify the concept so as to have in his terms a “free will worth wanting”. ... [But] you’re not acknowledging just how many important things shift ethically once you let go of that spooky free will. Things really do change. And they change in ways that are important not just for our justice system and our concept of justice, they are important for ethical intuitions about what it means to be a good person and how we should feel in the presence of all the misadventures we have in life...and Dan Dennett’s project acknowledges none of that. That’s why he and I have never agreed on this topic.

This is an incredibly disingenuous reading of Dan's work and his previous exchanges with Sam. If anything, it's the other way around as Sam has not done the hard work of trying to really see what goes away when the concept of free will disappears. As one example, Dan noted in is review of Free Will that "entirely missing from Harris's account...is any acknowledgement of the morally important difference between...the raving psychopath and us." Perhaps this is why Dan has just moved on to debate Gregg Caruso instead, since he's actually a serious thinker who has tried to develop a Public Health Quarantine Model to replace our current retributive justice system. Poking at the holes in Caruso's model took up a significant portion of Just Desesrts. Sam doesn't even have a model to poke at. And it's not just psychopaths he doesn't see as any different than the rest of us.

  • Sam: The rules, ethically and psychologically, seem to change entirely for people, when you are talking about [other] people. They don’t think this way about chimpanzees. They don’t think this way about people with certain kinds of brain damage. ...The problem is that it doesn’t make any sense. ... It’s very difficult to make sense of this in terms of the streams of causality that I’m not aware of, in terms of gene transcription, and neurotransmitter behaviour, and all of the causes reaching back to the Big Bang that I didn’t author.

I'll point this out again in the next post, but the way Sam speaks about humans is literally dehumanising. In case it's not obvious how dangerous that is, David Livingstone Smith has done excellent work on the subject. (See this book review by Smith for some examples of Nazi dehumanisation.) I get that Sam is merely recognising here that the "folk" have different intuitions about people compared to their intuitions about chimpanzees and brain damaged people, but by saying this doesn't make sense, he is opening up the door to some very bad attitudes.

  • Scott: You are really hung up on the magical part of free will.
  • Sam: It’s not hung up! It is what people mean when they feel that someone should be punished, really punished, because they deserve their punishment. That is “just deserts.” That is someone who feels that the logic of retribution is anchored to libertarian free will.

It's sad to hear that Sam is still stuck repeating these points even though Dan Dennett took them apart several years ago. In his review of Free Will, Dan noted that Sam said, "However, the 'free will' that compatibilists defend is not the free will that most people feel they have" (p16). But Dan countered, "First of all, he doesn't know this. [And experimental philosophy suggests he's wrong.] But even if it is true, maybe all this shows is that most people are suffering from a sort of illusion that could be replaced by wisdom. After all, most people used to believe the sun went around the earth. They were wrong, and it took some heavy lifting to convince them of this." And in Just Deserts, Dan and Gregg do lots of this kind of lifting. Both agree there are reasons to get rid of retribution and libertarian free will, and you can do so as a free will skeptic (Gregg's project) or as a compatibilist (Dan's project).

  • Scott: It seems like people can do all the things they care about. If they think they care about making choices that are somehow uncaused, they just aren’t literally understanding what that means, as you point out. What people really mean when they insist that free will is important is they don’t want to feel coerced. They think of causes as sources of coercion, but that’s a confusion. I think people want to make choices that are consistent with their own goals and be able to deliberate about the causes where their desires aren’t totally clear, and they can do those things. And it’s pretty clear their consciousness participates causally in that process.
  • Sam: I would dispute that. ... For much of what we seem to do consciously, it remains mysterious why consciousness need be associated with any of these things. We can imagine building robots that could pass the Turing test that could do all of these things without there being something that it is like to be those robots.

Ah, now we're getting to another root problem with Sam's view of the world. I think that all his meditation training focused on "consciousness and its contents" has left him with his dualist language and a fundamental misunderstanding of what consciousness is. I've spent the past year looking at the definitions and studies of consciousness (summarised here) and found it requires a much more nuanced understanding of how consciousness emerges to varying degrees via a hierarchy of activities. Along the way, there is clear evidence that conscious awareness is required for certain types of learning. (This kind of awareness is possibly what Sam means by "consciousness" but that's not at all clear considering his dabbling in panpsychism.) Also, Dan Dennett's paper on The Unimagined Preposterousness of Zombies shows just how unimaginable Sam's robots really are.

  • Scott: Of course we are just our biology. What else would we be? But isn’t it the point that our biology encompasses all the interesting stuff that we are? You could still say that it means something for the robot to be a unique robot. But don’t you think that the interesting thing is that the biology encompasses all the unique aspects of what Sam Harris is and who Sam Harris is, including your unconsciousness and your consciousness?
  • Sam: Hmmm. I’m trying to think of how to make this point land…
  • <<< ROLL PODCAST CREDITS >>>

Wow, what a cliffhanger ending! I shouted, "Yes!" to Scott's question, but let's see what Sam says next time.
5 Comments
Velikovsky link
4/7/2021 07:13:22 pm

Great post Ed. And yes what a cliffhanger! :)

Reply
John A. Johnson link
4/7/2021 07:30:50 pm

Oh, great, three more hours of discussion on free will to listen to. I will have to schedule some longer bike rides for this, as I cannot must sit and listen to these long podcasts.

After commenting earlier that I'd like to see a Harris-Dennett debate on free will, it occurred to me that it is inconceivable that such a debate didn't exist somewhere, so I did a web search and found the conversation they had in a bar, trying to smooth over some of the unpleasantries that had occurred earlier.

It was amusing to hear them discuss free will with all of the background sounds of a bar. Wish I could have been there. However, before very long I began to become as frustrated with this conversation as I did with the Dennett-Caruso discussion I heard on Michael Shermer's podcast. Here is why.

Every time one of the participants went on about something, there were often multiple points made, each that could have turned into a thread of discussion. But the other participant (not surprisingly) could not address all of the points, but, rather, picked on just one. As often as not, I wished he had chosen to focus on one of the other points. Then, in his response, the participant would sometimes generate additional, multiple points. The discussion was like a branching tree that extended in many directions, but most of the branches were dead-ends because only one path cold be followed. These guys could not seem to focus on one issue. I kept wishing they would, and just pound away at that one issue until there was some resolution.

And, in the worst cases (most of which popped up later in the conversations), a participant would respond to a point the way a politician responds to a question that he or she does not want to address: by either giving only the briefest acknowledgment to the point or ignoring it completely and launching into a well-rehearsed monologue about a totally different issue.

I have, I think, about 20 more minutes of the Dennett-Caruso discussion and about 10 more minutes of the Dennett-Harris discussion to listen to. I don't know if I can stand to hear these very good minds continue to talk past each other.

And now three more hours of Scott Barry Kaufman with Sam Harris. Oy vey!

Reply
Ed Gibney link
4/8/2021 11:46:21 am

Ha! Sorry John. If it's any consolation, you probably don't have to listen to it as Sam hardly lets Scott get a word in edgewise over the three hours. My summary should be enough for you.

I agree it would have been cool to hear that Sam--Dan talk in the bar in person. And I also know what you mean about missing each other's points in conversation. That reminded me of something Sam wrote in his "pissed off reply to Dan's review":

----------
"Trading 10,000-word essays is simply not the best way to get to the bottom of things. If I attempt to correct every faulty inference and misrepresentation in your review, the result will be deadly to read. Nor will you be able to correct my missteps, as you could have if we were exchanging 500-word volleys."
----------

I actually wondered if this was why Dan elected to engage Gregg Caruso in much shorter written conversations. The Shermer podcast was frustrating for exactly the reasons you described. But their book is quite a bit better at picking up on every single one of each other's points. Not every time. And there are still other frustrations. But far, far, more often everything gets addressed. Gregg is especially pointed in his pursuit of clarity and comprehensiveness.

Reply
John A. Johnson link
4/9/2021 03:26:02 pm

Well, I found a palatable way to listen to the entire Kaufman-Harris discussion, which was to listen to it while engaging in various forms of exercise. And it turned out to be not as bad as I feared. And I sampled only portions of Part I before the free will discussion at 37:50 because I had heard him talk about most of the other topics before.

But I did listen to the entire section on drug use, because I think it is inaccurate to say that "Sam has become a strong proponent of psychedelic drug use." In all of his talks and readings that I am familiar with, I've never seen him encourage people to take drugs. To the contrary, he says and writes that the lessons that can be learned from drugs can be learned from meditation and other kinds of life experiences. At age 18 he just happened to learn from his MDMA trip that one's sense of wellbeing is not totally determined by what happens to you. In the interview he goes on to talk about "what is dysfunctional about drugs," and nowhere have I seen him encourage people to take drugs.

At any rate, most important to me is the free will issue. After listening carefully to his conversation with Scott and reviewing his conversation with Dan Dennett, I am convinced that Kaufman and Dennett are not defining "free will" the way Sam Harris does, as "the ability to have chosen otherwise under the exact same conditions." Kaufman and Dennett prefer a completely different definition of free will, something along the lines of an agent's being able to choose, without undue interference from other agents, a course of action that allows one to achieve valued goals. That is certainly some kind of freedom, but it is not free will as the ability to have chosen otherwise under the exact same conditions.

Free will as defined by Harris is not compatible with determinism (or indeterminism). Kaufman's and Dennett's type of freedom is compatible with determinism. But they are two different kinds of freedom, so the argument cannot be whether incompatibilism or compatibilism is correct. To have that argument they would have to begin with the same definition of free will.

There are arguments to be had, nonetheless, such as whether the ordinary person on the street who claims to have free will is libertarian or compatibilist. That's an empirical question.

There are also arguments that can be had about the social consequences of being a compatibilist like Dennett or an incompatibilist like Harris. Dennett claims that if people really believed that nobody could have done otherwise, then all sense of moral responsibility would evaporate, the criminal justice system would crumble, and chaos would ensue. Harris thinks otherwise. He say that we would no longer blame people for their misdeeds, feel moral outrage about transgressions, or hunger for revenge--put we can and will continue to lock people up to get dangerous people out of circulation and to deter people from misbehaving. We can do this with compassion and lack of anger.

Timothy Miller wrote a great book, How To Want What You Have, that explains how to reduce the suffering that follows always wanting more by cultivating three attitudes: Compassion, Attention, and Gratitude. He capitalizes these attitudes to distinguish them from ordinary compassion (feeling concern for people who are suffering misfortune), attention (focusing on interesting things), and gratitude (appreciating desirable gifts). The ordinary attitudes are fine and functional, but come naturally to us and don't solve the problem of suffering from wanting what we don't have. Extraordinary Compassion is understanding that if I were in the place of someone who mistreats me, I would have done exactly the same thing. This is what Sam Harris is getting at. [Extraordinary Attention is the ability to find anything interesting by mindfulness, and Extraordinary Gratitude is appreciating absolutely everything that happens. Those attitudes are more tangential to the free will issue.]

Although I find the kind of freedom that Kaufman and Dennett talk about to be useful and important (and very much worth wanting), I can't call that "free will." And although I do not have research evidence in front of me to support it, I think this is not what most ordinary people mean by free will, either. I strongly suspect that most people hold a libertarian version of free will, that people could have chosen otherwise under the exact same conditions. Why else would they get angry at people for moral transgressions, blame people (and feel guilty about their own misbehavior), and feel justified in seeking revenge? Those are natural reactions, products of evolution, but I do not think that they are optimal reactions. Sometimes the optimum is to replace the evolved, natural reaction with an unnatural but cultivatable reaction like Compassion.

Ed Gibney link
4/9/2021 03:55:40 pm

Excellent, John. I'm glad you got to listen to it all and didn't find it a frustrating experience.

A quick note on the drug usage. I agree with you that Sam doesn't blatantly say "go do drugs." He is always careful to avoid that, and he usually makes sure to give serious warnings about the downsides for people with any possibilities of having a bad trip or long complications. However, the fact that he brings up these experiences over and over, asks his guests about them, talks of all the benefits to be had from the experiences, and proposes taking the drugs with people from time to time, is what qualifies (to me) as being a strong proponent. That's my judgment from listening to him over the years. He's not a reckless proponent. But he's not anti-drugs by any means either. Anyway, I think we agree he's somewhere in between those extremes.

As for the rest, you are very accurately predicting and/or repeating much of what I've said and hope to tease out in the near future. Hopefully by the end of this little series on free will I'll have clarified all of these issues just a bit further, but it probably won't be too different than anything you say here. Thanks for sharing! I hope you found it helpful to write all that too.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to Help Shape This Evolution

    SUBSCRIBE

    RSS Feed


    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    January 2023
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012


    Click to set custom HTML
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.