Great speaker

[von Rivers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-pTYLhitds

[iambiguous]

Of course, from my frame of mind, Harris's assessment above reflects two levels of understanding.

The first revolves around those things he says that can be established as in fact true objectively. Trump did say or do this, the rioters did say or do that.

The second revolves around that which can be established as in fact true objectively given all of the conflicting liberal/conservative, left/right political reactions to the event.

And then this part:

From peacegirl's determinism thread:

Yet not all scholars who argue publicly against free will are blind to the social and psychological consequences. Some simply don’t agree that these consequences might include the collapse of civilization. One of the most prominent is the neuroscientist and writer Sam Harris, who, in his 2012 book, Free Will, set out to bring down the fantasy of conscious choice. Like Smilansky, he believes that there is no such thing as free will. But Harris thinks we are better off without the whole notion of it.

All I can say to this is, "here we go again".

Harris sets about to bring down "the fantasy of conscious choice" as though what he himself consciously thinks about it is not in turn an inherent manifestation of the fantasy as well. How can we be better off regarding the whole notion of anything at all if our thoughts and feelings of being better off were/are only as they were/are/will be anyway?

I'm trying to imagine Harris's reaction to this? A reaction that is not inherently/necessarily the embodiment of the only possible reality. The mystery then still being the existence of self-conscious matter itself. In a No God world.

So, how are the points he notes in the video not but one more inherent/necessary manifestation of "the fantasy of conscious choice"?

How were not both Trump and the rioters merely acting out whatever set into motion the laws of matter going all the way back to, well, what and when and where and how and why?

What is it about Harris's argument regarding free will and determinism here that I keep missing?

[iambiguous]

Yo, Mo!

Let's dig a little deeper.

[promethean75]

"How were not both Trump and the rioters merely acting out whatever set into motion the laws of matter going all the way back to, well, what and when and where and how and why?

What is it about Harris's argument regarding free will and determinism here that I keep missing?"

For harris, trump is an idiot because of bad luck, not because of anything he's chosen to do or be, because there is no freewill. What part about Harris's position is confusing you?

[iambiguous]

"How were not both Trump and the rioters merely acting out whatever set into motion the laws of matter going all the way back to, well, what and when and where and how and why?

What is it about Harris's argument regarding free will and determinism here that I keep missing?"

For harris, trump is an idiot because of bad luck, not because of anything he's chosen to do or be, because there is no freewill. What part about Harris's position is confusing you?

Here, however, everything would seem to come down to what you think that free will and determinism consist of for all practical purposes. Assuming, however, that what you think here is not the only thing that you were ever able to think.

After all, suppose what you think, feel, say and do while awake is just a configuration of what you think, feel, say and do in your dreams. Derived entirely from chemical and neurological interactions derived entirely from a brain that is wholly in sync with laws of matter.

Your brain, my brain, Harris's brain, Trump's brain.

If, for Harris, Trump could never have been thought to be anything other than an idiot, then both luck and the choices he made are in turn just inherent/necessary manifestations of the only possible reality.

Just as I was never able to not type these words that you were never able to not read.