Did the Buddha teach we have choice? (aka The Great Free Will v Determinism Debate)

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2382
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?

Post by manas » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:14 pm

By the way everyone, I like Sam Harris' podcasts very much, and often agree with most of what he says, because it's well thought-out; but on this point, we disagree. :meditate:
"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress." - from the Alagaddupama Sutta

mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?

Post by mal4mac » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:23 pm

Someone said in t'other thread:

Strict determinism rules out free will.
The Buddha taught us to *choose* between skillful and unskillful actions.
Therefore the Buddha did not teach strict determinism.

This argument doesn't work, our choice between skillful and unskillful actions might be strictly determined.

"if a person is wrongly seen as an essential,permanent self, it is an ‘undetermined question’ as to whether ‘a person’s acts of will are determined’ or ‘a person’s acts of will are free.’ If there is no essential person-entity ‘it’ can not be said to be either determined or free.”

- Harvey 2007, quoted in https://www.uvic.ca/humanities/pacifica ... roblem.pdf, where the author disagrees with Harvey, suggesting that a person's acts are determined. He quotes sutta, so please quote sutta if you are arguing for the other side!
- Mal

mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?

Post by mal4mac » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:30 pm

manas wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:01 pm
It runs counter to what the Buddha taught, and furthermore, it could lead some people to stop making an effort to improve themselves, ...
Can you quote sutta to say how it is counter to what the Buddha taught? Why should it stop people making an effort to improve themselves? One would expect evolution to give them the determination to improve themselves, although the dhamma might usurp evolution's "improvement program" to give them a better way to improve themselves.
- Mal

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?

Post by Zom » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:20 pm

It runs counter to what the Buddha taught
Buddha never said that will is "free" or "not free". He just was silent about that, and why - the answer had already been given just above. Will, as it turns out, is not "free" (you need a fully unconditioned "atman" to operate a genuine "free will"), however, the very thought "I will do nothing simply because everything is pre-determined" is considered bad and pernicious, and the Buddha was very clear about that.

So, while you are a deluded unenlightened being, the idea that your will is free can be rather useful to advance on the Path. For quite some time :D

mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?

Post by mal4mac » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:35 pm

Zom wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:20 pm
It runs counter to what the Buddha taught
Buddha never said that will is "free" or "not free". He just was silent about that, and why - the answer had already been given just above. Will, as it turns out, is not "free" (you need a fully unconditioned "atman" to operate a genuine "free will"), however, the very thought "I will do nothing simply because everything is pre-determined" is considered bad and pernicious, and the Buddha was very clear about that.

So, while you are a deluded unenlightened being, the idea that your will is free can be rather useful to advance on the Path. For quite some time :D
Is the idea that your will is free useful to advance on the Path? Your statement that "you need a fully unconditioned "atman" to operate a genuine free will" sounds right. But in that case, the deluded one is walking down the path thinking he has an atman! That can't be good, can it? Not for Buddhists?

Better to think, surely, that we have no atman, that we are conditioned, just that we may suffer from the delusion that we have free will (until the delusion evaporates...) I mean the intellectual argument that we *are* determined is convincing is it not, and whether it disgusts us or not us neither here nor there!

The argument that "I will do nothing simply because everything is pre-determined" is certainly bad, I know it's just plain wrong because I think everything is pre-determined, but I do something!
Last edited by mal4mac on Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mal

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?

Post by Zom » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:42 pm

Is the idea that your will is free useful to advance on the Path? Your statement that "you need a fully unconditioned "atman" to operate a genuine free will" sounds right. But in that case, the deluded one is walking down the path thinking he has an atman! That can't be good, can it? Not for Buddhists?
Well, not necessarily. One can "use" his free will and be happy/satisfied that this is/was "his own" decision while not delving into philosophical concepts about a "self". As it is known, only arahants are devoid of mana (that is - conceit). All other people, including high level ariyas, have that sense of "self" and can use that sense of "free will". Why not. Arahants, probably, do not have it. And, interesting enough, they are the only beings who do not accumulate kamma, directly connected with such thing as "will" -)

mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?

Post by mal4mac » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:58 pm

Zom wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:42 pm
Well, not necessarily. One can "use" his free will and be happy/satisfied that this is/was "his own" decision...
So he thinks, "I chose to study dhamma instead of going to the pub, I'm such a good boy for exercising my free will that way." Isn't that just more "selfing", increasing his conceit. Isn't the thought, "the universe caused me to study dhamma rather than go to the pub, the causal process went well today," a better thought. No selfing there!
- Mal

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?

Post by Pseudobabble » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:47 pm

It's irrelevant. It seems to us that we have choice - and it would still seem so if it was proved that we didn't. For practical purposes, we can discard the question without a problem.

Or is it that we need to know the name of the archer, his caste, his family group, the wood the bow was made from, etc?

Or perhaps the Tathagata both exists, and doesn't exist, after death.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Did the Buddha teach we have choice? the great free will determinism debate

Post by robertk » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:00 pm

mal4mac wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:58 pm
[]

So he thinks, "I chose to study dhamma instead of going to the pub, I'm such a good boy for exercising my free will that way." Isn't that just more "selfing", increasing his conceit.
Yes it is :sage:
Issn't the thought, "the universe caused me to study dhamma rather than go to the pub, the causal process went well today," a better thought. No selfing there!
That is not right either. The causes for studying Dhamma go back for who knows how long, probably aeons. And they also need present conditions. Its a really amazing thing : but no need to feel conceited about it as there is no self, only impermanent elements.
Last edited by DNS on Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: changed title thread

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11179
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: Did the Buddha teach we have choice? the great free will determinism debate

Post by DNS » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:03 pm

I merged several previous free will vs. determinism threads into this one big one -- now nearly 1,000 posts long!

Don't complain about me merging them; I had no choice. :tongue:

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Did the Buddha teach we have choice? the great free will determinism debate

Post by Zom » Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:14 pm

So he thinks, "I chose to study dhamma instead of going to the pub, I'm such a good boy for exercising my free will that way." Isn't that just more "selfing", increasing his conceit. Isn't the thought, "the universe caused me to study dhamma rather than go to the pub, the causal process went well today," a better thought. No selfing there!
No difference here if a conceit is in action. In the first case he thinks "I chose". In the second: "Universe caused ME" 8-)

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach we have choice? the great free will determinism debate

Post by binocular » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:07 pm

Zom wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:14 pm
So he thinks, "I chose to study dhamma instead of going to the pub, I'm such a good boy for exercising my free will that way." Isn't that just more "selfing", increasing his conceit. Isn't the thought, "the universe caused me to study dhamma rather than go to the pub, the causal process went well today," a better thought. No selfing there!
No difference here if a conceit is in action. In the first case he thinks "I chose". In the second: "Universe caused ME" 8-)
Excellent point!

form
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach we have choice? the great free will determinism debate

Post by form » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:26 am

Maybe the buddha suggested something like probability as the term tendencies is found in the sutta. With his level he could process very complicated calculations accurately so he can make certain predictions very confidently.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach we have choice? (aka The Great Free Will v Determinism Debate)

Post by cappuccino » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:16 am

Karma is from intentions, you have to intend something.

If you have to intend, you can intend. Hence free will.

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach we have choice? (aka The Great Free Will v Determinism Debate)

Post by L.N. » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:35 am

cappuccino wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:16 am
Karma is from intentions, you have to intend something.

If you have to intend, you can intend. Hence free will.
However, to the extent such intensions are tainted with greed, hatred and/or delusion, they are not truly free. Volitional action (kamma) rooted in greed, hatred, and/or delusion is not freedom from greed, hatred and delusion.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach we have choice? (aka The Great Free Will v Determinism Debate)

Post by cappuccino » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:43 am

A desire for removing desire?

Dinsdale
Posts: 5351
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Did the Buddha teach we have choice? the great free will determinism debate

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:22 am

DNS wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:03 pm
Don't complain about me merging them; I had no choice. :tongue:
To merge or not to merge, that is the question. :toilet:
Buddha save me from new-agers!

ToVincent
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Did the Buddha teach we have choice? (aka The Great Free Will v Determinism Debate)

Post by ToVincent » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:43 am

cappuccino wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:16 am
Karma is from intentions, you have to intend something.
If you have to intend, you can intend. Hence free will.
That's exactly it.
Whether or not you understand, Susīma, first comes knowledge of the stability (unmoving) of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbāna.
Pubbe kho, susima, dhammaṭṭhitiñāṇaṃ, pacchā nibbāne ñāṇan’ti. (SN 12.70)
The stability (ṭhiti), the unmoving, the continuance of the dhamma is due to manosañcetanā (mano saṃ cetanā - mano + cetanā). The unfree immaterial citta (a-cittavimutti, so to speak), stuck & fastened to mano, the material sensory organ.
See the yellow part: https://justpaste.it/1695d

Cetanā again, and again.
Right.
The cause of the maintenance (ṭhitiya) of consciousness. The cause of the ṭhitiya of the dhamma.

Free will from the "I". From the internal (mano + ~cetanā).
There exist an element of instigation (ārabbhadhātuyā) (AN 6.38).
No excuse whatsoever.

.
Sk.स्थिति sthiti

dve vāva brahmaṇo rūpe
mūrtaṃ caivāmūrtaṃ ca
martyaṃ cāmṛtaṃ ca
sthitaṃ ca yac ca
sac ca tyaṃ ca
Verily, there are two forms of Brahman,
the formed and the formless,
the mortal and the immortal,
the unmoving and the moving,
the actual (existent) and the true (being).
BṛĀrUp. 2.3.1
.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

chownah
Posts: 7010
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?

Post by chownah » Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:10 pm

manas wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:01 pm
It runs counter to what the Buddha taught, and furthermore, it could lead some people to stop making an effort to improve themselves, since according to Harris that effort, too, is predetermined, and whether you try or not, won't change what is already preordained to occur. Yet despite my revulsion for it, and the fact that on an intuitive, experiential level, I feel it is incorrect, I find myself unable to definitely prove him wrong on an intellectual level. Can anyone prove him wrong, definitively?
At time mark 0:30 harris says that everything you think and do arises from an ocean of prior causes. This seems to be pretty much the basis of his point of view on the matter of free will. If this is the basis then he is making a huge error in logic....he is assuming what he is trying to prove. I'm not sure whether even the exitence of an ocean of prior causes can be proven but putting that uncertainty aside and assuming that an ocean of prior causes exists then the task remains to prove that there is no other active principle other than prior cause.

He repeats his error at time mark 6:30 where he says, "your beliefs about the world are formed in a perfect crucible of prior causes." Again, maybe your beliefs are formed in relation to some 'perfect crucible of prior causes' but not in it....not with it being the only causitive agent. Again, he is assuming what he is trying to prove.
OOOOOps.
chownah

mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?

Post by mal4mac » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:54 pm

chownah wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:10 pm

At time mark 0:30 harris says that everything you think and do arises from an ocean of prior causes. This seems to be pretty much the basis of his point of view on the matter of free will. If this is the basis then he is making a huge error in logic....he is assuming what he is trying to prove.
Is he making a point based on logic? He might just be stating a commonly accepted hypothesis. Of course you can doubt what he says, but then you need to point to something that is *without doubt* not part of the ocean.
chownah wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:10 pm
I'm not sure whether even the existence of an ocean of prior causes can be proven but putting that uncertainty aside and assuming that an ocean of prior causes exists then the task remains to prove that there is no other active principle other than prior cause.
Can anything be proven? Even the strictest laws of physics are open to falsification.

Why do determinists have to prove that there is no other active principle than prior cause? Why shouldn't non-determinists have to prove that there is an active principle other than prior cause? Christians say "God is the cause"? Do you accept that? If not, why not? You seem to be saying that "my ultimate self, my atman" is the cause. That also seems non-Buddhist. But if you are not saying that, what are you pointing to as the active principle outside causality?
- Mal

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Akselim, Disciple, DooDoot, JubalHenshaw, pinit29, robertk, Saengnapha, thepea, Yahoo [Bot] and 80 guests