Page 58 of 66

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:14 pm
by manas
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:

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:23 pm
by mal4mac
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!

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:30 pm
by mal4mac
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.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:20 pm
by Zom
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

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:35 pm
by mal4mac
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!

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:42 pm
by Zom
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" -)

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:58 pm
by mal4mac
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!

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:47 pm
by Pseudobabble
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.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:00 pm
by robertk
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.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:03 pm
by DNS
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:

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:14 pm
by Zom
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-)

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

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:07 pm
by binocular
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!

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

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:26 am
by form
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.

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

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

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

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

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