Sam Harris and the "No True Atheist" argument...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3UXl0oMYPLs/S ... theist.jpg

The previous post is, in my opinion, off-topic. I have reposted it in the off topic thread. I encourage everyone to not respond to it here.

A rather interesting piece of research on "unconscious bias". Free will concept is withering away as more psych and neuro research is delving into our brains and decision making.

A few years ago there was a study of NBA referees who levied harsher penalties on players of opposite race unconsciously. Black and white refs were doing the same thing (don't recall if there was any statistical difference in the penalties given away by race).

Unconscious bias when it comes to race, for instance, is well established and there are some online tests you can take to see if you are a racist or not. However, when a heartwarming story is told about the person who belongs to the race group you have displayed a bias towards (e.g difficult family situation, personal tragedy, the kid worked two jobs while going to college, etc), the racism drops precipitously.

There is unconscious bias when it comes to height, weight, color of skin, hair, sex, clothing, tattoos, accents, hair style, teeth hygiene. Even depending on menstrual period if the woman is interviewed or interviews for a job, if it's a man interviewing or interviewed, manly/hunter vs. gentle/carer expression of face in man.

Biological biases at work. Free will in theological sense doesn't acknowledge biological biases, hence an irrelevant concept.

EVOLVING MEDICOLEGAL CONCEPTS

Do Poor People Sue Doctors More Frequently?

Confronting Unconscious Bias and the Role of Cultural Competency
Frank M. McClellan, Augustus A. White, Ramon L. Jimenez and Sherin Fahmy

Abstract
Background There is a perception that socioeconomically disadvantaged patients tend to sue their doctors more frequently. As a result, some physicians may be reluctant to treat poor patients or treat such patients differently from other patient groups in terms of medical care provided Questions/purposes We (1) examined existing literature to refute the notion that poor patients are inclined to sue doctors more than other patients, (2) explored unconscious bias as an explanation as to why the perception of the poor being more litigious may exist despite evidence to the contrary, and (3) assessed the role of culturally competent
awareness and knowledge in confronting physician bias. Methods We reviewed medical and social literature to
identify studies that have examined differences in litigation rates and related medical malpractice claims among
socioeconomically disadvantaged patients versus other groups of patients.

Results Contrary to popular perception, existing studies show poor patients, in fact, tend to sue physicians less often. This may be related to a relative lack of access to legal resources and the nature of the contingency fee system in medical malpractice claims. Conclusions Misperceptions such as the one examined in this article that assume a relationship between patient poverty and medical malpractice litigation may arise from unconscious physician bias and other social variables.
Cultural competency can be helpful in mitigating such bias, improving medical care, and addressing the risk of medical
malpractice claims.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0524628700905vp3/

If there is no Free Will and our "thoughts" are dependent on factors over which we have no control, then perhaps REASON ITSELF is subject to similar factors and is suspect.

Given all this neuroscience "research" it may be that all this "thinking" you are doing is simple something the organic brain does...stomachs digest, bowells move, the liver secretes, and brains "think".

Take it far enough and you have a self refuting circular argument refuting free will.

Jack on "Uses of Religion" thread .......The fact that the Constitution declares that there should be no religious test for office, a position I strongly support, is entirely different from me, or anyone else, judging for myself that the fact that someone beliefs certain things makes their judgment suspect.

Jack,

I think that one also needs to examine judgement of those who are deliberately hiding their non belief while running for public office. It maybe possible that non believers self select to go into public service to observe strict separation of church and state and avoid any hint at conflict, so they enter it only on condition that they will not be talking about their non faith, avoid or lie about it and wearing it on their sleeve. Different polls put non believers/not religious at 15-20%, so the numbers are there.

Statistically, 1 open non believer from CA out of some 500+ in US Congress and Senate is virtually impossible as these folks have higher education (some with multiple degrees), so there have to be non believers who don't acknowledge it, hide it, avoid discussing it or just plain lie about it. The number of non believing politicians on state and local levels must be even higher as there are 50 states and innumerable counties and cities around the country.

Which brings an interesting point about the state of mind of the religious people and their "free will" in bias against non believers. As I understand in Christianity all are considered sinners, so non belief is as good/bad of a sin as lusting after someone's wife or even thinking about her. So, the sinful nature of every human theologically should add to the "free will" concept of believers and tell them that the faith they hold must allow for atheists to be considered for public office alongside convicted criminals, rapists, murderers, etc. due to "grace and forgiveness". Yet you don't see it.

Hence, the "free will" concept of mainstream Christianity practiced in the US is theologically full of holes and cannot be considered ethically and morally enforceable (not by legal secular standards, of course, but by their own theological standards), at least when it comes to politics and the "we're all sinners" and "equal before the Lord concept" of Christianity.

Goes to biological nature of bias, disgust, mistrust, that have been determined to be residing in the most ancient reptilian part of human brain and neurological studies show that these traits are most prevalent in conservatives while liberals are much less statistically to hold negative feelings to other cultures, races, and political groups.

The concept of free will in political decision making is falsified by simple fMRI scan of the brain.

An interesting study below. Another brick taken out of "free will" wall.

Perhaps, everything should be written using the left side of keyboard to see if the readers can maintain their "free will" in light of this discovery? Theologically, there is no way to explain anything in this study. Biologically, yes, the explanation is rather easy. as statistically there are fewer letters on right side of keyboard. It's easier to type using fewer letters on the right side. Your brain gives an unconscious bias to words mainly composed from letters on the right side. So, your "free will" is subject to biological reality. The same principle should also be applicable to keyboards in other languages that don't use Latin alphabets (e.g Chinese, Korean, Arabic, Hebrew).

Another interesting thing to consider is bi-lingual typists, if they have two biases then they should cancel each other and they should have a lower or non existent bias for positive/negative feelings (in short, they are more balanced in their unconscious bias). People who speak several languages normally have more white matter as I understand and more neuronal connections (I have not done research on it) but studies suggest that those who are multi-lingual have lower onsets of Alzheimer's and those who read more and are more socially engaged too.

This also, should apply to people who have a higher degree of education - rewiring of your brain to balance out individual biases in light of empirical evidence and being able to comprehend different views on subjects would give these people an edge in problem solving, ability to handle complex and varied tasks, and lead to higher incomes. Which is all supported by wage data - people with higher education get paid more, make more informed and more balanced decisions.

There were were studies where people who think rationally and don't take gut decisions typically make fewer mistakes in math and logic. Also, studies of religious and non religious people indicated that religious people would make a higher number of gut
based decisions which end up wrong.

New study identifies the QWERTY effect, or how typing shapes the meaning of words
March 7, 2012 in Psychology & Psychiatry

Words spelled with more letters on the right of the keyboard are associated with more positive emotions than words spelled with more letters on the left, according to new research by cognitive scientists Kyle Jasmin of University College London and Daniel Casasanto of The New School for Social Research, New York. Their work shows, for the first time, that there is a link between the meaning of words and the way they are typed - a relationship they call the QWERTY effect. Their study is published online in Springer's journal Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-03-q ... words.html

"Free will" of believe surely has a rather stark difference even in two geographically and culturally close populations. Perhaps, instead of invoking the enigmatic concept, one needs to look at sociological, cultural, mass media roles which constitute specific boundaries for choices that people make in consuming information and making their decisions. Ultimately, it's the neurological functions of the brain, theological "free will" has absolutely no explanations for statistics like this. Biology does and only in its light it makes sense.

Americans More Likely to Believein Bigfoot than Canadians
[VANCOUVER – Mar. 4, 2012]

Less than one-in-five Britons think the Loch Ness Monster is real—but onequarter of Scots do. Three-in-ten Americans (29%) and onein-five Canadians (21%) think Bigfoot is “definitely” or “probably” real.

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/up ... _Myths.pdf

Research from Max Planck Institutes. "Free will" concept is further withered away when you see the prefrontal cortex as source of neuronal preconditions and you can detect the patterns prevalent in making decisions about right and wrong. In order to be able to fit into the "right" or "wrong" actions, humans have to have neuronal system developed to be able to fit the "right or wrong" perceptions of the society? And how are these "right/wrong" perceptions formed? By society, cultural environment and biology on individual and group level, of course. So, what is "free will" then? It appears to be a philosophical/theological concept assigned to ignorance of neurological pathways that determine what choices we'd make.


Poor impulse control keeps children from sharing

Late development of the prefrontal cortex explains why children find it hard to suppress selfish impulses
March 07, 2012

When children fail to share fairly with each other, it may not be due to poor understanding of what constitutes right and wrong; after all, they grasp early on that fairness and generosity can be advantageous. However, scientists at the Leipzig-based Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences have discovered that it takes some time before they possess the neuronal preconditions to act in accordance with this understanding. The prefrontal cortex, a region of the brain that is important for behavioural control, develops relatively late, so that sharing is more easily said than done for primary school children. The finding could impact educational strategies designed to promote successful social behaviour, the scientists write in the March 8th issue of the journal Neuron.

http://www.mpg.de/5074082/impulse_control_children

Another brick is taken out of "free will" wall. Our memories, emotions, and consequently actions can only be determined, predicted and acted upon within the confines of our biology and not by some enigmatic "free will" concept. Call it free will as a shortcut, as long as you understand the boundaries it has due to physiological, neurological, genetic, biological, physical and chemical constraints your free will is exercised within.

Making memories: How one protein does it

Studying tiny bits of genetic material that control protein formation in the brain, Johns Hopkins scientists say they have new clues to how memories are made and how drugs might someday be used to stop disruptions in the process that lead to mental illness and brain wasting diseases.

In a report published in the March 2 issue of Cell, the researchers said certain microRNAs—genetic elements that control which proteins get made in cells— are the key to controlling the actions of so-called brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), long linked to brain cell survival, normal learning and memory boosting. During the learning process, cells in the brain's hippocampus release BDNF, a growth-factor protein that ramps up production of other proteins involved in establishing memories. Yet, by mechanisms that were never understood, BDNF is known to increase production of less than 4 percent of the different proteins in a brain cell.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-03-m ... otein.html

Interesting that the arguments that are used against Free Will can also be used to devalue the reliability of "reason" itself and hence cast into doubt our knowledge of "reality".

In fact, although we may think we have objective knowledge of "reality" the universe may be far different than we assume.

FYI: I just got my copy of Sam Harris's "Free Will". I am looking forward to reading it for three reasons:

1. To compare what Harris has to say to what Mike says Harris believes. Mike very well may be accurately representing Harris, but I'd like to see for myself.

2. To see and think about what Harris says, and see to what extent I agree or don't agree with Harris.

3. As a general springboard to just thinking about the issues.

Now that I have some time this weekend I intend to respond with some points to things that Dagny and Mike have posted earlier in the week.

I'd also like to write summaries of the chapters in Harris's book - we'll see if that happens.

Jack,

Sam Harris had a few interviews on the new book. You may want to check them out online once you read the book to see if he can bring any more insights or clarify his position for you.

Before I start Harris's book, I'd like to respond to some of the ideas mentioned already in the thread - want to clear my head and start reading with a clean slate, so to speak.

1. First, to Dagny: A couple of times you mention constraints upon our free will which are really just constraints on the resources available to us at the time, and I don't think this is very relevant: obviously, if you don't have eggs, you aren't free to make an omelet. There are a number of famous stories of people locked in horrendously isolated circumstances who later talked about how the decisions they made about their attitude were central to their survival. Their options for action were highly limited, but their sense of freely willing how to act given those constraints was intact. Free will, whatever that means, is about how we choose to act given the situation we are in: the limitations of the environment may limit what we can choose to do, but the that is different than the issue of whether we can, or cannot, choose what to do within the context of those limitations. I hope this distinction is clear.

2. Second, to Dagny: You write, "Most of what's happening in our brain is unknown, a lot of it is subconscious and detectable and many of our decisions are made way before we act on them and this can be detected," and you've provided a number of links concerning research to back this up.

I agree that the work coming out of neurobiology is very interesting, and that it is incumbent upon on to take this research into account as we think about the free will issue.

I also think that if ones pays close attention to oneself, one can in fact experience this effect internally, with our own consciousness. Where do our thoughts come from? If you stand back, so to speak, and watch your thoughts arise, you can feel how they are already formed when you first feel them, and much of thinking is just talking out to yourself the ideas that have been assembled and presented to your consciousness by your subconscious.

The same can be said for actions, although it's a bit harder to feel the process. Think of the times you get "spaced out" by while doing something like driving. (It's a little scary that this happens.) One will be deep in thought and all-of-a-sudden notice that miles have gone by that you don't remember, and yet you navigated the traffic just fine. Or notice yourself do something routine like tie you shoes, or fix breakfast. You move smoothly from one action to another without thinking about what you are going to do: the organization of your behavior is taking place subconsciously, and your body goes about its business "automatically," so to speak.

3. So this brings up several big issues to me. Does the fact that all this biologically organized activity takes place mean that you are not willing the actions, or is will in fact part of the sensation of expressing biologically organized behavior? That is, is will (let's leave the free part out of it for the time being - I'm not sure that adds anything to the issue) something that happens <b>to</b> the body, or is it something that happens <b>from</b> the body.

The theist believes that there is part of us - a vitally important part, the soul, that is metaphysically separate from the body, and which has the ability to will the body to act based on access to non-material understandings. Thinking, reason, moral choices, etc. draw on something more than the workings on the biological person, and can cause the body to act in the ways it wants it to. Something like this is what the theist means by "free will."

Obviously, if one is not a theist and doesn't believe in a non-material soul such as this, then one doesn't believe "free will" of this sort exists: this type of free will is an "illusion", because the soul upon which it is based doesn't exist.

When I asked Mike how his sense of free will feels to him, he wrote, "How does my free will feel to me? The same way it does does to you, I expect."

This is an important point: we really have no way of knowing whether a soul exists or not. The interesting question is not whether we have free will in the metaphysical sense, because we can't know that. Also, even though it's very interesting, the central issue is also not that so much of what we do is biologically organized in our subconscious by our brain. The central issue, to me, is how do we use our consciousness and actions to develop a "wise body" so that the subconscious decisions and ideas that manifest themselves are effective, clear, and beneficial in respect to our values and goals.

Here are two quotes that address the ideas I'm trying to bring up.

From the I Ching: "The wise man is he who acts spontaneously exactly as he would after great deliberation." If we develop ourself well, what we will will flow from us well, without a sense of having to control it.

From Stephen Covey (7 Habits of Effective People): "Between the stimulus and the response there is a pause, and therein lies our freedom."

I think the big issue for me is seeing that the "I" that is customarily seen as the self in the Western world - associated with consciousness, thinking, and "will power", is itself the illusion, and that what we experience as will is the power of the whole biological body to organize behavior, include conscious awareness, towards directed purposes.

So asking if we have "free will" is the wrong question, really: it assumes a dichotomy between a theistic metaphysical freedom that doesn't exist and an equally misguided notion that the world is nothing more than a reductionistic collections of elemental particles. We have to take a different look at what a human being is in order to try to come to grips with what "will" is and how we can use it to manifest the self we want to be.

</soapbox> and </rambling>

==============
Also, Mike brings up some common objections that I think are not very substantial. For instance, he writes,



It is absolutely true that the universe might be far different than the way we perceive it, but that is as true, if not more so, for the theist.

Also, we clearly understand the world as we perceive it well enough: not only do we survive, but we have come to understand it well enough to build houses and cars and iphones and space stations ...

So I think the argument that are a biological being without any special metaphysical soul capable of reason and free will as Mike understands it doesn't devalue reason at all. We are a physical creature evolved in a physical world, and so of course our perceptions and talents are well-suited to living in that world: what else could we expect from our ability to reason?

BBC is going to have this show tonight. Should be some time on YouTube.

Out of Control?

We all like to think we are in control of our lives - of what we feel and what we think. But scientists are now discovering this is often simply an illusion.

Surprising experiments are revealing that what you think you do and what you actually do can be very different. Your unconscious mind is often calling the shots, influencing the decisions you make, from what you eat to who you fall in love with. If you think you are really in control of your life, you may have to think again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01dlglq

New Study Detects Free Will in the Prefrontal Cortex

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... al-cortex/