Read about how the Anti Theist New Atheist Sam Harris excuses rape and murder.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... -free-will

I don't see where in the article he excuses the behavior. He ends the article with a question, "How can we make sense of our lives, and hold people accountable for their choices, given the unconscious origins of our conscious minds?" Although I don't know much about Harris, my son is interested in him, so maybe I'll suggest he get the book and tell me what Harris's answer to the question is.

Jack, to put it in a very over simplistic way, free will is an illusion as we are under impression we can control our world and all of our actions, thoughts and decisions fully as if we are on a boat and rowing down a quiet river with the banks and all. Little do we know that the river is the size of the Universe and then some and we are just seeing a little quiet sliver of it with limited guidelines that our brain can comprehend. 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.

Brain cognition is a fascinating field of research. Someone will get a Nobel prize for it in a few years. It will be a new frontier. Would be great if it was a religious person who'd win it. Preferably a Christian. Preferably an Evangelical Christian. Most likely will be in America. Most probably it would be a person of Jewish descent as probabilities are on their side.

I think your son will find that Harris concludes that we can't hold people accountable in a moral sense. Oh, we can lock them up because they are doing something we don't like, but we can't hold them morally responsible.

I think this is just one more consequence of Anti Theism. It explains why Harris has made excuses, call them what you will, for killing people for their beliefs and for things ranging from torture to Pre Emptive Nuclear War.

I would be interested in your son's opinion after he looks at the book.

I do not see logical scientific reasoning for that conclusion.

Gary,

I recommend you read on brain evolution, neuroscience, cognition, and decision making. Also, check out popular science sites. Wikipedia is a great source to begin with to get a general picture, get some vocabulary and basic concepts. I normally keep the main article open and other links of interest open in new tabs in the same window so you can keep them all organized. You, then, can open another brand new window (not tab) and repeat the process for the next batch of what interests you.

A great very easy to understand for starters is a series of short videos by "cdk007" on YouTube.

I already know that reliable logical scientific reasoning for your conclusion is not found there either. What I have suggests the opposite is true, we do have free will.

Gary.....I already know that reliable logical scientific reasoning for your conclusion is not found there either. What I have suggests the opposite is true, we do have free will.

You have a hypothesis, Gary. Now you need to back it up with neurological, psychological and biological research. A hypothesis for its own purpose is like a tree that falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it. The same argument for an intelligent designer.

I can do some more research later on "free will" and pull some recent papers on the subject like I did on "Origins of Life Thread." Or you can yourself go to popular science sites that I gave to Mike and do your own search. I'd still recommend Wikipedia to get started. From there you'll see what publications actually cover the subject, you can then go directly there and find what the scientific framework for this field is.

You have a free will to the extent that fewer options you have the less to no free will/options you have. To test it, lock yourself in a dark square cube where all dimensions are the same and no outside stimuli are coming in. You have very few choices, your "free will" is limited to the environment you are in. If you as a new born were never exposed to any stimuli coming into your sensory organs you will have absolutely no concept of what's out there and your "free will" will be only in the instinctive part of your responses.

The simplest experiment like this with the minimized entropy of the system (reductionism ad absurdum) normally falsifies any complicated hypothesis not supported by evidence.

I do not need to argue for or against a religious entity you named "intelligent designer" the computer model and theory makes it relatively easy to conclude repeatable (deterministic) atomic processes produce autonomous intelligence systems that make their own choices, have free will.

Gary... I do not need to argue for or against a religious entity you named "intelligent designer" the computer model and theory makes it relatively easy to conclude repeatable (deterministic) atomic processes produce autonomous intelligence systems that make their own choices, have free will.

Gary,

As long as you use "free will" as metaphor for atomic processes and transformations they are going through, you maybe misunderstanding that this maybe a wave of probabilities as the current theory suggests in our understanding of electron's nature, for example. I challenge you to find anyone in particle physics world to assign any "active" choice making to particles, to say nothing of free will. I am interested in this from purely theoretical framework as you and I cannot really do any experiments on it due to needed equipment, so we have to rely on popular science interpretation, actual papers and books by physicists (there have been a few good ones recently and I bought 4-6 books that I am planning on reading soon) and may have more in mind. From what I've seen on popular science shows on cable, the dual particle and wave-like behavior of energy and matter is a given and is as a fact as theory of evolution. I challenge you to find "free will" arguments in any framework.

If you use "free will" in this sense, I don't have a problem for layman's interpretation, but it is laden with theological implications, especially in America, not as much in Europe. This is not the "common language" that is needed to connect scientists of different world views with the common man of the public who have no idea. We need a more inclusive and more accurate language to be on the same page.

On the opposite side, "nature selects" is also a catchy phrase, but nobody in biology assigns any "Gaia like" living and breathing meaning to "nature" in natural selection as one of the major vehicles of evolution.

But we have departed from the original topic - interaction of brain matter with the world, thus creating an illusion of free will we have as our brains are not capable to comprehend reality on Planck range (well, not yet till everyone start thinking in purely physical objective reality paradigm as many already are in the scientific world). I may just be blowing smoke as I have not researched this yet to the extent I've done abiogenesis.

I may look into this later today and post my thoughts.

Seeing as how the project I was going into work for was put on hold until Monday, I might as well take a break from (hopefully) better wording the paper by saying:


I was precise in my use of terminology, at the atomic level are repeatable (deterministic) processes and what has free will is a self-learning intelligence system at another level that is in detail explained at Planet Source Code and elsewhere.

You're confusing concepts in a way that makes it seem you can apply what happens in one atom of an intelligent entity to explain how all the rest of the system works. Just like me you and all others first need to operationally define terms such as "intelligence" with a testable model before you can even begin to credibly explain a property commonly called "free will".

Gary.....I was precise in my use of terminology, at the atomic level are repeatable (deterministic) processes and what has free will is a self-learning intelligence system at another level that is in detail explained at Planet Source Code and elsewhere.

How can a concept (system) have free will? Free will has a consciousness/soul theological baggage. Actions at Planck constant level and processes on the atomic and subatomic scales cannot be viewed theologically, but only through mathematical description framework. We are talking Quantum realm now, which is part of the Objective Reality and is subject to the next level of Methodological Naturalism as Einstein was to Newtonian Gravity.

Self-learning intelligence systems as I understand from little I've gained from your writings, Gary, can be give credence if you redefine "intelligence" to "laws of nature that describe ability of atoms to organize and perform repeatable processes". It's hardly intelligence, more like Lego blocks. I am still not sure why you need "intelligence" inserted into this whole thing. Just call it "self organizing" system and this will be the same cup of tea?

You're confusing concepts in a way that makes it seem you can apply what happens in one atom of an intelligent entity to explain how all the rest of the system works. Just like me you and all others first need to operationally define terms such as "intelligence" with a testable model before you can even begin to credibly explain a property commonly called "free will".

I'll leave it up to professionals in the field. I have no time to learn it and go to school for years and then do all these tedious experiments in physics. I'd rather enjoy life and act according to "free will" whatever I have.

An intelligence is "autonomous" therefore makes its own choices. Or in other words there is no Flying Selection Monster with noodley appendage connected to our head selecting all our actions for us, that's what our brain is for.


It's not my fault your scientific method requires adding all the theological baggage you can find. In my scientific method all that is called "religion" and is kept separate from "science".

Gary, should the "scientific method" have theological...or philosophical for that matter...baggage if it is just a Methodological approach?

Theological and philosophical answers are not even scientific, should not ever be presented as evidence. Where a phrase like "free will" is under discussion only what scientifically applies like "makes own choices" is to be considered, and "theological baggage" from anyone on any side is out of bounds. But that's only how it's supposed to be, in reality not all feel the simple rule equally applies to them.

In my opinion the phrase "scientific method" is being loaded with baggage by making it seem like a complicated academia-only process that first requires publishing all ideas as journal papers for scientific tribunal, instead of science simply being about experiments to explain how things work.