Note: This is a working draft of a nearly-complete essay. It has taken quite some time and mental effort to even begin approaching a topic like this. I initially started out of curiosity, quite literally as a tangential train of thought on my ‘notes’ app, and now feel rather compelled to share some of these thoughts which I have stumbled upon in constructing this analysis. As this is a working draft, any and all critique is especially welcome and encouraged.
There are many ways to approach philosophy, and many perspectives which might reflect “the Truth” to the degree that we are even capable of observing it. There is an end of the rabbit hole, however, as we reach the concepts surrounding the fundamental forces which drive the universe itself. Over the past several decades, materialism and determinism have emerged in the mainstays of our collective understanding surrounding the true, “ultimate” nature of reality, or at least they have been installed as the primary blueprint for getting there. Promulgators of this philosophy outside of academia itself include highly influential and rhetorically effective figures such as Sam Harris, Robert Sapolsky, and plenty of others, and even popular online philosophers such as Alex O’Connor (aka CosmicSkeptic). While there is a range of belief and debate and nuance to be had for ideas such as compatibilism, strict determinists such as Harris, have found a way to square this proposal with confidence, and wrap it up nicely as a truth-claim to be professed.
The first thing to be said, is that I certainly don’t believe Sam to be entirely mistaken in his general observations of reality; in fact, it’s unquestionable that his research and writings – which span an array of psychological, religious, and meditative themes – have put forward some very hard, yet very real and highly respectable critiques of dogma as a foundational, societal axiom.
These, in addition to his introspective and rhetorical insight, stand as expressions of critical thinking having actively influenced plenty of individuals. There is also something to be said for Sam’s acute grip of the nature of suffering, of which I especially personally resonate, and the scale of the landscape over which true terror can potentially unfold, when we collectively choose to sacrifice our self-awareness for comfortable ignorance.
That said, I do think there is a danger that arises in making metaphysical claims which can be extrapolated to suggest a deeply implicative and consequential state of reality… especially when such claims are made with the conviction of absolute truth.
In his analysis, I believe that Sam is missing something, unconsciously or otherwise, which cannot be simply ignored, and in this (video/essay) I aim to provide a wider perspective to those who have adopted a deterministic lens at the allure of minds like Harris: specifically challenging the assumptions underpinning his deterministic framework.
Let’s us first acknowledge that within a conversation like this, definitions are extremely important. A slight change in semantics under our definitions of free will/determinism might completely change our perspective of what is correct. However, we can start by entertaining Sam’s typical arguments against free will, and then see how well those arguments relate a general, broader definition.
1 — Sneaky Definitions
First I will point out Sam’s sneaky definitional tactics which he uses in pursuit of a “synchronistic strawman.” He often points out, that free will itself (as a matter of innateness) is definitionally undermined, since most people don’t know what they are functionally describing when they think about the concept of free will or employ its term. Additionally, as echoed throughout Sam’s common phraseology; people don’t have “what they think they mean” when imagining such a concept as free will. In other words, what he’s suggesting, is that his perceived ability of others to sufficiently grapple with the term ‘free will’ is meaningfully intertwined with a metaphysical explanation for the true cause behind our actions… well, okay then. We can revisit that one, or leave it there entirely.
By the way, each of these claims might reflect a semantic, a technical hint of “truth”… after all, the way that we’re engaging reality is simply a distillation, it is an interface filtered by our evolutionary capacities and homeostatic filters, and this interface is presumably representative of a much deeper, much more elaborate process, the only process occurring at all, and this in a way that could never be reflected (remotely properly) within an individual mind.
But under this reasoning, Sam has effectively predefined free will to loosely mean something along the lines of: ‘the feeling of “ultimate, untethered control, anchored in some kind of observable, tangibly deciduous core.” However, this definition is mostly opposed to a specific, more dogmatic interpretation of free will, and effectively doesn’t allow for any new phenomena to arise on the fringes of, or even outside our current scope understanding & observational knowledge. This decision is made precluding any knowledge of whether such findings would reinforce or oppose the strict deterministic theory.
For any argument against or in favor of determinism to hold any substance, we either need to clarify the definitional framework and the terms we are using, or change them. Otherwise, the utility of this analysis in itself is debatable. Arguing against free will in this nebulous fashion only inhibits a the progress toward a collectively tighter grasp on the precise ideas we are expressing and unpacking. But regardless Sam preemptively lays the foundation for determinism being the only rational state of the universe, through strategic preclusion of any creative, or even nuanced, interpretation of these ideas.
Let’s me try to express the situation in another way. When we’re weighing determinism against free will. There is really, at the end of the day, just one factor we need to determine. And that factor is as simple as whether or not, at this given moment of time, the next moment in time is undefined. If the next moment is not undefined, we necessarily must exclude free will and all of reality must be deemed determined OR having had already been determined. And this so, in the most absolute sense, this is absolute determinism. Even if 99.97% of all material outcomes have already be constrained by real, observable forces… any acknowledgement of stochasticity at all would pose a problem for Sam’s theory, because at the fundamental level this would imply an impossible external source to account for our apparent randomness. The exclusion of this randomness is necessary for the type of determinism Sam suggests, without exception. Partial determinism does not speak to the exclusion of free will in any capacity. Yet, the natural extrapolation of Sam and Saplowskis theory, is that given enough observation, enough variables and precise measurement, us humans will necessarily be able to map out the future with certainty. Absolute certainty, down to the exact movement of particles. It would simply require enough information, and perhaps some sort of ungodly octaviate formula, yet in a purely deterministic world, and given enough information, it necessarily could be done.
Let us also consider, In a world that has been determined, there is no logical need for anything to continue happening or have happened in the first place. saying that all situations can be directly derived from information found within the moment before, would preclude us from distilling randomness within material any system, to any degree, at any moment in time. All effect will have a causational counterpart, it necessary must, and has been determined by such, as it has already been determined. Saplowski’s illustrates this as the core argument in his book ‘Determined’ using the visual of ‘turtles all the way down,’ the infinite regress of reality.
With this said, we will revisit the definitions shortly, and explore another problem found in approaching Sam’s philosophy.
2 — “The Past Could Not Have Been Otherwise”
Sam will often rely on a thought experiment to support his argument for determinism. propping this hypothetical of “if we went back in time, we couldn’t have it any other way.” This statement probably sounds reasonably, but upon closer examination we find it resting on an assumption that cannot be proven. Also as a significant side not, making this claim is essentially like saying that ‘moving forward in time, we couldn’t have it any other way.’ The present is always intertwined with the future in this way, so you cannot claim one without the other. It’s an empirically elusive hypothetical locked within the laws of time itself. Still, Sam likely would agree with that fact, after all that is the deterministic claim.
But let us explore his hypothetical further. Surely, if you went back in time as a non-influencing entity, you would just see the past as it had unfolded, and people would make the same decisions they decided to make in the identical moment you’ve gone back to observe. Because THAT is the moment you’ve gone back to observe! Because time is fixed to itself in the way we described above, abstract reality from a non-existing past, nor can we deduce greater truth claims by engaging this sort of hypothetical. Even if it seems revealing.
Nonetheless; let’s say you could engage this experiment in a time-travel/replacement sense: the present version of you takes the place of the past version of you, within an otherwise identical scenario.
Well, Sam, you’re a materialist. Even by you carrying something back into time (as opposed to just observing the past), there is a variance… even if it was just one thought, the very thought of knowing you’ve gone back in time, that thought would necessarily change the state of the past, in the most marginal sense; you’re brain has a different quantum makeup, perhaps a neuron oriented here which was otherwise oriented there, etc., but it is marginal nonetheless. And if that happened, perhaps it affected a dozen other neurons adjacent, a butterfly effect if you will, and ultimately caused you to blink a millisecond earlier than your original ‘past self’ had done. The general structure of a course of events might occur almost identically, yet the past would still have played out differently, determined by the rebellion of that singular neuron.
Now I admit, this hypothetical might be just as useless at the end of the day, but the point is: all you’re doing is selectively conditioning the a hypothetical situation to require an absolutely static, identical version of a specific moment in time. Therefore, if you’re going back in time as a non-influencing entity, all we’re really saying is you’re observing the past. The very act of you being there observing reality in this recursive way, necessarily means that we cannot use this hypothetical with any meaningful clarity. It reinforces the recursive illusion.
This is because the acute fact your trying to reach, this idea of distilling free will from a theoretical past moment of time… it cannot be done, that observation is not accessible to us within this reality, and so it is meaningless. This type of truth can only induced by observing the present moment.
Further, if we are to accept this claim of determinism, we must extrapolate that where we can in order to see how it would effectively map on to reality.
And so, if all that is and has yet to be can be derived from the past with certainty, all of reality is meaningless in the most basic mathematical sense, it becomes asymptotic, an infinite causal chain, in this way and everything vanishes, it implies for there to be nothing, there is no meaningful purpose or reason for anything to occur at all.
If we venture to imagine the universe as a “conspansive manifold,” as Chris Langan suggests, we are presented with an all-encompassing model of reality where not only spacetime is expanding but the domain of the future itself. Each future moment in time holds greater potential variability than the past moment held relative to the present.
In this way, we are highly constrained by the entropic mural of circumstance, if you will. The question then becomes: within these constraints, do ‘we’ have anything to say about HOW the future unfolds?
Now, claiming that all situations can be directly derived from information found within the moment before, would render us not be able to distill randomness in any system, to any degree, at any moment in time. In this light, all effects can be presumed to have a causational counterpart, they necessary must, as this is required in a solely material reality.
There is no room for randomness, no explanation for stochasticity, and if this could be observed in any absolute way, shape, or form, it would automatically undermine the idea of materialism in an implosive fashion.
———-$ (To be added)
3 — (Self As An Illusion)
Anecdotally, Sam will support this philosophy by claiming he is able to distill moments of observation in which he is capturing the illusion of the self. And in these moments, he claims, one can be acutely aware of a lack of their own free will, as simply the noise of impulse and sensory distraction working to prevent us from truly observing this state at all moments in time. And so, this contradiction according to Sam reinforces the illusory nature of our own agency, causing it to evaporate into thin air.
However, let us employ this loose reasoning by taking the analysis a step further. If the self is only an illusion of consciousness, we can just as easily say that language is equally an illusion of syntax. Intelligence is an illusion of synaptic efficiency, and a hard, brick wall is simply an illusion of negentropy. If you were to punch this brick wall as hard as you can, however, it would not feel like an illusion. But perhaps Sam would say that the pain and bruising is the just the illusion of matter colliding with matter. He can philosophize all he wants, but it wouldn’t change reality for you in that moment. You get the point, we can play this recursive game all day.
Still, in invoking this framework, he might be able to sneak out a descriptive truth, a claim that seems semantically correct. Saying “Free will is an illusion because it is not what most people feel” might technically be a feasible statement. But the thing is, this is such a meaningless game to play. What is the value of that conclusion? It offers no scientific insight, no further description of physical causation, it is not necessary for your meditative lessons, and fleshing out this reasoning fully would turn everything into nothing, all things simply becoming an illusion.
(FULL CIRCLE)
And this is the point that ties in full circle with Sam’s original accusation, that free will is undermined by what most people “claim to mean, or feel it to be…” when they are trying to explain it.
Saying that we don’t understand free will… or the ‘true nature’ of our will… even if it’s just a definitional disagreement… is very different from claiming, with utmost conviction and confidence, that all of our thoughts and actions ultimately have already occurred. After all, time is just an illusion as well.
Allow me to offer one more hypothetical example, to further illuminate the absurdity of this point.
I would pose to Sam, the following question:
“Do you love your wife?”
And I would employ Sam’s semantic approach to dismantling free will, further asking: Do you actually love her, in real sense?
And I mean actual love, in the way that many people claim to mean or feel when they use the word. I’m asking if you love your wife in the absolute sense of the question; a transcendent connection, with a person meant for you, ultimately forming a union greater than the sum of its parts.
Would you suggest, Sam, that such love necessarily cannot exist as well, since, after all, it ultimately boils down to a chemically algorithmic process, which just so happened to optimize and constrain functionally, and effectively, right around the exact time you happened to meet your wife, not to mention that the same process occurring within her, brought about by nothing more than a highly effective evolutionary impulse?
Okay, this may seem like a silly question, but the answer according to Sam’s own logic would be:
No, of course he doesn’t truly Love his wife. After all, love is just this abstraction you’ve created to dress up and dance around your human impulses, to give us the comfortable illusions of that which we cannot touch. Right?
Or, Sam… it is possible that both things can be true at once, that you do love your wife, and that this word you call LOVE is utilized in order to effectively convey a phenomenon that we are all descriptively familiar with, but which also seems to give rise to something outside of itself.
No one is denying the cause effect relationships we can observe in the world. But analyze, label, and rationalize all you want, the immediate proof of our individual agency remains directly before us, all the same.
Also, just to be consistent in the logic here. When Sam’s wife says, “do you love me?” I fully expect him to say no, since love is ultimately just an illusion.
I acknowledge this as a crude example and mean no disrespect to Sam, but is necessary and effective to convey a contradictory way of thinking.
There is a real problem with obscuring the essence of a phenomenon and gripping it too tightly with semantics. Unfortunately this is not useful in the way that Sam believes. His philosophy of capturing the present moment and distilling that process into a ritual meditation, is unbelievably valuable knowledge. But to take it that step further, and preclude free will entirely (…), well, that part seems driven by something else, in no way malicious, but potentially just as mistaken as he claims others to be, those who do not confidently espouse a metaphysically deterministic nature of reality.
(FINALIZING DEFINITIONS)
The entire utility of this argument rests on mutual assumptions each party shares. I repeat.
This is not a productive conversation if we cannot distill a working definition of what Free Will actually means, and whether it is simply the counterpart to determinism, or precluded outright by means of Sam’s use of overly broad definitions. If we say now that we can’t define free will, because we presumably hold biases in our perception of a definition that some people may or may not hold, and which may not even reflect a proper apprehension of the concept, then perhaps this indicates we have more foundation to lay before pressing these blanket conclusions onto reality. This is classic overfitting, and by a neuroscientist no less.
Intentionally obscuring the definition hinders any kind of progressive discussion of the concept. You have to look at the whole picture. And in that way, free will defines itself.
There is a creative order unfolding at all times, considering entirely its accumulated past, and affected at each moment by the moment before. In this sense, he is accurate.
But in there is also a force he is not considering, which is more like a force of synergy resulting from the coherence of other, intertwined entropic forces. And this non-terminal force, by nature of this synergy, is able exert itself back into material reality, in the form of something resembling FREE WILL.
The emerging force has agency over the direction of our terminal future, but in a highly restricted, constrained fashion. We can not dictate the logos nor apprehend it from where we are situated. Even if god knows the future, the scope of apprehension is simply outside of us. Like fish in a sea trying to understand the ocean.
We are harnessing stochasticity and there is an identity-like force which emerges from that, this force over time emerging as a very real self, it is not an illusions, it is an abstraction of phenomena we are not apt to understand fully. This force, and its influence over the terminal cannot be as easily reduced to the sum of its parts.
Think of a marriage, where the anima and animus converge to form a whole which itself is greater than the sum of its parts. Think of any kind of practical construction for that matter; cars, appliances, even books – this phenomena we operate on cannot as simply be reduced to the sum of its parts. There has to be room for description far outside of our immediate apprehension. We certainly cannot use science with regard to this innate occurrence, doing so belies the scientific method itself!
This force is more than just consciousness, for even within one’s own consciousness, he may be embedded within many sets of deep and rigid social, cultural, environmental constraints. And so they have effectively limited the future, perhaps even reduced their free will, by restricting themselves from the non terminal.
Another way to look at the concept removed from ambiguous language might be: you cannot control your thoughts, actions, and immediate circumstances, in a way you are prisoner to the bombardment of your sensory inputs and natural impulse. But inside this phenomenon is a dance between observation and reaction. The force which has emerges is a witness to its constraints, and guides reaction within those constraints. This is how we can acknowledge free will in its most fundamental sense, prima fascia and without need to be reduced nor explained. Described, perhaps, but still irreducible. And on this simple recognition one might rest a humble optimism for the remaining unknown, fully accepting of and unconcerned with the “why”.
The more one leverages his current agency, the more frequently he can lift the constraints over his mind.
The danger, I believe, and the reason reason to point this out, lies in the absurd implication of determinism, and that is that we have no agency over our words and actions. Sam may negate this by imploring some rigid for of ethics to be adopted, but that’s not the point. The logical extrapolation over the best course of action moving forward would be ‘whatever happens’ since it can be confidently said has already happened, and that one is resigned to his fate regardless of the will that arises within him or in any given moment.
It’s a massive downplay of human responsibility in a way that is dressed up in an elegant argumentative frame work.
My message to everyone watching, is simple: many of these truths are out of our immediate reach, not easily reflected by the human mind. But regardless, there is self evident truth resting above all others: you do have agency. You do have power. And you have the ability, right now or at any moment in time, to direct improve the quality of you life. The more you realize and leverage your true agency, the more frequently he can lift the constraints over your own mind, and in a way, you are expanding the domain of your own free will.
Leave a Reply