For quite a while now, and thanks to many demands from one particular person, I've
been meaning to debunk some of Inspiring Philosophy's videos, and alas, I've finally found the
time to do so.
Now, for those of you unaware, Inspiring Philosophy, who I'll refer to from here on out as SP,
is predominantly a YouTube channel which is dedicated to spreading and defending the Gospel
of Jesus Christ, and who, in my opinion, attempts to achieve this by exploiting the ignorance
and bias of his audience, by misrepresenting opposing positions, being selective of the
facts he presents, expressing his interpretation of facts as facts themselves, and by lying...
seriously, SP demonstrably lies!
This, is Inspiring Philosophy's Case for Free Will – Debunked.
So, where to begin?
Well, within 10 seconds, and what are in fact his first words, SP implicitly commits a Black
and White Fallacy, which later becomes explicit, because he states that "The debate of the
existence of free will has gone on for centuries between determinists and libertarians",
and then spends the rest of his argument acting as if there is only one school determinism
and one school of libertarianism, when this simply isn't the case!
Just as there are numerous denominations of Christianity that are mutually exclusive with
each-another, there are numerous denominations of determinism and libertarianism that are
also mutually exclusive with each-another, including the various schools of compatibilism,
which have literally been in the heart of the debate for centuries – and hence, even
if all schools of determinism were proven false, this would not validate SP's very
specific brand of libertarianism.
And this really is (spoiler) the central flaw of SP's argument... it's entirely predicated
on a Black and White Fallacy… with on the one hand a very specific school of determinism,
and on the other a very specific school of libertarianism.
So, how exactly does SP define determinism?
Well, he starts by very briefly outlining Sam Harris' position, by saying that, "Determinists,
like Harris, strongly believe free will is an illusion, and everything we think and believe
has been determined by prior causes", but one minute later he conflates Harris' views,
and indeed the views of all determinists, with one specific type of determinism called
fatalism (or Newtonian determinism).
"Michio Kaku sums up the implications of determinism like this – Newtonian determinism
says that the universe is a clock (a gigantic clock) that's wound up in the beginning
of time and has been ticking ever since according to the Newton's laws of motion.
So, what you're going to eat 10 years for now, on January 1st, has already been fixed.
It's already known, using laws of motion."
But here's the thing… that's not Harris' position, nor mine, nor many people who are
considered determinists.
Not once within his book, nor in any of his conversations, has Harris ever asserted that
absolutely everything is determined, and if SP had read his book before criticising it,
he would know this.
Harris isn't a fatalist… he doesn't subscribe to Newtonian determinism, and hence,
by conflating Harris' views (and the views of all determinists) with fatalism, SP has
committed a Strawman Fallacy, of the equivalent magnitude of someone asserting that all Christians
believe that there's a corporeal, Caucasian bearded man within the clouds…
Now just before we move on, I want to clarify Harris' position, and I'm going to do
so by ironically using SP's audio…
Indeed, SP somehow managed to quote Harris' position while misrepresenting it… which
is outstanding.
So, while Harris has never asserted that absolutely everything is determined by prior causes,
he has asserted that, "thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we
are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control", and that "Either our thoughts
are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the
product of chance and we are not responsible for them", which is to say that 'thoughts
and intentions are determined by prior causes, whether these prior causes are themselves
determined or not'.
Anyhow, to get back to the argument, after SP has conflated all forms of determinism
with fatalism – that is, after he's Strawmanned Harris, he goes on to burn it from two sides,
first by misrepresenting Harris' definition of free will (which I'm not going to address
within this video), and later by invoking quantum mechanics (which I'll address now).
Toward the end of his argument, SP states that "However, the most crucial piece of
evidence for free will comes from the recent advancements in quantum physics.", and then
goes on to reference both the Double-Slit Experiment and Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle, first by saying that "Recent advancements in quantum physics have demonstrated
that the quantum level behaves in an indeterministic manner.", and then by saying, "So in conclusion,
what does this all mean?
It means that the actions of the observer cannot be determined by prior causes, as determinism
states."
But these assertions are nonsense… firstly, because the Double-Slit Experiment doesn't
even imply, let alone prove that the quantum world is indeterministic – or, as Neil deGrasse
Tyson puts it to Joe Rogan, "When you start becoming the size of molecules…right on
down to the size of an atom, and I ask the question, 'where is Joe Rogan the atom?',
and I turn on the light, to see you there - because I think you're there - the photon
comes in hits your atom, and pops you into another location.
The very act of trying to measure your position prevents me from measuring your position,
and it has jack-shit to do with your consciousness, or your mind, or your eyes, or anything!"
"So my question is…"
"You know what it's like?
Wait – wait – you know what it's like?
You ever – I don't know if this still happens, a quarter spills out of your pants
pocket on to the backseat of a car and it's there wedged between the bottom and the backseat
- and so you try to reach in to get it – and the act reaching for the coin makes the coin
move further away from you?"
"Ahhhh…"
And secondly, because quantum uncertainty does not mean that the actions of the observer
(or person) are not determined by prior causes – it means that some of the prior causes
that determine the actions of the observer (or person) are not determined, and the difference
is paramount!
Furthermore, Harris, within the book that SP criticises but evidently hasn't read,
addresses quantum uncertainty at length – for example, on page 27 to 28, he states, "Some
scientists and philosophers hope that chance or quantum uncertainty can make room for free
will […] But how do events of this kind justify the feeling of free will?
"Self-generated" in this sense means only that certain events originate in the brain.
If my decision to have a second cup of coffee this morning was due to a random release of
neurotransmitters, how could the indeterminacy of the initiating event count as the free
exercise of my will?
Chance occurrences are by definition ones for which I can claim no responsibility.
And if certain of my behaviours are truly the result of chance, they should be surprising
even to me."
Or, as he puts it to Joe Rogan, "there's no way to describe the way causes can propagate
in the universe so as to make this idea of free will make sense, because either they're
determined, or they're random, or they are some combination of both, and no combination
of determinism and randomness gets you free will.
Determinism doesn't get you free will because you're just a machine, randomness doesn't
get you free will because you're just a machine that's throwing dice occasionally."
And finally, SP finishes his conclusion by saying, "Remember, determinists say that
by using classic physics we can know the exact position of every particle and how the laws
of the universe work, and therefore we can predict exactly what will happen using these
laws.
However, at the quantum level, it is completely indeterministic, and nothing is certain unless
an observer makes a measurement."
And hey presto, the Strawman burn to ashes… to repeat myself again, at considerable risk
of boring you, Harris' does not subscribe to fatalism, and nor do I.
This would be the equivalent of me asserting that I've debunked all of Christianity because
I've explained how clouds work – it's ludicrous…
Now just before we conclude, I want share with you a significant finding that Harris
covers within his book, but that SP failed to acknowledge within his video, let alone
address…
In recent years, studies using neuroimaging devices, such as EEF and FMRI, have proven
that if we image the neural activity of someone in real-time, and give them a choice between
pushing a left button or a right button, we can predict, with decent accuracy, which button
they will press before they themselves are aware of having committed to a decision.
Needless to say, this is damning evidence against, actually, all forms of libertarianism,
and as Harris says, "If I can predict what you're going to do before you're aware of
what you're going to do, the basis for free will seems to go out the window."
Anyhow, to recap, SP's Case for Free Will is flawed because, he commits a and White
Fallacy because he acts as if there is only one school of determinism (that being fatalism)
and one school of libertarianism (that being his own… which he fails to define); and
he commits a Strawman Fallacy because he ether intentionally misrepresents Harris (which
would be a case of lying), or he unintentionally misrepresents Harris (which would be a case
of cognitive bias and irresponsibility).
As always, thank you kindly for the view and I'll leave you with a highly relevant quote
from the misrepresented man himself, "Your intentions and your efforts and your desires
are just as causal and as important as you think they are.
I mean they are – you are, driven by desire and effort does matter - all of that is true.
'Where people get confused is that they think that determinism is the same thing as
fatalism.'
Where everything just kind of happens as it happens then well I don't have to do anything."
For more infomation >> [Terraria 1.3.5] Una guía completa sobre el Ejército del Antiguo - Duration: 18:23. 
For more infomation >> Weekend - Kocham jej oczy (Ostróda 2017) - Duration: 3:01. 
For more infomation >> Nadine Beiler & Gilbert - Baby It's You (Wenn die Musi spielt - 2017-07-29) - Duration: 4:44. 
For more infomation >> Drakensang Online /1000 Abonnenten/Subscribers (SPECIAL) (PART 1) - Duration: 8:32. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét