REFERENCES from the talk
RE-COVER: Dabigatran versus Warfarin in the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism
The key to most arguments about theodicy (for those who contend that the universe contains a good god that cares about people individually) is insistence on the existence of free will.
Sam Harris leaves no doubt that science and reason have produced sufficient evidence that free will is a fantasy. Certainly, it is powerful one for all the usual reasons, chief among them believing in that particular fantasy makes us feel better about ourselves.
Of course, religious people proffer their "why get out of bed" argument, and Harris offers a ridiculously sensible response that I'm ashamed I hadn't thought of myself: Just try not getting out of bed. You can't do it for very long. In hindsight, you'll know "why" you did it.
Some snippets that I've been reflecting on lately:
Either our wills 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.
The popular conception of free will seems to rest on two assumptions: (1) that each of us could have behaved differently than we did in the past, and (2) that we are the conscious source of most of our thoughts and actions in the present. ...both of these assumptions are false.
A moment or two of serious self-scrutiny, and you might observe that you no more decide the next thought you think than the next thought I write. One fact now seems indisputable: Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next—a time in which you subjectively appear to have complete freedom to behave however you please—your brain has already determined what you will do. You then become conscious of this “decision” and believe that you are in the process of making it.
...even if the human mind were made of soul-stuff, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious operations of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of your brain does. We do not know what we intend to do until the intention itself arises. To understand this is to realize that we are not the authors of our thoughts and actions in the way that people generally suppose.
Unconscious neural events determine our thoughts and actions—and are themselves determined by prior causes of which we are subjectively unaware.
I cannot determine my wants, or decide which will be effective, in advance. My mental life is simply given to me by the cosmos. Why didn’t I decide to drink a glass of juice? The thought never occurred to me. Am I free to do that which does not occur to me to do? Of course not.
And there is no way I can influence my desires—for what tools of influence would I use? Other desires? To say that I would have done otherwise had I wanted to is simply to say that I would have lived in a different universe had I been in a different universe.
To say that you are responsible for everything that goes on inside your skin because it’s all “you” is to make a claim that bears absolutely no relationship to the feelings of agency and moral responsibility that have made the idea of free will an enduring problem for philosophy.
How can we be “free” as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware? We can’t. To say that “my brain” decided to think or act in a particular way, whether consciously or not, and that this is the basis for my freedom, is to ignore the very source of our belief in free will: the feeling of conscious agency. People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and this is the only reason why there seems to be a problem of free will worth talking about.
...people generally confuse determinism with fatalism. This gives rise to questions like “If everything is determined, why should I do anything? Why not just sit back and see what happens?” This is pure confusion. To sit back and see what happens is itself a choice that will produce its own consequences. It is also extremely difficult to do: Just try staying in bed all day waiting for something to happen; you will find yourself assailed by the impulse to get up and do something, which will require increasingly heroic efforts to resist.
Human choice, therefore, is as important as fanciers of free will believe.
...you are no more responsible for the next thing you think (and therefore do) than you are for the fact that you were born into this world. If you pay attention to your inner life, you will see that the emergence of choices, efforts, and intentions is a fundamentally mysterious process.
You can do what you decide to do—but you cannot decide what you will decide to do.
Choices, efforts, intentions, and reasoning influence our behavior—but they are themselves part of a chain of causes that precede conscious awareness and over which we exert no ultimate control. My choices matter—and there are paths toward making wiser ones—but I cannot choose what I choose. And if it ever appears that I do—for instance, after going back and forth between two options—I do not choose to choose what I choose. There is a regress here that always ends in darkness. I must take a first step, or a last one, for reasons that are bound to remain inscrutable.
To declare my “freedom” is tantamount to saying, “I don’t know why I did it, but it’s the sort of thing I tend to do, and I don’t mind doing it.”
You will do whatever it is you do, and it is meaningless to assert that you could have done otherwise.
Our interests in life are not always served by viewing people and things as collections of atoms—but this doesn’t negate the truth or utility of physics.
If we view people as neuronal weather patterns, how can we coherently speak about right and wrong or good and evil? These notions seem to depend upon people being able to freely choose how to think and act.
If, after weeks of deliberation, library research, and debate with your friends, you still decide to kill the king—well, then killing the king reflects the sort of person you really are. The point is not that you are the ultimate and independent cause of your actions; the point is that, for whatever reason, you have the mind of a regicide.
...even if you believe that every human being harbors an immortal soul, the picture does not change: Anyone born with the soul of a psychopath has been profoundly unlucky
The urge for retribution depends upon our not seeing the underlying causes of human behavior.
the logic of punishing people will come undone—unless we find that punishment is an essential component of deterrence or rehabilitation.
it seems clear that a desire for retribution, arising from the idea that each person is the free author of his thoughts and actions, rests on a cognitive and emotional illusion—and perpetuates a moral one.
The implications for philosophy about justice are important too. And disturbing.
]]>
[Learning] is hard, but becoming a responsible member of a free society is very, very, very hard.
This reminded me of an animating belief I've been thinking of lately in trying to focus on the right things in my own life: First, CARE.
... and from Steve:
Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life.
Thanks to Erica Wang for the referral.
]]>The Darkness lights up Vancouver with a guitar-rock show for the ages
]]>
]]>
]]>
Just finished The Unwritten Rules of Baseball. Here's a classic from Satchel Paige:
Satchel Paige's six rules for life:
...was filming the older boy while snowboarding. Caught my toe edge. informationPhone was between my face and the mountain.
Deleted the video immediately.
]]>
The colorized images do seem more emotive to my eye. They seem to have more depth and presence. So what is it about B&W photos that we sometimes describe as preferable? The lack of these things?
]]>