David Lawrence - The Case for Free Will (Against the Absurdity of Determinism) - PRE-RELEASE
02:39:48 Share

Greetings from the North, citizens of Earth, welcome.

Today at Forum Borealis, we dig into the determinism paradigm, which has been spreading like a virus the last 30 years, despite being extremely fragile, both in terms of philosophy and hard science. It goes hand in hand with other dominating isms like behaviorism, fatalism, reductionism, physicalism, transhumanism, eugenics...

Neoliberalism, consumerism, materialism, centralism, atheism, theism, naturalism and corporatism. All being expressions of the same impulse into different areas. Yet even a child can debunk the fundament of what these anti-humanistic ideas rest on.

However, we will do better. And it's mental determinism with the help of an expert. And here's a sample of how that goes. One of the big arguments that determinists have and Harris has is they think that they have an idea, a concept of free will, that it has to be absolute. It has to be unfettered.

And Harris will say things like in his book, we didn't create our biology. Well, OK, we clearly didn't. Doesn't mean free will can't operate on the basis of that biology. And he goes through a bunch of things. We didn't create our parents, our birth circumstances, our physiology, our personal traits. Correct. We didn't create any of that stuff. But influence is not the same thing as being determined.

And we have to be influenced and we can operate with an influence. So your example, to go back to your example, got a gun to your head and you're given two choices. Well, we're in a very tough situation with very limited alternatives. That doesn't mean we don't have alternatives. The powers that be, they know that when you limit people to such choices, they will, most of them will comply.

And that's how I think they can get away with this determinism philosophy, because they are molding and shaping society more and more and more. We are more and more trapped in a huge matrix system where

There's just everything is streamlined into certain avenues and most people will go there and then they only have to deal with whoever is left, the autists who refuse to or, you know, we had freaks and rebels. So in a way, I can see how they can pull off the determinist, how they can make people believe that. They take the honorable way out, which is they take both sides.

So they all of a sudden, when you raise the subject of ethics or morality or responsibility, all of a sudden they become closet free will advocates and they jump back and forth between the language of free will and the language of determinism in a completely incompatible, in a logical way, because that's the only way they can preserve the idea that there's responsibility. Otherwise, they would have to admit if there's determinism, responsibility goes out the bathroom window. People are being hypnotized.

or brainwashed is probably a better word, to go along with this thing. And that's just because the more complicated society gets, it's back to that point I raised before, that the more complicated it gets, the less we feel we are in power of our own lives. People feel very unpowered. And we are more and more sheep-herdled into a fixed set of lifestyles.

so i can see you know why it's different from being like the wild man in nature right way you have to battle nature and do everything yourself

So, in a way I can see, now that we are linked up to computers and phones and all that stuff, more and more and more and more decisions are being made for us. Einstein was in that camp. This is obviously decades ago, but his theory was, no, there's a cause behind quantum physics. It's mechanical and Newtonian and causal. And his famous statement is, God doesn't play dice.

meaning that it is a causal universe and that contingent. But it's not up to you and me what God does, I think Bohr replied. Yes, yes, it's the famous dialogue between those guys, yes. Don't tell God what he does, exactly. Some paraphrased version of that, yeah. So there's still a contingent around, but

what you said is all valid from the other point of view, which is, wait a second, the universe isn't operating that way. And one of the biggest points I think that can be made in this area that I go into a little bit is when they do causal equations and they try and figure out how reality works and they do probabilistic quantum equations, the quantum equations are a thousand times more accurate. I'm just using a thousand as a metaphor, but

The quantum probable equations most describe how reality works. The causal equations don't. And so they're used in science when there's lesser exact reasons. You don't have to be, you know, totally precise. Well, what does that say? It says to me that the universe, I mean, just the obvious common sense thing is that the universe is playing a game that doesn't seem to be causal. Because if there's no determinism, there is no given future to travel to or to peek into.

Well, that's sort of what the, yeah, I wasn't saying it well, but that's exactly the point I was trying to make with, are you really going into the future anyway? No, you're going into the next, you're always going into the next sequence. And they're all the same. They're just cogs in a machine. So there's just an eternal now. Well, in one sense, there is an eternal now. And in another sense, it's just an eternal chain of events happening.

If you have an eternal chain of events, you don't really have a, you have a past and a future, but it's just defined as one event after the other. So if you have a past, if you go into the future, you go into the past, you say you're jumping into the future. It almost has no meaning, which is, I think, one way of you looking at saying, oh, there's really no past and future. What does it mean? All you have, you can call it whatever you want, but all you have is a sequence of dominoes.

Yeah, but sequence of dominos is the idea of determinism, right? And so if I can, if I say, if I predict, let's say 9-11, 10 years before it happens, oh, I saw it. How on earth could I do that if there's no determinism?

You want me to give you the determinist answer? No, no. I want you to give the free will answer because I'm the devil's lawyer now. Oh, okay. I keep forgetting which... We're switching sides so often. Which roles we have. Now I'm that person. Okay. Yeah. We are the players. But then...

We are not the only people there. There's avatars there. They are the Agent Smiths, right? So you can totally have free will even in a simulation. In fact, you need to have a free will. What's the point of playing the video game without, right? Absolutely. Absolutely. I would translate it by saying this. Those, Mr. Smiths or whoever they are, are influences. Again, they're circumstances. Right.

a tunnel, a bridge you have to go over. There's a balcony that you'd better not jump over. There are circumstances and conditions of influence. That doesn't mean you don't have to play the game. That voice of our guest tonight is David Lawrence, born and raised in L.A. He pursued higher education at the UCLA, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy.

Following his undergraduate studies, he attended the University of Southern California, obtaining a Juris Doctor degree. After completing his education, he embarked on a legal career practicing law for over 30 years. Beyond his legal practice, he has established himself as a social critic, engaging in public discourses on topics such as determinism, morality and criminal justice.

He is also recognized as an animal rights advocate, promoting ethical treatment and consideration of animals in society. Throughout his legal career, Lawrence maintained a deep interest in philosophical questions.

particularly those concerning consciousness and free will. He found himself increasingly frustrated with popular presentations on the nature of consciousness, especially the growing advocacy of determinist doctrines by various social and new media pundits. Determinism posits that all human thoughts and actions are dictated by causal forces beyond

individual control, effectively rendering personal autonomy an illusion. In 12, Sam Harris, the popular author and the poster boy for new atheism, published the book Free Will, which confidently declared, we know that determinism in every sense relevant to human behavior is true.

Harris-Werks alleges that humans are essentially biochemical robots, or like my buddy Alex used to say, biological robots in a meaningless universe, whose thoughts and actions are dictated by causal forces out of our control. This perspective has gained significant traction over the following decade.

influencing public discourse on free will and determinism. By 1922, marking the 10th anniversary of Harry's free will, Lawrence felt compelled to address increasing acceptance of determinist beliefs.

He observed that determinism had markedly grown in number in large part due to misinterpretation of neuroscience studies, attempting to link prior neural brain activity to the exercise of choice. Concurrently, scientific findings demonstrated that determinist beliefs could promote cheating, aggression and other antisocial behaviors, highlighting the moral significance of the free will debate.

In response, David Lawrence authored Are We Really Biochemical Robots? Sam Harris' Crusade Against Free Will, published in 22.

Here, he systematically analyzes the arguments against free will, exposing the flawed thinking and problematic premises underlying determinist doctrine. He challenges the notion that human thoughts and actions are solely dictated by causal forces beyond individual control, arguing that such beliefs are conceptually problematic and scientifically dubious.

Are we really biochemical robots? also address the self-contradictory nature of determinist principles. It points out that if beliefs are solely the result of causal forces, then the belief in determinism itself is equally a product of such forces. This perspective renders determinist principles self-invalidating, as it questions the reliability of any belief formed under determinism.

Following the publication of his book, David has engaged in various public discussions to further explore and debate the topic of

determinism and morality and consciousness and free will. He has appeared on a large number of media shows discussing the implications of determinism on society, like The Human Game, Iris Everything's Bagel, Enter the Lionheart, New Age Human, Brian Beckham, Chris Kaufman, OC Talk Radio,

Mormon Discussion Incorporated the meaning code to name just some random examples.

Strangely, he has not yet appeared as skeptical, the main hub for this exact debate. But at least he is now saying his piece at the Forum, exposing the conceptual and scientific shortcomings of the determinist ideology and advocating for the recognition of free will and personal autonomy. Welcome to Forum Borealis, David.

Thank you very much. Yeah, and nice to have you on board here. This is one of the shows...

where I'm not intimately familiar with the guests' curriculum and contents. But sometimes I actually prefer that because, you know, it gives me a completely unbiased, free, open starting point. Obviously, I haven't read your book or anything, but I can wing this. Yeah, sure. Right? It's not like a subject that demands...

Exactly.

So I was delighted to see someone taking on Sam Harris. I'm not very into... Can I interrupt you for two seconds? Oh, I'm sorry. No, no. You said you were looking for someone to take on Sam Harris. Could you give me a half a minute on why or what that's about? Absolutely. First of all, I'm not shocked that Sam Harris has been lately revealed as, what do they call it, a shill?

Like an Intel asset or whatever. But I always... Oh, I haven't heard that. Yeah, well, I don't know if it's true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. But his contribution to, you know, he really influenced a lot of people back in the day. Now he's a joke, but he really did in a very bad way, I think.

So, the question of free will is very important. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, so I was looking for something like this and we know enough about where we're going today to...

to, I think, to be able to fill our show with a meaningful conversation. So this I look very much forward to. Great, let's do that. And for the listeners out there, just know that David here, by the way, philosophy is one of your formal educations, right? Yes, yes. It's been a couple of years, but yes. Right. And that's also kind of the topic of today. Yes.

So, but look, I need to map where you are coming from. It seems to me that you kind of are, you are a determinist in a way, but you want to revision it or do you reject determinism? No, I completely reject it. Okay, good. There's about six basic reasons why determinism is silly and doesn't work. Yeah. My chapters are sort of,

And my chapters go through somewhat systematically the problems with determinism. So you can ask me about some of those if you'd like. I'm not a determinist in the least. I'm on the other side of the equation and we're loners on my side because most of the big folk these days, like Harris, have scientific backgrounds, so they're determinists.

Yeah, but that's plenty of people with scientific background who isn't determinists. It's just that the powers that be in whatever field we're talking about are supporting. You know, if you want to be a cynical prostitute, you just parrot those talking points and you will have a great career.

So that's how it works. Door opens for you. If you're a true believer, even better, right? But that's how it works. So that's why the big guys are determinists. If you rewind the clock and you see the leading philosophy among... I'm talking hard scientists now, like physicists, etc. It never used to be like that. In the 1800s, most of the hard scientists were esotericists. Yeah.

What does that mean? Well, they were into different traditional, spiritual, and it's still like that. If you look at the top physicists, they're either the Taoists or Presocrates or Buddhists or some kind of...

you know, very anti-determinist attitude. So, yeah, it feels lonely because we don't have the money behind us, but we have the people behind us, you know. Well, the one big guy is Jordan Peterson. He is not a determinist. Have you heard of him? Absolutely, absolutely. Okay, so he's a big guy. He's bigger than all these guys in terms of right now, in terms of audience and all that. He's the biggest, so...

So he's not a determinist. He doesn't talk about it a lot, but he does talk about it here and there. He's wrong about some things that I could be very picky on. But anyway, I'm a real advocate. I'm not a determinist. And that's where I'm coming from. Do you need anything else about what I'm saying? No, that's good enough. But Peterson, he's far from alone because what's interesting with Peterson is that he represents the people.

He is not flaunted by the corporate media. And corporate media, the only reason they still are lingering, latching on to some kind of semblance of being big is because all the big tech giants are rigging it for them. I mean, this is in the open. This is admitted. They're shadow banning, banning, censoring, stifling.

independent media. And despite that, some managed to get like the biggest one, much bigger than Peterson is Joe Rogan. He's far from it. I was going to mention him as well. Yeah. And look at Russell Brand. He just got six million followers. Who? Russell Brand. Oh, okay. I don't know his opinion on free will though. Oh, well, he's almost like a new ager in a way. Oh, then he'll probably be.

So he's absolutely free will. He's like a spiritual hippie guy. If you're friends, get me on his show and I'll get the word out there better.

Yeah, it's not that easy. And I'm not trying to be famous at all. I'm just so sick of hearing this determinist stuff. It's so hard to get the word out there, you know, against the Sam Harris's. Not against, but, you know, because his book is crap. My book, I don't mean to be touting myself. It's not quite the crap that his book is. I think it's quite a bit better of a product, but it doesn't matter if nobody puts their eye on it. That's right. That's right. No, no. We live in...

I don't like the term war, but there's a battle of ideas going on in the world. Oh, it is a battle.

I think you're right. We have to heed the call. So I'm with you there. But you know what? My listeners, obviously, are very familiar with our buddy Alex Akiri's show, Skeptico, where I think you would be a good fit. So we have to send you over to Skeptico, man. He's had several shows about this. And this topic today is almost like a Skeptico episode, I have to say. Oh, that's so nice. Now, let's start this. Before they...

get to know your crusade. I think we should define something for people out there. And I think determinism is one of the first notions we should dig a little into. Yeah, sure. Determinism is a belief system that comes from a scientific paradigm, I would say. And the idea is that everything we think, everything we do,

is caused by physical causes in a causal chain that goes back to the Big Bang. Big Bang happens, sends out energy and so forth, gels into matter, cause and effect, govern that process all the way down to this moment. So everything you're thinking, everything I'm thinking, everything anyone who's listening to the show is thinking,

is not our choice. It's not it doesn't come from us. It comes from this physical chain of causes. We have no choice about what we're thinking, what we're feeling, what our bodies are experiencing. We're 100% biochemical robots, which is why I titled the book with that in the title. We are basically machines, biologically based machines. Right.

And this of course is famously attributed to, among others, Sam Harris, right? Yes, the book was written in sort of a reply to Sam Harris and sort of a reply to all determinists. Okay, but it's an old debate and there are a lot of isms, some even try to combine the

I mean, it may seem like an oxymoron, but that you can combine determinism with more... Like there's elements of determinism. And everybody can accept that, I think, because you know what? We have to go to free will. Because is it free will if you have a gun to your head and you're asked to make one of two choices? Well, it's a... Your prerogatives are very limited, right?

but you still have prerogatives. If you're given two choices, you have a choice. If you're a free will advocate, you have a choice between those two. You have a choice not to comply. There may be huge consequences that limit your abilities. But one of the things that determinism seems to get wrong is that influence is not causation.

The fact that free will has to function within circumstances and limits and influences does not mean we're caused. It means that free will has to function within limits and boundaries and circumstances. And one of the big arguments that determinists have and Harris has is they think that they have an idea, a concept of free will, that it has to be absolute. It has to be unfettered.

And Harris will say things like in his book, we didn't create our biology. Well, OK, we clearly didn't. That doesn't mean free will can't operate on the basis of that biology. And he goes through a bunch of things. We didn't create our parents, our birth circumstances, our physiology, our personal traits. Correct. We didn't create any of that stuff. But influence is not the same thing as as being determined.

And we have to be influenced and we can operate with an influence. So your example, to go back to your example, got a gun to your head and you're given two choices. Well, we're in a very tough situation with very limited alternatives. That doesn't mean we don't have alternatives. No. But see, the thing is, most people, 99% of people will choose. You know, we also have instincts like survival and survivalism.

Given such a scenario like I gave, which is dumbed down, it's actually a real life scenario for most people. I'm only simplifying it and extremifying it. But if you zoom out in a way when you're born today, as opposed to being born like, say, some hundred years ago.

You're kind of in that situation in many, many ways. Case in point that COVID, many people felt pressured to comply with restrictions and impositions that in the aftermath.

has shown not necessarily now that they have other informations and the consequences are not there anymore they may have taken other choices but the powers that be they know that when you limit people to such choices they will most of them will comply

And that's how I think they can get away with this determinism philosophy, because they are molding and shaping society more and more and more. We're more and more trapped in a huge matrix system where

There's just everything is streamlined into certain avenues and most people will go there and then they only have to deal with whoever is left, the autists who refuse to or, you know, we had freaks and rebels. So in a way, I can see how they can pull off the determinist approach.

how they can make people believe that. But before you even comment that, I want you also to explain to us, because one of the things I think you highlight in the book is the top mistakes. So what would you say is the five top mistakes behind determinist thinking? And then we can circle back to talking more about how life works within this system. Well, one of the biggest is the science tests.

They've done a lot of laboratory tests where they hook up things that measure what's going on in your brain and your motor cortex in particular. And they have you watch a clock or timing device. And they ask you to note when you've made your conscious decision to make a simple motor movement, a wrist flick, a finger lift, something very rudimentary. And the tests have found that there's a little blip about a third of a second

before the subject says, that's the point when I decided consciously. And Harris gives examples of three of those tests. And the interpretation, the determinist interpretation is we have this little blip a third of a second before we decide consciously, which is decide in quotes, because as far as they're concerned, we're not really deciding, but it's the conscious experience of deciding.

there's a look beforehand well that's what causes our um decision and therefore we're programmed robots and everything we do every decision we make is a causal effect of our neuronal activity this little blip or whatever the movement may be or the thought may be so harris offers these three tests as evidence of that and

When I was first learning about the topic, I thought, wow, that's pretty compelling evidence, right? I mean, every time before we make a little decision, there's a blip. Where did that come from? And then a tiny fraction of a second later, we decide to move our finger. So when I first read this, I thought, gee, I don't know. That's pretty tough.

Then I went and I did something extraordinary. I actually read the tests. That helps. And that helps. And what I found is that the tests did not conclude that. To be fair, one of them did. And then the guy reversed his position as a result of later tests. So all three authors at the end of the day did not endorse determinism. Not a single one.

Not only that, but what they found was a very loose correlation. In one case, one of the tests that Harris points to, it was a 60% correlation between this blip and the little motor movement. And the author of the test says this is barely above a coin toss. So do not take this to mean, I'm paraphrasing loosely, don't take this to mean that it's any evidence of causation.

The other author says something similar. His rate was higher, but there were various methodological problems that isn't worth going into. But the bottom line is these authors did not conclude what Harris said the test said. That's one of the things. Then I learned there was a whole line of testing that was contrary to these tests.

and and had other factors that were more important if you wanted to try let me go back and say that a correlation of 60 or 70 80 that's not causation causation is 100 under the same conditions it might be a little less than that because there's some hidden conditions we don't completely understand and maybe there's a problem with our measuring device but

100% or near 100% is causation. 60%, 70% a coin toss, come on. That's called a correlation and a very weak one at that.

The so so the test didn't prove causation. The authors didn't endorse causation. Number three, there's all these tests that say that's rubbish. There's a lot of things, a lot of other things going on that are more likely if you want to try and have a cause. It's a whole bunch of lines of testing. Harris doesn't mention it. I think it's important to mention because it puts those three tests, all of which the authors did not conclude.

that that their test demonstrated let alone prove causation you got to put that in a bigger context there's all these contrary tests the other thing that i learned is that the moment of conscious decision when these subjects are sitting in the laboratory looking at a clock and they have their finger hooked up and they have this thing on their forehead and they're trying to remember the instructions and in a state of splitting their attention in all kinds of ways

many other tests have said that it's completely inaccurate the way to measuring the moment of conscious decision and we're talking about what a third of a second three tenths of a second two tenths of a second

It's impossible to determine. And so it turns out that the central measurement on which all these tests are based, they're called the Libet tests. And the first guy who did the experiment was named Benjamin Libet. So they're all sort of referred to as the Libet test. In any case, the central measurement of all the Libet tests has been shown to be invalid. Invalid. So my initial surprise of, wow, determinists have a good point,

sort of lifted once I started reading the tests, but Just explain one thing to me. Let's say that they were right That they could measure this thing and that I don't understand why that proves determinism Well, that's actually a good point and there is another big argument that is raised in the literature of these tests, which is that if

that their interpretation, a causal interpretation, has no justification. And one of the big competing interpretations is the preparatory action theory, that this is just a buzz of activity just before you're going to decide building up, getting everything in place, the neurons getting in place for a decision or a non-decision, because there's tests that show that there's

uh nothing it doesn't matter if you make a decision or don't or you decide to move or you don't it's the same exact impulse so it's hard to believe that the impulse is causing you to to move if the same impulse causes you not to move and it's identical well okay that's another yet another problem to go back to the one you mentioned it's interpretation there's other interpretations and um

better just as plausible as the, if not more so, than the determinist interpretation. Again, Harris doesn't mention that there's a competing interpretation endorsed by, you know, numerous people in the neuroscience community.

but it seems to me that a basic flaw with the whole thing let alone that they didn't even prove what they claim they proved is the premise because my interpretation which is just as valid as anyone else's because an interpretation is not a scientific demonstrated fact look if they want to try to say that these impulses proves anything

Then they have to first prove what the nature of these impulses are. Because my intuitive interpretation when you first described it was that, well, as soon as we are making a choice or not making a choice, which also is a choice, of course.

i guess we muster sufficient emotional energy to register some kind of spike but that doesn't say what it is that we are choosing so i was just wondering if that spike could they distinguish between the different kind of impulses so that they could say this impulse led to this result or this choice and that impulse led to another choice because if not then it's flawed from the outset and it's hilarious that they even

managed to get away with that. Well, it's amazing what some people call evidence, right? Yes. Yeah, and there are tests that do exactly what you said. They measure these things in relation to different decisions. One I mentioned was to move and not to move, but there's others, right-hand, left-hand tests and so forth. It's the same signal. So what they're looking for is whether there's something that's decision-specific, right?

that you can relate to one versus another by the way that wouldn't even prove that it's causal for various reasons but no um they do have the tests that mirror exactly the point you're making and it's the same signal and that's why the the other interpretation is saying look this is a sort of a ramp up they sometimes call it's getting ready it's preparatory actions of runner squatting and getting into running position ready to bounce off into the race there's no evidence that it's causal

Yeah, yeah. And in fact, there's a lot of evidence it's not causal because of these low correlation rates. 60% doesn't show a cause-effect relationship. 80% doesn't show a cause-effect relationship. Even if it was causal, what I fail to see is what that has to do with determinism. Because if we have free will, at some point we have to make a decision. Wouldn't that register as a spike, as an impulse? Yes.

Well, if you're a determinist, you would say that you think you're making a decision. You have a conscious experience of I am now deciding X versus Y. But that is just an after effect. That's just a causal effect of all these neurons firing in your brain, these physical causes that are part of this physical causal chain that goes back to the Big Bang. Yeah, but hang on. What about time? Doesn't it take time for...

If I move my finger, are they expecting the impulse to be at the exact same time as the finger? Wouldn't it be natural that the impulse came a little, little, some microseconds before? Yes. So I don't understand the big show here. Well, I don't either. It's awkward for you to have to defend them and explain. But, you know, the listener would also want to understand the big argument. When you read the text,

I mean, there are things that happen before a decision. As you said, there's a different energy. There's a lot of energies. It could be a nervous energy of actually committing, right, to a decision. And again, we're talking about a fraction of a second. So there's a lot of things. Or at least reasoning, some kind of briefly, very quickly going through the options. Because if anything makes people pause a little, it's options, right?

When I drive on a highway and there's only one way ahead of me, sure, I can zone out no impulses, right? But as soon as something's going on, something's happening, especially if something's expected of me, there will be activity. I will beef up my activity in my biological robot, so to speak.

So look, we know now, you've explained to us that even the results are not as I say, but even if they were, I wouldn't be impressed because I have free will and to make a choice, I have to spend energy. And I would expect that energy to come before the manifestation of the choice. All this is logical. Anything else is just another interpretation. And for that interpretation to be more valid than mine, they have to demonstrate it.

And as I understand you, they haven't related this impulse to anything else than the given default interpretation they had. And that's not scientific. That's kind of a religion, religious kind of attitude.

Maybe that's not the right word, but you know what I mean. No, I think that is the right word. I talk about the causal faith in the book or the gospel of causation, the gospel of determinism, because it's an unsubstantiated belief. So that's faith, but that's religion or a certain type of religion. Can we go a little back in history and can you trace when determinism became en vogue?

I'm vaguely recollecting that it rise with the Industrial Revolution, the age of mechanics, but maybe you can give the straight record here. Well, I'm not a historian, but I think it goes back to the ancient Greeks. I think there were, you know, all the way to the beginning of philosophy, there were debates about free will and determinism. But then it got very popular at some point because it's very dominating today. Yeah, with the rise of Newtonian

science, and who taught you physics in the 1700s, at the turn of the 18th century. That became the dominant sight case, the worldview. Scientists discovered causes, and Newton's three laws of motion were causal. Ironically, Newton himself was anything but a materialist.

Very few people know that, by the way. What you just said is something I allude to in the book, and you're absolutely right. And because he was the father of mechanical physics of billiard balls and action-reaction and momentum related to mass and these mechanical laws of motion, people think that he was a determinist and determinist.

He actually, I quoted something from him in the book about how you can't explain the world with determinism. And pretty interesting from the father of causation. Yeah.

very few people know that I don't know how you know that but it's it's it's well I'm into obscure knowledge but the thing is they are censoring for example they are they are physically removing references that of his writings on alchemy and astrology and spiritual stuff they don't want they don't like that but it's not just true for this this is the thing I said to you before this is true for almost all the leading scientists I

up to we can't go into this history part now but basically spiritual people set up the precursor for the royal society and even in royal society in the beginning there were more spiritual people but then the materialists hijacked it

They hijacked it and in Germany was actually the country where they held out the longest. But eventually the materialists took over there too. And after that they started this artificial division between religion, spirituality on the one hand and

Science, on the other hand, as if science somehow naturally belongs to materialism. Materialism is just a paradigm, just an interpretation like anything else. But somehow they managed to fuse those things. And my buddy Alex Akira is over skeptical. That's the whole rationale for his show. But back to the case here. Now, you say that arguing for determinism actually proves free will exists. That's an interesting one. Can you elaborate on that?

There's at least two ways that it does that, two major ways. The first one has to do with the notion of truth. If everything you think comes from mechanical effects, causal effects, this cause-effect chain that goes back to the Big Bang, if everything you think is attributable to that as a physical effect,

How can you know what's true? How can you know that what you think is true corresponds to what's true? Well, you can't because the genesis of your thoughts are causal events. So you believe about truth in this particular case. So it's all beliefs that you have. But as to truth, you believe what you believe true because you've been caused to.

because causal forces have dictated that that's what you're going to believe is true in that moment. Okay. Let's say you want to go and verify, well, I don't know. I think I can go out and touch things and move things and observe and grab microscopes and all that kind of thing. Well, all of those thoughts are also equally under the determinist paradigm. They're caused by physical events and their causal effects, and you have no choice in them. So they don't reflect truth. They reflect reality.

the physical causal chain that started the big bang. So determinism wipes out the notion of truth. And that includes determinism. Yeah. So if the determinist says, determinism is true, you can say to them, well, where did that thought come from? I thought you said that all of our thoughts were based on physical force in a causal chain

that goes back to the Big Bang. So that must mean that your thought about truth determinism is true. The only reason you think that under your own theory, the only reason you think that is because you were caused to think that by neurons in your brain that were caused by other physical effects going back and so forth. So

Mr. Determinist, how can you claim that determinism is true and at the same time say that what's true is that your thoughts are out of your control? You have no ability to control your thoughts. You believe what's dictated by physical forces. How can you say anything is true, let alone determinism is true? So the concept of truth turns around to bite them in the you-know-where.

Because they can't say that anything is true. They can't say that determinism is true. So therefore, if they make a truth claim, the mountains over there, my shoes are in the closet, determinism is true. It doesn't matter what it is. Determinist principles say that no matter what that claim is, it came from physical forces. You had no choice. And that's why you believe determinism was true. Mm-hmm.

Right. It seems to me you're attacking it from a philosophical standpoint, which is great. You're showing that the emperor has no clothes.

Yeah, just based on thinking. But there is another approach. I laugh because there's a line in the book that the emperor of causation has no clothes. Unbeknownst to you, you quoted a line directly from the book. Exactly. So, I mean, that was determined by the, you know, by the will of the destiny. But there is another way to dismantle this illusion.

as far as I see it and that's with quantum physics. Actually, I would think that after the age of quantum physics

determinism would cease at least right because is it different between the plebs the masses we the the people we don't think too much about the deeper things we just go by our ordinary life and in people's ordinary life they know they have a soul most of them they know they have feelings they know they care

We can't just be biological robots in a meaningless universe because like Alex says, Alex Akiris, he says the ultimate consequence of that is that you should just suicide. He can explain you why philosophically. But back to my point, quantum physics show that at the deepest level, at the most minuscule level, you cannot predict the outcomes of things. You know, there's many, many different experiments that has verified this. But

But the more you zoom out, the more patterns start to form and the more probability arises. Now, probability doesn't mean determinism. It doesn't mean that it's always exactly like this. But more and more and more, it goes into tendencies. And of course, also, they know that the

the observer influences the result. That alone actually is an argument against determinism because how could we influence the result if it's all given already? So it's not, we're not just observers, we are actually participants. But anyway, when you come to this big level where we are at, you know, where we perceive, etc., then you can start to talk about, if not laws, at least tendency, at least

greater probabilities but even at our level there are certain deviations from the norm so but that doesn't matter actually because if we live in a deterministic universe it should be deterministic at the micro level too yeah you can't just say okay here's the limit for what's valid

And under that, just ignore that. Do you see what I mean? And the same, of course, is true for the macroscopic levels. It should be determined. It should be a given, a predetermined result all through cosmos at all levels.

including in our consciousness. You get my point? You catch my drift? Or was it too convoluted with that explanation? I completely follow your point. And I have a chapter in the book called, it's about quantum physics and how that changed the game. It's a little complicated by the fact that human beings are so stubborn and they, they

They tend to have archetypes and paradigms that everything has to fit into. And they're sort of like pre-mapped out. And then those maps and those paradigms become their football team. And they have to root for their football team. So the quantum physics impact on the three-wheeled debate is a little bit complicated by the fact that there's still a contingent, a major contingent,

that a scientist that interprets, that has a deterministic interpretation of quantum theory. So you have still determinists hanging out there going, "Nope, nope, no, probability is just random." But behind it all, the universe is determined.

That having said everything you said was valid, which is how do you in big picture terms, well, how do you have this causal chain, this mechanical robotic causal chain, if at the most basic level of the universe, that's not how things are operating? That's a good question.

And and and a contingent of scientists have come up with a theory as to as to why you still do. There's another contingent that just says we must it must be causal beneath it all. But we haven't figured out how it is.

So there's these things called hidden variables. And one day we'll figure out what the hidden variables are and then prove to you that everything in the quantum that we think is all random, probable patterns really is deterministic. But don't ask us right now because we don't have the hidden variables yet. And Einstein was in that camp. This is obviously decades ago, but his theory.

theory was no, there's a cause behind quantum physics. It's mechanical and Newtonian and causal. And his famous statement is God doesn't play dice, meaning that it is a causal universe. And that contingent... But it's not up to you and me what God does, I think Bohr replied.

Yes, yes. It's the famous dialogue between those guys. Yes. Don't tell God what he does. Some paraphrased version of that. Yeah. So there's still a contingent around. But...

what you said is all valid from the other point of view, which is, wait a second, the universe isn't operating that way. And one of the biggest points I think that can be made in this area that I go into a little bit is when they do causal equations and they try and figure out how reality works and they do probabilistic quantum equations, the quantum equations are a thousand times more accurate. I'm just using a thousand as a metaphor, but

The quantum probable equations most describe how reality works. The causal equations don't. And so they're used in science when there's lesser exact reasons. You don't have to be, you know, totally precise. Well, what does that say? It says to me that the, I mean, just the obvious common sense thing is that the universe is playing a game that doesn't seem to be causal.

And you can speculate all you want. Well, maybe one day we'll find out that we're wrong. Well, OK. But right now, probabilistic equations most accurately describe reality. Causal equations don't. What does that tell you about the game that reality is playing? Well, it doesn't seem to be causal. I mean, this reminds me of forgive me one free miracle and I can explain the rest.

So, no, but, you know, it's very interesting to discuss it at this level, but I want to drag it more down into ordinary people's lives. For example, you say that, you know, why criminal justice is useless under determinism. You say why morality can't exist in a determined universe.

I think those two are important to highlight too so people can get it in terms of their own life because people are being hypnotized to or brainwashed is probably a better word

go along with this thing and that's just because the more complicated society gets it's back to that point I raised before that the more complicated gets the less we feel in we are in power of our own lives people feel very unpowered and we are more and more sheep hurdle into into fixed set of lifestyles and

So I can see, you know, why it's different from being like the wild man in nature, right? Where you have to battle nature and do everything yourself.

So in a way, I can see now that we are linked up to computers and phones and all that stuff, more and more and more and more decisions are being made for us. I mean, now we've been being protected by all the kinds of views. It's not going to be long until even views like what you are postulating maybe will be

determined as mal-information. So in such a society, I can see why they can get away with it. But let's rewind now to the basic stuff that people can relate to. What does it have to do with morality and criminal justice? The simplest way to say it is that you can't have morality, you can't have personal responsibility if you don't control your actions, if you don't control your thoughts or intentions.

Under determinist doctrine, you didn't choose what to do. A causal, mechanical, physical, blind, unthinking, insentient chain determined what to do. You had nothing to do with it. So the simple bottom line is, how can you be responsible if you don't have anything to do with your thoughts or actions? If you don't control your thoughts or actions,

How can you be responsible? Hang on, let me inject a little anecdote. It reminds me of an astrological joke I once read in an astrological magazine. The plaintiff said, but Judge, Mars was in areas. Exactly. I have a line about how...

The excuses have evolved from the devil made me do it. Right. To the junk food made me do it. Right. To physical causation in a causal chain made me do it. Right. It's the ultimate abdication of responsibility. And determinism has a huge problem.

with the issue of responsibility and morality. For the bottom line, it is simply impossible to blame somebody. It's simply impossible to impute responsibility if they have no control over their actions or their thoughts. And I spend a chapter talking about how determinists, because they have such a big problem,

I said they take the honorable way out, which is they take both sides. So they all of a sudden, when you raise the subject of ethics or morality or responsibility, all of a sudden they become closet free will advocates and they jump back and forth between the language of free will and the language of determinism in a completely incompatible and illogical way, because that's the only way they can preserve

the idea that there's responsibility. Otherwise, they would have to admit if there's determinism, responsibility goes out the bathroom window. Just impossible. That's simply the case. So what they try and do is they try and pretend that for a moment we have free will. I'll give you a couple examples. I quote a couple of famous, nameless, famous scientists and physicists and so forth. One of them says,

Well, we all know we're determined by the physiology of our brain, the neuron patterns and firings at all. And eight to 10 seconds before we make a decision, make a movement, these electro signals go on, the neurons fire, and we do what we do. About 20 seconds later, 15 seconds later, the scientist says, well, of course, you know, we've evolved the capacity for self-control.

And therefore, I'm going to pause there so you can think about that for a second. And we blame people who haven't developed the capacity for self-control and morality, responsibility can follow from that. So you say to yourself, well, hold on a second. We're biochemical robots. We don't control what we think. We don't control what we do. Everything that happens to us is a result of a physical cause. But

from a determinist, a scientist, two seconds after they say that eight to 10 seconds afterwards were determined by these neural brain impulses and so forth. But we have developed the capacity for self-control. This is illogical. It makes no sense. Those two positions can't be reconciled. And

But they say it just shamelessly. I give two. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What if free will was an end result of fate? So it was determined that we would be that we would get free will. It's a paradox. Yeah. That's the only way they can get away with it. If they say that. But then as soon as you have free will, bum.

There's no more determinism. Well, yeah. And you still have the problem that determinism is self-contradictory because it takes away the ability to say that anything is true, including determinism. Right. But doesn't it also reject the notion of creativity? How can you really be creative? You can't. You can't be. You can't be. I take a bunch of lines from...

the book Free Will, one of them is on, you know, you can be more creative if blah, blah, blah. I said, what do you mean you can be more creative? You can't be anything like that. It's your thoughts are determined by physical impulses. What happened to that, Harris? It's this sort of double talk, you know, and it's just right next to each other. Yeah, I mean, but even the existence itself, whether you buy into a Big Bang or you have other ideas

models of how the whole thing came about, even that is kind of rejected by determinism. Because again, it's the "give me one free miracle", namely, you know, the emanation of existence and the rest is explained. But you can't have it both ways because they are mutually exclusive. Here's another example where the determinist tries to say it's not mutually exclusive.

Okay. He says that he's a brain guy, a neuro biologist or an evolutionary biologist. And he says, every neuron that goes off in your brain, we can find a prior neuron. And every one of those, we can find a prior neuron. And he says, show me

the neuron that self generating its own movement that's that comes out of nowhere that doesn't have a prior cause and then we can talk about free will but you can't show me that neuron that doesn't have a predecessor activity of some sort that's causal okay he says that that's his setup then okay but hang on hang on already he has tied contents in our consciousness to physical processes now

Of course, there's a correlation between it. But unless he can show me inside the neuron that a specific thought is inside that neuron, then he's going by assumptions again, interpretations. Yes. For me, it's a vehicle for consciousness. It's not a generator of consciousness, if you see what I mean. It's like a gasoline. It's something we need to be able to

have these processes. Again, that's my interpretation. I'm not saying that's science, but it's much valid as his default position that a neuron, that you have to create a new neuron to create a new thought. I mean, I can create a new mustache, but

But I can still use the same atoms in my body to get that new moustache, if you see what I mean. It's a bad analogy, but I guess it's sufficient to illustrate my point. No, I don't think it's a bad analogy. You point out a very important thing, which is by turning to neurons and the causal chain of neurons, he's already assumed what he's supposed to be proving.

Exactly. That's the scientific paradigm of the causal chain. Well, we don't need you to tell us how the physical world functions. The question is, how does it function in relation to thought and consciousness and free will? So he's already assumed that if there's always an antecedent physical something or other, let's call it a cause,

that you and i know and it's that's very questionable let's call it that he's he's assuming there isn't any way of intervening or some kind of parallel action or where where where consciousness influences the physical he's just reduced it to the physical is one way to to summarize the point you're making

And that's just not the paradigm. But what he does to go to in the morality sense in this double dance is after he says this about a self-generating neuron that has to be unrelated to anything in the prior state of the universe. He then says, but, you know, we can't let murderers run around free. Right. I mean, that wouldn't be right. We've got to protect society. Right.

I mean, if you have a car and the car is on the highway and it's malfunctioning, it's broken, what do you do? You take the car off the road and you either fix it or you retire it and put it in a garage. You don't let it hurt the public.

Yeah, but why? Because if everything is determined, what's the point? Well, why do you do it? And also, how do you do it? How do we round up murderers? Who's going to make that decision? Well, there's nobody to make that decision. We're going to round them up. If it's a big bang, the chain went off to say that, you know, 14 billion years later, this society is going to round up people who do this or that. And that, of course, what they do is determined, too.

But he's assuming this is a switches to the free will language. You see, oh, we can't let murderers run around. What do you mean we can't let you just told us we don't have any choice because these neurons aren't self firing. So what do we know? You're talking. It's the language of free will. Right. Sneaked it in there. Well, we can't let them do that as if we have a choice. What do you mean we can't let them do that?

Who's going to round them up? Who's going to decide if they're a murderer? Who's going to decide what's best to do with them? Who's going to decide whether to fix them or, you know, in the car analogy? In other words, there's all kinds of values and decisions. And the assumption behind that whole speech is we can do anything. But determinism says we can't do anything because it's all up to those neurons firing. So there's this doublespeak. Yeah. And let alone who?

I'm more concerned about why should we stop the criminal, because the criminal is honoring determinism.

the criminal or the car or whatever is going "wrong" is just a manifestation of this unbroken chain of natural cause and effect. So who are we to interfere? And can we even interfere if everything is given? No, we can't. Then we really can't interfere. No, that's determinism. You can't do anything. You don't decide your thoughts or actions.

you can't interfere so don't talk about us interfering unless you want to proclaim yourself a free will advocate exactly now you talk about achilles heel of determinism you call it the causal matrix i guess you touched it but can you can you elaborate a little on that

That relates to the idea of truth, that once you take away the notion of truth and you take that away by attributing all of our thoughts to causal, unthinking causal effects, you've taken away any bond or any criteria by which you can say that anything is true. So then you're in the matrix. Whatever you think, you've been caused to think. Whatever, you've taken a pill, blue, red, whatever color, orange, yellow,

I'm colorblind, so I can't go there.

Whatever pill you've taken, that's what you think. And whatever causal effects mandate in the causal chain, that's what you do. So are you the person you think you are? No, you're the person that you're caused to believe you are. Were you that kind of same person yesterday as you were now? No, you're being caused right now by a physical chain to believe you are the same person that you were yesterday. Who are you? Who are you really?

Whatever the causal chain tells you to believe you are in the moment that you believe it so it's the ultimate matrix First you know after seven years all the atoms in the body are changed Obviously is they're not changing overnight like a glitch in the matrix onion. You have a new body It's like a little here and a little there but nonetheless

If everything is changed seven years, I'm a physically completely different physical being today than I was seven years ago. Let alone the fact that, you know, there's many ways for me to attain atoms. Much of it comes through nutrition.

So, in a way, you heard a saying, we become what we eat. Yeah, but you don't have any choice in what you eat. Right. Some physical causes are making you crave chocolate. Right, right, yeah. So we can't even make a conscious choice of changing diet. But the thing is, if everything is caught up with the physicality,

you at least have to go beyond molecules because molecules are built up by atoms. You know, cells are built up by molecules, molecules by atoms and of course we could probably also go to the subatomic. But let's pause with atomic and we know it's changed after seven years. Then do you know how they explain that I still have a same feeling of identity after seven years?

Well, yeah, they I don't agree with this, but they would say that everything that your sense of the same identity is a causal effect. It was caused by the forces unleashed at the Big Bang that came down 14 billion or so years. I think it's 13.7, but we won't quibble among friends.

And a little bit more than 13.7. But that's why you're thinking that you're the same identity. You don't know that you are, but that's what you're thinking. It was causal effects. And then in terms of eating, you ate what the causal effects made you eat. The molecules in your body were doing their thing under the laws of physics. So that was determined. That's what a determinist would say.

that all you are doing alger describing physical effects in a causal chain yeah that's it makes no sense um it's a very irrational kind of i mean if they said let's say

Let's be the devil's advocate. I believe actually you are, you have a law degree, so you should appreciate that. But let's say they said, well, the previous atoms formed certain patterns that the new atoms were following. And so therefore you assume you are the same being.

but again they are even in that argument which i grant them is a better one than the one you quoted even in that argument the flaw is that the hard problem you know consciousness because they they admit a consciousness in that because if my consciousness is just a product you know like like urine is produced by the bladder you know

If brain produces thoughts in the same way, then if it is tied up to the physical elements of my nature, then I shouldn't be able to have this perpetual feeling of the same person. So it really makes no sense.

I think they're also doing one of the things you said earlier, is that as soon as you reduce things to, okay, but you, the molecules are now lined up in a way that they're radiating, being very loosely speaking, the same energy.

And therefore, the same thoughts derived from that. What they're doing is they're just putting on the cloak again of determinism. They're not proving anything. They're defining something within the determinist paradigm. And Harris's book is all full of it. He's not making argument full of it in the sense that he may be full of it, but I didn't mean that sense. He's full of putting the determinist paradigm on the facts and then arguing based on that paradigm.

that we're determined and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And he's not the only one. Determinists do this all the time. So in view of what you just said,

They would say what you said was really putting the determinist paradigm. Well, these energy fields and this and that come from the molecules and the atoms and the quarks and all that kind of subatomic stuff. And that's the reason why you still have this. But look, all they're doing is saying you're determined. They're not proving it. They're interpreting a series of facts that.

in in in accordance with the paradigm of determinism it doesn't prove that's what the facts are it's very much like the blip you know right in front of the brain you can say yeah that there's all these energies and that they determine us but it's like hold on time out that's what you're supposed to be proving not assuming all of our files are free and will remain free if you like the show

you can show support by donating $1 to help with expenses. Just use the pay link on our webpage. Thanks. But are you saying that there is no determinism at all? And with that, I mean, like, because, you know, we have free will and we have determinism as two important... Actually, you talk about a third position, compatibilism. That's a new one for me. Can you define that?

Yeah, there's a school of thought that's called compatibilism that says that they're compatible, that you can have both free will and determinism. Yeah, that was what I was referring to in the beginning. I didn't know the name for it. They tried to combine it. So a little more about that. How does that look?

Well, it doesn't look very good in a nutshell. It's the one area where I actually agree with Harris. He says that this doesn't work because the way they define what it means to be free isn't really what we mean when we say you have freedom.

They define things in silly kind of ways like, well, if nothing's restraining you, you're free. Well, that doesn't mean that what's restraining you may be determined, it may be the product of your free will or someone else's. But they define free will, long story short, in a way that isn't what we conventionally mean in the sense that we have choice.

We have alternatives, we could have done otherwise, and what we chose influenced reality. That's what we mean by free will. Compatibilists have to define that out of the definition of free will. So it's just a matter of, well, nobody's blocking you to reach for the glass of water, another arm doesn't come out and grab your arm, so therefore you're free.

And Harris says, and I completely agree with him, that's nonsense. That isn't what free will means. You could still be reaching because the molecules are doing this and that and you have no choice in it. So it's not really a credible position.

Yeah, it seems to me that determinism has devolved into a pervert version of materialism. You know, philosophical determinism had more going for it when it restricted itself to consciousness elements. Let's say you're reaching for the glass because you're hungry.

I mean thirsty. And you're thirsty because you were pre-programmed to be thirsty because of certain instincts, etc. So in the grand scheme of things, we don't have any free will. But now when they're marrying it to the dust of the earth, they're really in big trouble because consciousness alone will disprove everything. That and quantum physics. And about a half dozen other reasons. Yeah. Yeah.

And maybe we'll have time to go through more of those. But I'm more interested in like, and I'm going to be the devil's lawyer, by the way. But before we continue that path, I forgot to mention one thing.

what about basic studies like for example in twin studies shouldn't twins be identical i mean we know that identical twins uh obviously have many many tendencies common but but for me that's not a shock because they have a similar apparatus which is like if you and me have the same car

Yeah, we can use it differently. But there will be some givens that a completely other type of car, like a Tesla from my truck, for example, will be used differently. But twin studies, it would be interesting here because doesn't twins have free will? Are they the same person? Well, I'll play devil's advocate too here.

If you're a determinist, you will say that, well, okay, they behave differently. They have a lot of physical traits in common and genetic traits, but there's other conditions going on. Some we know about, some we don't know about. They can't be standing in the same physical place, so they are experiencing different

perspectives in space their parents are treating them not can't treat them 100% the same so so you have the environment which is an influence and you add all of those up and they go off in different directions or they don't go off in different directions that would be the determinist argument and the environment obviously must be that's a good one to grasp on to you know to explain differences but

Do they then believe that environment is so, should we say, systematic that it could be mapped and predicted? Because if they think that from Big Bang to now is like a completely linear, causal process, then they would think that about everything going on too. If I go out in the street and I suddenly decide to shoot around me,

you know, like a mass shooter, somehow that should be able to be predicted into the system. I have that ability to take that decision. It's morality that stops me. That and a lot of other stuff, of course. Empathy, you name it. But theoretically, I could do that. And just to prove them wrong, what would I say?

Well, the determinist would say that that was the way everything was programmed, if you will, at the beginning of the universe. They would think of environment the same way to go back to your environment comment. They would say that, look, we don't have the tools perhaps to predict anything that complex with as many factors. That doesn't mean it's not determined. It just means we don't have the tools.

But the environment is with the twins and all of that. It's all determined. Nothing escapes the causal dominion. It's it applies to everything except for them, by the way. It doesn't apply to them. They make truth claims about determinism. Somehow that got.

out of the causal chain that came back from the big bang and they somehow figured out that that was true but but other than that one thing um everything's determined the environment is determined it affected the twins different ways because it wasn't entirely genetic there was a lot of environment going along yeah but it seems to me that you actually can be it's interesting that you actually can be religious and support determinism

And you can also be an atheist and reject determinism and go for free will. I don't see that they automatically need to be married. I think that's right. Well, let me qualify it by saying that one of them is completely incoherent. How are you going to be a religious person, a spiritual person? And this goes back to something historic that you asked about earlier.

you're either going to have to say that god's determined okay well you don't want to go there right because if he's in the causal chain if he came before anything else then if you're determinist you want to be logical he's determined too he's just a little bit more powerful

Was he determined by the way? That's an interesting question, isn't it, for a determinist? Or God's got free will and that he gave us some measure of free will. Yeah, I mean, that's a classical one. And then you go into that, that whole chain and...

Well, I mean, you could say that, no, I believe in destiny and I believe that it's ordained by the gods or God and that, yeah, we have no free will. We are just minions of spiritual powers. I can see, I mean, it's not a huge religious movement, but not really has religious people resorted to that kind of argument when pressed, when in need, when that is a convenient argument for them.

I see, of course, that today it's most atheists and materialists that resort to that. But as absurd as determinism is, it presents itself as a great repression tool for anyone who needs it, whatever their paradigm. Do you see what I mean? Yeah, and if you go back to that truth thing, it's so all-pervasive. You know, if...

You're going to argue that this is the true God or that you're good if you pray or you go through this ritual or you have these thoughts and that's what's good. How can a determinist say that with any kind of credibility if every thought you have is not your thought? It's the result of a mechanical thought.

physical action. How can you justify that you're praying to the right God or that you should be praying? That's right. He had nothing to do with that thought. That was just another piece of the causal chain. So that there's this inherent contradiction that I come back to of truth, which is also a way to respond to your point about religious faith and what is contradictory and what isn't about being a faith-based person who believes in determinism.

But isn't there like a relative determinism? Because an absolute determinism short-circuits for any thinking person. But couldn't they resort to relative determinism?

No, but you can resort to relative free will, which may be what you mean by relative determinism. We'd have to define it a little bit more. One of the big mistakes I believe that determinists make, and I think it's the first chapter in the book because it's one of Harris's earlier books.

arguments is that in order to have free will, you have to completely control, completely know and control all the factors that would determine us. Biology, genetics, physiology, neurology, parents, birthplace, birth time, you name it. You'd have to know and completely control all those factors. It's the absolutist, what I'll call the absolutist point of

And you've sort of just brought up the relative point of free will, and you've looked at it from a determinist angle. But if you're determined, you're determined. The only thing you can let in the world is randomness, probability.

probability is sort of a structured randomness, but that's it. There's either causes or there's random things. Now, random things are pretty difficult to explain if you're a determinist. That's a whole nother thing we could get into because something comes into the universe

that has no explanation whatsoever, is not beholden to anything that came before, has no relationship to the prior universe. I mean, it does, obviously, in a certain sense, it's on a foundation of the prior universe, but there's something novel that has nothing to do with the prior universe. So you have a problem in explaining novelty and randomness. Put that aside for a second. The

The determinist has an absolute point of view. If you take a real if you look at it from the free will side, free will advocates can say, look, we've got this thing called influence. We have this bodily platform. You had mentioned the body earlier and you had a word for it. Facilitator. I'm not sure the word. I sometimes call it a platform because you have a body doesn't mean you are your body.

It may mean that your body is a platform for consciousness and consciousness is playing a different game than your body, or at least that's the free will argument. So the determinists tend to, and certainly Harris does, to say, well, free will has to be absolute.

And there's a simple answer to that, which is why? Tell us why it has to be absolute. He lays things out like in these universal laws that are self-evident, but there's nothing self-evident about it. We need a context to operate in. We need limitations. We need circumstances. If we didn't have something to push against, how could free will even operate? So from the free will side,

I'm not sure, I think this is answering your question by taking a slightly different angle on it, which is you can't have relative determinism in the sense that if you're really a determinist, you've got causes and you got random stuff happening.

However, if you're a free will advocate, you don't have to buy into this absolute concept that disqualifies free will, which is that it has no limitations. It makes no sense. It's counterintuitive. It's not what we mean when we say free will. And there's no justification for it. There's not a single line in Harris's book that explains why free will can't be a limited ability.

And and in fact, it's I argue it's the opposite of what he says is you need free will needs limitations. It needs boundaries. It needs circumstances. It needs conditions. What is the runner? What is the runner on the track? What's his shoes going to push against if he doesn't have the limitation of the earth to create the friction, to create the momentum, et cetera, et cetera, to get his shoes off the ground? You need restrictions or you can't have free will.

totally, because when he tries to put up this straw man of an absolute free will, it's either a projection because he himself or they are absolutists. Either that or it's a dirty trick because

Relative free will? I think most people buy into that. Sure. We all know we're limited, but we make decisions within context and circumstances, most of which we don't create. Some we do. Some reflect prior decisions, right? But most of the time we're in circumstances that are, most of which is given. Yeah, that's the problem because it's growing. Society is becoming more and more complex now.

Less and less are we able to impose our free will. I mean, if I could sit down and design, you know, redesign the world, oh, I would have so many ideas of how this could go. But it's becoming a bigger and bigger gap between our will and our creativity to manifest something novel and that on the one hand and the ability to reach out and implement it.

And this correlates, of course, also with that more and more power is being transferred to fewer and fewer hands.

So the feeling of powerlessness has never been bigger in the world. And that feeling, you know, the fact that we have free will is an empowering feeling. So if they want to make us into robots, into minions, into drones, into transhumanist ants, then they have to remove both our power and our ability to execute our free will, if you see what I mean.

Well, let's teach all our kids that they don't have free will and that everything they do is the result of impersonal causal physical forces. Let's teach teenagers that. Let's start at the age of 12, well, earlier, whatever, and let's see what kind of world we have. Was this the world that the determinists really want? Well, in some respects, yes.

Well, of course it isn't. And it's taking a different angle on the same question or the point of view that you were just raising about powers that be and the complications of the world.

taking away more and more of our prerogatives. In terms of the free will debate, you can think of it as influence. I mean, the world's so complicated, we're susceptible to all kinds of additional influences that weren't around before. And there's also a conglomeration of power bases that want to influence us. And the more they can influence us, the more they can

uh get whatever their aim or purpose is so it goes to the free will debate because if you want to say we don't have it then teach it to the kids and put your money where your mouth is yeah when you talk about kids for a child or a teenager i think i think to to sell that idea everybody should be like an anthill but we're not there's never been more conflict in the world than there is now that alone is kind of an indication that

determinism doesn't work, absolute determinism, and that free will is running havoc. It's as simple as that. Well, there's something you said before that I think is important. I think you used the word disempowerment, the opposite of empowerment. What does it mean? What's the message to say that you don't have free will?

Let's just stipulate that we don't know the answer to that question for a second, okay? Let's just stipulate, just to do a little commentary, that determinism doesn't have this terrible problem because it can't prove it's true. It can't even say it's true with a straight face. Forget all that and we don't know.

You want to choose an empowering course of action that makes people feel or educate them that they have responsibility, that they can make decisions, that decisions mean something, that they're not simply victims and pawns in this big causal game. Or do you want to teach them that they have to account for themselves and there's decent ways to go about in life and be

They have the ability to influence reality and control their thoughts and they have prerogatives and they can affect the world in terms of bettering

uh life on the planet i mean which which one is is healthier i mean there's no question absolutely and if they try to say well but you can't project morality and values into it well then they can't say we should stop that car from colliding or we should stop that criminal exactly we have to play by the same rules this is the problem um i have a chapter called having it both ways

Right. And it compares the determinist principles to the statements of determinists, much like the ones we talked about. Well, we should take murderers off the streets. Really? How are we going to do that? We should take. We don't take anything. We don't do anything. That's not up to us. And it goes on and on, especially in the area of morality and ethics.

And it kind of also invalidates, I mean, we talk about murderers. What about taking them out of power positions? That's a bigger problem. But it kind of invalidates the, you know, why should we listen to Uncle Sam? Why should we listen to any authority? Because that will isn't anymore free or anymore right or true authority.

than anything else and how you take that authority what you think of that authority the principles you use to say um you like that policy or you don't like that policy under determinism that has not not up to you you're a liberal you're a conservative you're a spiritual person you're you're an atheist it doesn't really matter it had nothing to do with you you didn't do anything

to be that or to think that it's all programmed you are biochemical robots that's it so stop telling us about anything else about how we can do this and take murders off the street and how we have to judge um one of the things that harris says is that we have to that a criminal justice system has to assess risk and then take people off who are dangerous and some

Well, how are we going to assess risk? Who's going to do that? What we think about risk is whatever we're programmed to think. And by the way, there is no risk in a determined world. But doesn't he offer an argument for this? No, no, no. There's very few arguments in the book. I'm not sure there are any. He turns to a utilitarian kind of an ethic that it's a good thing and people will be better off.

and he wrote a book called "The Moral Landscape" in which he talks about the roots of ethics.

And the determinist has to stand accused. Where did you get that idea? Where did you get the idea? He talks a lot about well-being as the ultimate moral principle. Yeah, ironically, he's meditating. I mean, what's the point? Yeah, and ironically, he's meditating, and he's got a good sense of ethics and morals. He thinks well-being is sort of the foundation of

of morality and helping people improve their lives. Well, of course, he's right. But you don't get there by determinism. Determinism is like, I believe that. I can't justify it. It's what I was made to believe.

Yeah, just to have the notion of feeling well kind of implies also that we are more than robots. A robot, my computer has no say in feeling well or not, if it even had feelings. We could amp it up to a Westworld type of advanced computer. Still...

If they are suffering or not, if they are merely computers, I mean, in Westworld, they become sentient and develop consciousness. But if they remain as computers, because that's a big argument that we are, we are biological robots, then just the notion of feeling well is an illusion. That's right. There's a philosopher named John Searle, S-E-A-R-L-E Searle.

who's got two terrific tapes on YouTube. If you're

audience is interested that basically talks about the silliness of this artificial intelligence being at some point crossing into being human and he goes into the definition of computing versus thinking and he really lays out very well the fact that what computers are doing is not what thinking is doing and what consciousness is doing does a terrific job of just destroying this idea that

They're linked in some kind of way that one blends into the other. And by some miracle, suddenly the computer gets to our level of... Not possible. That doesn't mean they can't be terribly dangerous and programmed to mimic things, but that doesn't mean they're thinking. Yeah, there was a brilliant movie. What was it called? It was this genius guy who developed...

type android like westworld kind of type psychopathic robot woman and she seduced his guest to let her go but the thing is she was never really sentient this was better than westworld because she wasn't sentient she was just a super advanced computer and that's the ultimate psychopath

Because there is no feeling, there is no empathy, there is just calculations. And that's the whole point. If we can tell the difference, that's what I'm trying to say to the transhumanists, that there is a difference, but they may develop manifestations where we cannot tell so easily the difference. But it's still an illusion. It's still not the same. Because if someone can't tell me apart from a computer,

due to their limited perspective. Like, I'm sure an ant couldn't tell the difference, but it doesn't change what's inside of me, how other perceives me. It doesn't change my nature. Do you see what I mean? Well, I'm not even sure you are a computer. If I'm a determinist, I'm just programmed to think you're a real person. That doesn't mean you are. Hmm.

That's determinism. God loves it. Maybe you are. I mean, it's just what I'm programmed to believe, that you're a human. You sound like it. You seem like it. But it could be my programming that tells me that. So how do they account for changing beliefs? All of your experiences are a product of chemical, physical, causal reactions. It's like...

an aftershock of an earthquake there's no power in itself it just follows whatever's causing it so your if fate is to cause you to have a radical shift in behavior radical shift in thinking because it was determined you made a very very interesting point earlier and it it resonates uh an argument i've been making you made a point that forced to have a free will

It becomes meaningless if there's no challenge, if there's no obstacle, if there's no... We need choices, we need differentiation in order to enact the free will. And that differentiation isn't just two equal options. There should be everything from what we would perceive from good to bad. Otherwise it wouldn't matter which one we chose, right? But this is very similar to an argument I've been making concerning so-called evil.

Now, however you conceive that to be. But negative, why is there suffering, etc.? Well, it's kind of a given because if we all have free will,

Then that will becomes invalidated if there was a God like, unfortunately, the closest. Well, I think the Old Testament has a God like that. If there was a God that said like, you have to do this, otherwise my anger will strike you. Then we would do the right thing because we were in terror of this God. It wouldn't be because we actually choose to do it.

It's kind of the same with determinism, only they say it's not because the God is forcing us to, but already programmed us to. But if we have truly free will, then it should make sense that there was a little more of the bad than the good.

Because then if I do the right thing, it's despite that it sometimes cost me something. It's not because I'm immediate rewarded. That's why instant karma doesn't work. If I get immediate rewarded...

then even a psychopath would do the right thing. There would be no such thing as psychopaths and we would all be robots. But if I develop enough consciousness, if I connect so much with the spiritual truth, with the moral imperative that I actually do it because that's more important to me than some kind of

material, temporary reward, then I prove that I am of the spirit. I actually prove mind over matter. And by the way, the determinist can't even explain why some people would sacrifice themselves because that makes no sense either. Why should you go as far as to even sacrifice yourself for something or someone else if we're all just robots? So I've thrown out a few curveballs. You can take it and run with it.

Well, there was a lot of meat in what you just said. I think that behind where you're going is, and it's been the last few things you said, is what's important about the free will issue? What is important about the free will issue? And it's so important because at the core of it, it's asking, what are we? What are we? What are we as human beings?

Are we robots or can we go about making decisions and influencing reality? Can we follow a moral code or is there just whatever goes, goes, psychopath or otherwise? One of the points I make in the book is that nobody is a determinist. In fact, I think I started a chapter saying there's no such thing as a determinist. They don't exist. And what I mean… In real life, you mean? Yeah.

Well, yeah, exactly. And yeah, nobody, real life or not real life. Everybody gets out of bed and scratches their head and yawns and decides to take off their pajamas, decides what clothes to put on, decides if they're going to brush their teeth, etc., etc., etc. Till the moment they go to bed. What do I set my alarm for?

Do I need to change my pillow cover, et cetera, et cetera? So there's no such thing as a determinist. Nobody lives their life like that. I have a challenge where I say, just spend 15 minutes and act like you're determined. You couldn't. You start with, you'd have to make a decision to, well, am I going to do that?

I understand determinists would say, well, that's not a real decision. That's causal, da, da, da. But the bottom line is you can't even act like a determinist, assuming you are determined. So in real life, if you want to put it that way, and I think it's a good way how you put it, there's no such thing. That's important because you can argue all you want in theory that we're governed by all of these mechanical forces and have no choice but

And then you've got to walk out the door and make some decisions. And go ahead. If you really want to tell yourself those decisions are FACO, is that how you're going to treat it? OK, what are you going to do if there's no consequences to those decisions other than those that have been predestined? What are you going to do? Nobody, nobody can act like a determinist. Nobody can think like a determinist. It's just a theoretical intellectual framework when they happen to be talking about determinism.

Then they'll go decide to get a hamburger or a tuna sandwich or a vegetarian burger. You can't be a determinist. And that means that you have to really step up and make some decisions. You have to take stands. Comes back to that disempowerment point that you were making. So I think that's one of the places that you were hinting at to me that invoked, which was...

the core of this whole thing is can we be responsible can we make moral decisions can you follow a moral code well not if you're not if the world is determined so and and you can't even act like it

Even if you're a nihilist and you think there's no such thing as values, that's a value. And how you're going to act is going to be following values because you can't help it. That's what we do. We make decisions and we value things. And in a sense, valuing is a prioritization and prioritization is what's important. So you just can't do it if you're a robot. And it's important that we not disempower ourselves.

So it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And this is why you say the debate about determinism is important too, right? Yes, that's why it's important. That's why I think it's important because it's a disempowering philosophy that says we're all victims and you don't have any prerogatives. You have no power. And whatever you think and whatever you do has already been determined. Boom, that's it. You're not responsible for what you do.

You have no claim to any kind of moral stance because that's also whatever you were programmed to think at that moment. So there you go. No responsibility, no morality, no prerogatives, and you're a perpetual victim. Welcome. Welcome to the world of determinism. I know some people over at the World Economic Forum look at this as utopia, but I think

Most people get depressed of just hearing that. And why would we get depressed with such... If we are pre-programmed for this, why would that depress us? Why would we have an instinctive rejection of such a thing? My computer doesn't reject me informing it, its nature. But I have two... Yeah, you want to comment that? Go on. No, no, no, go ahead.

Yeah, no, I was just going to say I have two more points I want to raise before we wind down and plug your stuff and are out of here. Sure. And one of them is back to devil's advocate. But I think it doesn't work anymore because I think I understand what you will say because there are some determinism in existence, but that's what you call influence, right? You're not rejecting that as a lot of preordained influence.

A huge amount. A huge amount. And I think influence is the best, simplest way to call it. But yeah, huge amount. Yeah, but what about more cosmic? One thing is, yeah, weather forecast. Of course, we can predict the weather because we can see what's the most likely outcome of

many, many options, yes, although we don't always get it right. And I think actually that's a good reflection of all sorts of energies, you know, all sorts of processes that we can predict to a certain extent because of what's most likely. It's like it's a reflection of quantum mechanics again. But we can't say for sure. Therefore, it's not deterministic. But what if we take it metaphysically and we talk about

or we take it into science, I guess we could call it science fiction, where we, although it may become science fact, where we talk about

looking into the future or even traveling into the future if such things are possible wouldn't that indicate that there are certain Trends at least certain things are a given and I know they talk about the multiverse and all that and maybe you want to go there I don't know but but how how would we how would we address that from a free will point of view

Well, I hope there's not a multiverse because that means we've got a whole lot more determinists than even if I thought we had. Or a whole lot more of free will, too. Well, some of them, too. Exactly. Tell me what the question was. I think the question was trends. There are trends, cosmic trends, big trends, trends we don't understand. And again, I'll call them influences. There's no reason there can't be all of that and biological drives, right?

it could be all that that doesn't it's not an argument what about destiny sorry what about destiny same thing uh it depends on how you i should say it back up a second depends on how you define destiny you could define it in a very deterministic sense that everything that happens must happen or you could can define it in sort of a big picture thematic trend-like sense that you know

You are already always destined to lead this kind of life or have these events happen, this kind of event for whatever reason. Or like karma, where you influence your own destiny.

Well, you could define karma in a deterministic sense. The problem with determinism is that you can look at everything through the deterministic lens and say, well, that's mechanical too. Well, that's mechanical too. What is fate? Well, of course, that's mechanical too. But that's not an argument and it's not proving anything. It's just putting the lens on of the determinist paradigm, the determinist lens and saying, well, you see, it's all caused. That doesn't, it's no trouble for us. It's all caused.

It's all quarks bouncing around against other quarks or whatever quarks do. But in a non-causal, non-deterministic sense, I think you can accept that there are many influences that we don't understand that aren't physical.

And we could get into the quantum physics. One thing we didn't talk about is non-physical events that quantum science can't explain. All it can do is say it happens, but who the hell knows how? They don't know how.

and it could be useful as a way to ensure. Well, even I think like UFOs, UAPs as they now call it in the whitewashing world. What's UAP? I'm sorry, I never heard that phrase. Tell me that. Yeah, it's what, you know, now that they have acknowledged UFOs, they don't want to call it UFOs because of all the whacko history. So they call it UAP. I think it's

unknown aerial phenomenon, but you have like how they are violating g-forces. I mean, normal people realize that, look, if they are physical and if this machinery, they have to have somehow been able to bend

the laws of physics but i i suspect the same crowd that's into determinism they don't they can't imagine that they think that we have uncovered all and there's no way to ban these laws and for them that becomes a huge problem maybe part of the motivation to suppress these weird phenomenons because we have like the tic tac ufos that were coming out of the military whether we see how they

Just take incredible speed and these 90 degree very quick. And so even at that level, you were talking about weird things happening, right? So that can't be explained. So this is like a physical example of that. You can also, of course, talk about metaphysical stuff that where you were going.

where they have no explanation for this in a deterministic universe. There's a big trend in determinist arguments to that effect, which says that, well, science can't explain it. So therefore, there

Therefore, what? Therefore, it doesn't exist. Really? It doesn't exist because science can't explain it? Well, let's talk about all the things that science can't explain. And I go through a list of things in the book. And if you think about 100 years ago, that list is pretty damn big. I think there's no such thing as galaxies. Those came about in the last 30 or 40, 50 years. There's a lot of things that didn't exist if you go by...

you know, and by what physics understands at any given moment, I mean, think 200 years from now, we're going to look back. Physicists are going to go, what Neanderthals those guys are. They thought that there was this quantum probability thing. And they thought that that was opposed to something called causations. Boy, were they idiots. There's this whole other way of looking at reality. So, so it's so presumptuous to say,

Well, free will doesn't exist because it can't be explained because there's a whole I mean, what physics doesn't understand is as big as the galaxy. That's not not meant to be any slur on physics. The top physicists say that they say that what was the famous quote by Richard Feynman? I can safely say that nobody understands physics.

This is a paraphrase. I can safely say that nobody understands quantum physics. And once you say that, you're really saying, I mean, quantum physics is the best description we have of the world and how the world operates. So when you say that, what are you really saying? You're saying that nobody really understands how the world operates. And he says that if you claim you understand it, that's a proof you haven't understood it. Oh, yeah. I love that quote, too.

But ironically he's thinking himself then, because how has he understood that? In a way he's saying I'm the one who understands it, because I understand that you can't understand it. Instead of saying look I don't understand anything, what he's actually saying is if you claim you understand it, you haven't understood it. In other words that presupposes that I have understood.

Yeah, no, I follow your logic totally. I don't think he meant it in this sort of grandiose, egotistical sense. Maybe your interpretation is implying or maybe it's not. I'm not sure. He is saying that I understand something.

yeah i understand that the limits of of of what we can do to expect i'm just giving him the benefit and i'm telling you yeah another idea which is that what we do understand is what there's a lot of what we don't understand which is goes back to a socrates saying um

But I don't think he was saying, I don't take it in an egotistical way. I think he was being very humble and modest and saying, look, all this fancy stuff, we can do all the math, but we really don't understand it. And those who say that they understand it,

really don't understand it because they're putting an interpretation on it that just doesn't pan out. So you can think of it as in that way. You don't have to, but it's sort of a modest saying of the limits of science. And I only say it that way because that's the point that I make, which is you have to

be humble about what we can understand and we can't and what we understand has nothing to do with whether something exists because we don't understand it right but yeah we don't understand all the implications of it etc but by the way when they say if it can't be explained by the current paradigm the current understanding doesn't exist that explains why they are rejecting consciousness

Because they don't understand it. Yes, exactly. And free will. And free will. Which is a result of consciousness. But it also explains the zeitgeist of today. Because the thing is, you say they will look back. Even their own sect will look back and be embarrassed. But the thing is,

The whole thing with them today, the hubris has never been bigger because they claim or believe that there is not much more to understand. We have reached, we have exhausted the understanding, which is incredible stupidity. I don't think so. It's a kind of insanity. Yeah.

I was going to say, I don't think that most scientists think that. I think people look at science and may get that impression, but I don't think the scientists think that. There's a famous scientist that I quote in the book who said, in case any of you, again, loosely paraphrasing, he says, in case anybody of you think that physics is really, is at the end of the day and really knows how everything works,

we just discovered that hot water freezes faster than cold water. And we don't know why you would think that cold water is half the way there to being frozen. No, for some reason, the principle that physics, so you basically saying, we don't even understand how water freezes or a certain, you know, major principle about how water freezes. So in case you're wondering if physics is kind of done and basically there think again, well,

Yeah, maybe only scientists will be humble enough to realize this. I mean, Rupert Sheldrake in his book Science Delusion even went through the big things that people think we have case closed and even the most basic notions of science needs revision.

But I was more thinking of this sect of debunkers and it tend to be the same. There's a huge overlapping between materialists

atheists debunkers and determinists that's exactly right in many ways i've seen in and you're right they're probably not real scientists they're more like believe adherers if anything maybe they're operating at lower and middle level but it's kind of what they actually are thinking because you can see the same thing manifesting today in our zeitgeist you see it in for example in covid or in anything you you know

this has been determined to be the reality and if you deviate from that it's if it's information it's misinformation it's malinformation it's like there's a playbook there's a template where all the truths are and we know them and the fact checkers are now the hubris is so big that they are fact checking

Lancet, they are fact-checking British medical journals, you know, the scientific magazines that's been around since the 1800s and they don't even know it because they are very uneducated, many of them. But they are determining what is true and not.

And okay, you can say, look, it's a political agenda. It's not that they really believe it. But they're still influencing. I see many young people. They are growing up now believing in this black and white paradigm. There's a right, there's a wrong. There's no shades. There's no nuances. I think this is incredibly dangerous. You sure that's not a black and white statement? I'm just... Okay, I think it's rather dangerous. Yeah.

No, I'm just teasing with you. Sure, sure. Yeah, and I think determinism is just as, or maybe more dangerous than black and white thinking. I think it's pretty dangerous too, actually. They're both up there in the top five, you know? Yeah. Yeah, I was hinting about, I mentioned destiny, but what about time travel or at least thinking

Peeking into the future, predictions and stuff like that, that kind of disappears, doesn't it? If there's no determinism. If there's no determinism or if there is determinism? Explain which. Well, if there is determinism, I can easily see how we can travel ahead in time. Because then there's a given, then there's a scenario that's, you know, stuck.

but except in the in a weird way and this these paradoxes are all the subject of science fiction that that is there really any future or past if the world is determined because you go to another place and you can call it the past but it's happening now so you're you're now so it's it's just another determined sequence so we have once you have a sequence it's not really past it can't be in the past so you have that issue in science fiction

movies play play with that it's you know that that's all could you could you go back in time and shoot your grand yeah father could how could you be born and and one of the ways of taking that it's really a linear thing if you think of it that way you're really not going back in time you're laying it out linearly first is your bet and this this and this

And so are you going into the past? So that's one way of analyzing the determinist piece of it. But I think determinism could say that there are forces that we don't understand that can change our... Remember, under relativity theory, all sense of space and time is relative to the observer. And so...

So you're changing somebody's time and space relative to somebody else's who's moving at a different speed. Yeah, but you misunderstood me, I think. I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about the future. Because if there's no determinism, there is no given future to travel to or to peek into. Well, that's sort of what the, yeah, I wasn't saying it well, but that's exactly the point I was trying to make with, are you really going into the future anyway?

No, you're going into the next... You're always going into the next sequence. And they're all the same. They're just cogs in a machine. So there's just an eternal now. Well, in one sense, there is an eternal now. And in another sense, it's just an eternal chain of events...

If you have an eternal chain of events, you don't really have a... You have a past and a future, but it's just defined as one event after the other. So if you have a past... If you go into the future, you go into the past, you say you're jumping into the future, it almost has no meaning, which is, I think, one way of you looking at saying there's really no past and future. What does it mean? All you have... You can call it whatever you want, but all you have is a sequence of dominoes. Yeah, but sequence of dominoes is...

The idea of determinism, right? Yes. So if I can, if I say, if I predict, let's say 9-11, 10 years before it happens, oh, I saw it. How on earth could I do that if there's no determinism?

You want me to give you the determinist answer? No, no, I want you to give the free will answer, because I'm the devil's lawyer now. Oh, okay. I keep forgetting. We're switching sides so often. Which roles we have. Now I'm that person. Okay. So the question is, in 10 years in the future, you're predicting... Whatever. And it comes...

And that suggests to you that that event had to happen, right? Not necessarily. Well... Is that the implication? You tell me. Well, if you're arguing against the free will side, and I'm the free will side for a second, maybe I didn't understand, but I took the implication as, okay, you're the free will guy, then how could I predict something that would happen in the future? Wouldn't that mean that it was always destined to happen, in which case it could be part of a causal chain? Exactly.

So wouldn't the prediction of future events kind of prove determinism? I don't think so at all. Why not? Well, first of all, the fact that it doesn't necessarily mean that the world is determined. In sort of the most realistic way to look at it, there's many trends and there's many things to extrapolate what's going to happen in the future from.

And as a matter of odds, it may have turned out that the trends you were looking at were pretty darn accurate.

And again, friends aren't doesn't mean determined, it means strong influences might be very strong. So you could have taken a reading on a whole number of, of influences that that would would ultimately come to fruit in this event. That doesn't mean the event has to happen. It means that it was had some high level of probability.

or it didn't have a high level of probability and it's some, something random or some, some, somebody's decision took it in that direction, independent of the trends that you're looking at. So that's sort of a, a sort of a realistic point of view. It's the broken clock is, is, is right twice a day. It could have, could have been that, but it doesn't mean you're looking at a,

certain event, you may have been looking at an event that's highly probable or just accidentally related to the trends you're looking at. The less realistic but possible, plausible, who knows way, is that there's all kinds of, this goes back to the science, what we understand. I mean, one has got to imagine that there's all kinds of forces that are yet to be discovered in the universe. And that doesn't mean they're causal forces.

Some of them could be pretty, pretty high level probability. But it may be that there are some connections between future events and now that and I use the connection, the very kind of way that we don't understand that I would think of as currents of influence.

Because nobody can prove there's causation or anything otherwise. By the way, we didn't talk about it. There's a whole chapter in the book about how there's no such thing as causation. And that's pretty much a whole other matter. But my point being, there's who knows what we'll discover in 200 years about the currents between

the present and the future. Clearly we affect the future because we create conditions that change the future, if you're a free will advocate. And it may be a confluence of all kinds of conditions and forces that we don't understand right now. Yeah, and predictions will be kind of like meteorology anyway, only on a different medium than weather.

But yeah, there are philosophical and spiritual ideas that talk about... You know, there is no such concept as future or past, but...

that there is a now, but that our consciousness, it tricks us, just like perception is a trick, because we can only perceive certain frequencies of the entire electromagnetic scale. Doesn't mean nothing exists beyond the perception. I mean, we have dogs that can hear

higher etc so in a same way you could say that yes this goes for how we and and in that philosophy there are those who think that there's even the past is an illusion that you can just you can change the future you can kind of change the past it's kind of weird for people because we brought up to think sequentially up until the ever being now and

But that the future... If we can change the past, I've got a wish list. Can I give it to you? Yeah, but let me do my own stuff first. All right, I'm next. I'm next up. Right, right. But this brings me maybe to the last point that I have. There is a connection there because I'm sure you're familiar with, it's so in vogue now, the simulation hypothesis, or I would say theory. Mm-hmm.

So, yeah, I don't know. Do you need a question? I mean, I think the simulation model kind of has a room in this debate.

Now, do you mean in the Matrix sense? Yeah, because, yeah, okay, let me take it to a very entertaining level since we've been so serious up to now. Let's say we live in a simulation and let's say there are agent smiths out there. The Gnostics, the ancient Gnostics, we'll call them Archons. Now, let's say, and they are actually this exact thing that Harris and everyone else want to convince us that we are.

They are machines, if you will. They are deterministic creatures. And maybe Harris and those guys who push it are Agent Smiths.

But at any rate, they want Neo and the rest of us to think that we are like that. I'm pretty convinced that some of them are. I'm sorry I interrupted you. I'm pretty convinced that some of them are. I'm not sure about Harris, but I'm convinced that some of them are. Go ahead. I'm sorry I interrupted you. No, no. I kind of made my point there that if we are in a simulation model, there would be machine creatures that for whatever reason or whatever role they have,

and they would be ones and zeros or maybe we are talking quantum computing here not dualistic polarity but at any rate there may be creatures that are like that but obviously not the human nature because you know the religious people say that we have many religions say that we have a spark of God in us in other words if

In the Bible it says, God created man in his image. What that really translates to is the creator created small creators. In other words, we have that gift to God

create, to bring something unique into existence. And if you have that, we have automatically, we have free will and automatically we are the chaos factor in the machine. We are the ghost in the machine. There's no such thing as determinism. But that doesn't mean that there may not be creatures or entities or whatever you want to call it, programs out there that are deterministic. This is highly speculative and

entertaining but we can I think we can round off with this kind of perspective what do you say to this well I say this most important thing is that if we're in a simulation somebody's got to fix my iPhone I just have to reboot it too many times it doesn't and soon the air pods are a mess it doesn't go there somebody's got to talk to Apple if they're hearing me out there in a simulation and

The thing is, there's a, from my perspective, there's a very fine dance that you have to do between when you're going to value evidence and look at evidence and what you say about areas where there's just no way of getting any evidence one way or the other, at least right now, credible evidence. And I think you have to balance that against, um,

not being locked in by the evidence necessarily and over-reading the evidence. And I think determinists extremely over-read the evidence. But you could go in the other direction and create a mythology that's based on very little evidence. Have you heard of the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics? Yeah, we discussed it in a show.

Okay. Well, just brief recap for whoever's listening to this show. There's a interpretation of quantum physics that every time an event happens in the sense of they think of events as measurements, let's call it that. Every time that happens, the world splits apart into a billion infinite number infinite number.

of worlds with an infinite number of people and each one of these infinite number of views each person who exists in this world and each one of those worlds manifests one possible outcome of what could have happened

And this happens about 7,000 times per second per individual. Infinite worlds are being created with an infinite you, but with a different outcome. Every possible outcome you could possibly imagine and more, because we can't fine-tune it that way. So that's a respected, I guess to say, interpretation of quantum mechanics. And the

you know, the people who think it's crazy think it's crazy. There's no evidence in the tangible sense for it. I think it's crazy. And the reason why is because I think that, and a lot of people do, that you can't just accept something that's so implausible against common sense measurement, which isn't the ultimate measure, granted, it's one, without some kind of evidence. And

What the otherworldly people say is that I've heard basically say the same thing. This is what the equations say must happen. The Schrodinger equation that's at the center of quantum physics. This is what, if you follow through that equation, the world has to split into a billion worlds with every possible manifestation, every fraction of a second. Well, okay. But they could get... Wait a minute. They could get away with it if they said that...

Yes, that happens, but it doesn't mean that we live, that there's a me consciousness in all those worlds, but that I'm surfing those probabilities so that that creates a sequence, that creates a red line, a red thread throughout existence. But at any given time, there is all these possibilities. Isn't it just a very fancy way to say that when I go out in the street, there's a million doors?

different, well not a million, but many, many, many different things that could happen determined by my choice. So I could be run over by the train, I could, you know, I could dance in the fields, it could rain on me. That's kind of a metaphor of what they're saying, only they're saying this is on a very macroscopic level. Yeah, exactly. But if they actually say that I'm doing that in all these realities, then I'm losing my sense of self.

Or you're gaining billions of them. Yeah. The world that you feel is yourself is one of the billions and billions of possibilities created every... Possibilities I can buy. Yeah.

Yeah, no, no, no. I understand. That's not what they're saying. And it's not metaphorical. They're saying that reality really does split into all of these realities. And every reality, every other world is as real as our world. We're just experiencing one manifestation, one outcome of billions. It's real, according to the many worlds interpretation.

I don't understand the math and maybe the math says something we don't. Well, layman people like me don't understand, but many other physicists say the same thing, that it's kind of Looney Tunes and they point to the math. Well, another possibility is the math is just wrong or the math is right within a certain domain and veers off in the wrong place. I think the point that, to go back to the main point, it's a very...

delicate line between over-reading evidence and under-reading evidence. And

To me, obviously, the many worlds is sort of an overreading of an equation without any evidence. I guess without any possibility there will ever be any evidence as far as we can figure out because we have no relationship to those other worlds, those other things that are happening at the same time. Billions and billions and billions, 7,000 every second. Crazy. And determinism would be an underreading of the evidence.

Right? With respect to many worlds or just separately? No, no. If many worlds is an over-reading of the evidence, then I'd say that determinism is an under-reading of the evidence. In the sense that? Say a little bit more. Because it's almost a diametrically opposite thing of the many worlds. The determinism is like, no, there's one red thread, there's one fixed line.

Whereas the manual says well, I know this seven. What was it million options every second? 7,000 times the world breaks into infinite infinite every seven. Yeah, it makes sense to me Well, it's it's the opposite of determinism, isn't it? It's a what? Yeah, I was gonna say that's why I asked you for a little clarification because you could take it as a

As this is just a machine happening this way, you could interpret it that way. And the people that are prominent people who are many worlds people are determinists because they're scientists. But it could be either. You could say it splits off, but it split off because of a choice.

I think it's compatible with either, but that's said by somebody who we're not getting into the whole math of it. But my point is to go back to what you said about simulations. Yeah. It all full circle. This is all about when do you look to evidence and when not?

I'm the kind of person is if it's if it's pretty far off from common sense. I'm not saying this is the right answer, but if it's pretty far off from common sense and there's no way of getting evidence like this simulation thing, it's it's I don't want to entertain it as a possibility. The other thing is that it's one of those. We're back to the issue of truth. It's the same issue of truth that plagues, in my opinion, plagues determinism as its Achilles heel.

which is that if you're in a simulation, how are you ever going to know it? Because every thought you have

by definition gonna be a thought that was put in your head all right you taking the atheist version no no there is simulation is sold to all sorts of paradigms my approaches with it is this and that's that if we were in a simulation like a video game there are players you know if you you and me play a video game we are the players but then

we are not the only people there there's avatars there they are the agent smiths right so you can totally have free will and even in a simulation in fact you need to have a free will what's the point of playing the video game without right absolutely absolutely i would translate it by saying this those those mr smiths or whoever they are are influences again their circumstances there's

a tunnel a bridge you have to go over there's there's a balcony that you'd better not jump over there there's circumstances and conditions of influence that doesn't mean you don't have to play the game so uh in conclusion then uh when we acknowledge influences we are actually we are then relative free willers and we are the moderates

And extremists are those determinists that are absolute, and the opposite would be the absolute free-willers, but they hardly exist. They are more of a straw man created by these absolutist determinists. Well, when you think about it, you've got to be God. If you're going to have free will without any conditions, and if you're going to be able to control every single condition, your biology, your physiology, your birthplace,

your personal characteristics blah blah blah what are you you're omniscient and you're omnipotent at that point you may as well be god in fact you that's how they define it yeah they don't say that but that's how they define it you have to be on omnipotent and um omniscient that's their definition of having free will well my answer to that is we are we are good oh okay good is us okay david look your website let's start with that what's that

biochemicalrobots.com okay and that's also the title of your book the full title is are we are we really biochemical robots question mark and the original book has the subtitle of sam harris's crusade against free will i'm coming out with a new workbook version of of the material which i'm

i'm pretty excited about this is some great artwork it's presented in a very streamlined way for those who are too busy or don't like you know heady philosophical writings or anything it's it's illustrated with robots and and and stuff without talking obviously down to the audience or dumbing the the issues up they're all there um and uh plain speak

Plain speak and streamlined and quizzes about what did you learn from this chapter, asking questions, some key questions to be of what's coming up at the beginning of the chapter, stuff like that. I think it came out pretty well in large measure to the artist. And the subtitles a little bit different because I wanted to sort of take on more broadly determinism and

than Harris's book, even though that was, you know, the original point of departure. So that's, that's the subtitles are a little different and, and the new edition I hope to be out this month.

So that means that this is a revision of an earlier issue? It's a different format, different edition. It's a workbook, I call it. It's just a different formula of laying out essentially the same ideas, but in a much more specific way. So would you say that the first book is better suited for, I don't know, academics or people who...

are not laymen? No, I wouldn't limit it that way. I think it's just a longer read and it doesn't have pictures for those who don't like pictures. I'm more concerned about, for example, are you relating the issues to people's everyday life with examples and stuff like that?

In the workbook, I added a section after each chapter called biochemical musings, where I try and take the principle and be a bit more down to earth about a couple of observations. Not individual cases, but just in sort of bigger picture, here's how it affects us. And I wanted to do a little bit of that. So I did that after every chapter.

Right, right. That's what I was going for, like consequences of this thinking. Excellent. Sounds very interesting. I mean, just the debate we've had today or conversation today about it is interesting. So if your book reflects this, then people are in for a treat, I think. I think so. Just so you know, between you and me, I don't care if I sell a book, but I really don't. It's not dependent on that in any way, but I would like to...

spread the word the word say the official word that somebody's got to just take this stuff apart because it's so simple and so wrong yeah are you not aware of the podcast called skeptical no okay um you're like born to be on that show he's had a he's had everyone and anyone in the field of science um

philosophy and it's all about paradigm and he's even had a lot of skeptics on and he's been on a perpetual war against you know the biological robot thing since 2007 yes one of the slogans in his show is

We're not he's saying that the skeptics the debunkers they say we are biological robots in a meaningless universe And he's had on all sorts of people so you need to check out Yeah, all his listeners are like in in exact in your target group great I great because I that I'd love to it. I'd love to get the word out there better. Yep, I

I'm more like a variety show, so it's not a bad pick, but he's had on everyone. Oh, great. Any, you know, brain surgeons, biologists, physicists, everyone. Actually, I don't think he has had Sam Harrison, but he's had on many of those debunker types, and they're terrified of him now. They won't come on his show because he actually undressed them, you know, as the emperor.

Well, I, you know, I've, you know, they say to try and poke holes in your own theory and make the best arguments against yourself to troubleshoot. And I've, I've really tried and I don't know, my wife's the smartest person I know. And I, I guess I have to ask her, but I have a hard time with this because I just don't.

you know, the arguments that I've told you about, there's a few more. They're just, I mean, the tests just don't say that, you know, there's nothing in the tests that say what Harris says. So that's an easy one. But the thing about truth is probably the harder one. And even then, I think it's just so obvious. Do you know Noam Chomsky? Sure, sure. Well, very, very few people talk about this contradiction.

and i quote i give a fairly long quote of noam chomsky's he's one of the few people who talk about it

One time in one obscure tape, he says, why are you if you're a determinist, why are you up there telling people you are you are determined to do it? And why are you telling this to your audience? Are you hoping to convince them? Well, they're going to be convinced or not based on them being determined. So you're not going to convince them. And he goes to this kind of thing, you know, for for a minute in the end of it, he says, so you may as well just go to a ballgame.

And I thought it was such a great quote. And Noam Chomsky is great when he's talking about pure philosophy stuff. People don't know that side of him because he gets so controversial in the political stuff. But but it was just such a great quote. And my point is, I don't know how to I just don't know if there's a contrary argument. Nobody mentions it. Determinists don't mention it, you know, because it's it takes away the platform under their feet.

it does and oh by the way my point in all of this was because you said that that guy unskeptical takes people apart well I guess he'll try and take me apart but I just know he takes he takes the debunkers and materialists he started out as a 50/50 I want to know the truth what's going on here because it's back in there he started out even before Joe Rogan he started out in 2005 I think

And so he had on, for example, Rupert Sheldrake and he had on Michael Shermer, you know, people like that, right? And as he was going on with his show as it evolved year after year, he started to realize it's not a 50-50. It's very easy. There's one side that actually is wrong here and one side that's right. One side that has a science on their side.

and one that doesn't. And it's the opposite of what people believe. People believe that the science is on the side of determinists and materialists. But when you look at it, like he has done, he has had legendary debates and all that stuff. So,

Nowadays no, they don't want to go on his show anymore He had James Randi on his or had all these people on and he spanks them with logic. He spanks them with evidence I gotta hear his show you have to because he's been talking about exactly what you've been talking about He's even a quote from him is we are not biological robots in a meaningless universe and that's an amalgam between two gurus among the determinists and

One argues for that there's no meaning in the universe. Another that we are biological robots. But I'll leave it to him to take it...

take that dance further with you that's great oh thank you so much if there's anything i can do for you you let me know seriously well keep keep on uh fighting the good fight yeah thank you thank you by the way is this your first book or yeah uh yes yes okay i i got into the subject very accidentally reading uh harris's book having read other books of his and and and like them but this book

book didn't work for me and so I thought well that's long story short I started to write an article that just got bigger and bigger and bigger so I didn't necessarily intend to be it intended to be a book until it just became a book yeah it was probably the big banks for it so it was determined to be a book but I had nothing to do with it

No. And I have nothing to do with saying that the clock is upon us, so we have to wrap it up. But the final thing, I just want to inform you at the end here that the reason I haven't been asking you about your biology and all that is because I read...

You mean my biography or biography? Yeah, yeah, presentation. I read a presentation separate from this and I attach it on before the show begins. So by the time I say welcome to the show, they heard about you. I'm glad you didn't because it's not about me. I had a boring life. I was a lawyer. I love animals.

It's an animal sort of advocate. And, you know, that's it. I mean, it's kind of boring. So I try. I hate when podcast people ask me because I don't know what to say. Plus we waste time, right? Let's get to the point. I would just leave that. He had a passion for philosophy. He's a lawyer. And he wanted to be one of the Beatles when he grew up, but they didn't need a fifth one. Said Pete Best. Yeah.

Okay, man. It's been an absolute pleasure discussing this with you. Yeah, me too. It was fun. Thank you. Anyway, great. So nice to meet you as a colleague, friend, whatever you want to call it. You've been delightful and I appreciate it. Cool. Thank you for coming on. Sure. Okay. Okay. Take care. Yeah. Ciao. Bye-bye. Thanks again to my guest, David, for...

coming on and sharing patiently with us his brilliant insights into the matter. Now, it's a long time since I've gone through some stats with you, which I for one think is a little fun, so...

I used to, I think it was the YouTube analytics we used to go through once in a while. This time, you know, we are just as big, if not bigger now on podcast because we haven't done anything at YouTube for a few years. Haven't released any shows there for a long time.

So I think it's more relevant to look at our podcast analytics, which isn't as complete as those at YouTube. It's easier there because it's one platform, right? One platform to rule them all. And whereas here in podcasts, it's so spread and we don't always get

It's not a complete insight into what's going on, but I think it's from the biggest one at least, Spotify and Apple and some others. So at least it has some validity. And the average listener, you who listen, chances are you're a male because we have 80% men listening in and only 20% women. I don't...

I exclude those who are not... It's actually, if I take everything into account, there's also 2.5% non-binary and 3% who doesn't declare their gender. When it comes to age, the biggest age group is, can you guess? 35 to 44. Then comes 45 to 59. Then comes 28 to 34.

Then comes 23 to 27. Then comes over 60. Then comes 18 to 22. Weirdly enough, there's even this 0.4% 0 to 17. I guess there are some Mozarts, some progeny among us too. But when it comes to countries, obviously we're still largest in the United States, given that it's also the biggest anglophone country.

And it doesn't declare the percentages, but I think it used to be 50%. So I'm assuming the same there. Top 10 is actually United Kingdom, Australia, Canada. Those aren't interesting because they are anglophone. So they will always top the list. Let's start with the real, those after that. And there we have Sweden is barely surpassing Norway.

But there is a decent amount in Norway too, although I know you don't become a prophet in your own country. Then Netherlands, which I think is lower. In YouTube, there were more Netherlanders. But I guess we discovered among some of the Scandinavians. Then Germany, Ireland...

Ireland, English speaking though. But yeah, that's a number nine or number... If you exclude the four first, United States to Canada, then they are going to be number five. Six then is Denmark. Seven, Finland. Eight, New Zealand. Nine, Poland. And ten, India. And then follows Belgium, Mexico, South Africa. Ah, South Africa. So...

They're also English speaking. Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Austria, Switzerland. And on and on it goes. Let's look at the bottom. Who's the bottom 10? Number 107, Guinea. One listener there. My hat off to you, whoever you are. One in Liechtenstein. I think they could do better. Sure, there are a few, but come on, they could do better. One in Kuwait.

One in St. Kitts and Nevis. I must admit, I have no idea where that is. I thought I've heard about every nation in the world. Sounds like some remote island, probably in the Pacific. So we have one listener there. We have one listener in Mozambique, one listener in El Salvador, one listener in Bolivia, one listener in Kosovo, one listener in Zimbabwe. And from there, it's two and up.

Three in Barbados. Only four in South Korea. I thought they knew English. Seven listeners in Egypt. Wait a minute. Yeah, this is old time. 24 listeners in Namibia. 37 in Peru. I'm just taking some random samples here. 165 in Saudi Arabia, even though I've been bashing Saudi Arabia so much. But they probably know what I'm talking about.

Oh, here's a big one. Unknown. I have a lot of listeners in unknown. Good for them. 215 in Hong Kong. 599 in Japan. I'm obviously not big in Japan compared to half a million in the US. So, yeah. Iceland. Okay. Two and a half thousand. It's not bad. Remember, they are like, what, 250,000 citizens? So...

Sounds like I have 1% of them with me. Yeah, I'm going to build from there. Okay, enough fun. Let's now go to some quotes. Before leaving you, I want to share with you some samples from David's book. So you get an idea of how absurd the philosophy is. Without free will, Mother Teresa and Charlie Manson are essentially the same.

By determinist principles, they are morally interchangeable. They are biochemical robots following the dictates of causal force. This is the determinist paradigm. Not even logical truth is spared the causal chopping block.

In a causal universe, the claim 2+2=4 is a cautiously compelled belief. Tomorrow everyone on the planet might well be caused to believe that 2+2=17, and if they are, then by golly 17 it will be. Determinism faces a sophist choice. It must either concede that free will exists, in which case there's personal responsibility.

Or it must concede that morality doesn't, since biochemical robots can't do anything but follow the causal programming. Morality is a thorn in the side of determinism. We don't hold someone responsible if they've got a gun to the head. But in a causal universe, we always have a gun to the head. The gunpoint of predetermined causation. Morality is ruled out from the get-go.

There's a fundamental flaw at the heart of determinist doctrine. Determinism is doomed by its Achilles' heel if our thoughts are compelled. There's no such thing as truth. Truth is whatever we are causally forced to believe true. Determinist principles are fundamentally self-contradictory and rob themselves of any truth value.

Determinism is premised on causation, which is conceptually and scientifically unsound. It can't be defined, can't be proven to exist and doesn't seem to be the way the world operates. The emperor of causation is wearing no clothes. The correlation between the belief in determinism and antisocial conduct shouldn't be any surprise.

The idea that we have no control whatsoever over what we do is a ready-made excuse for misconduct. All bets are off if we live in causal reality. Is anything real? Does anyone else exist? Are we the same person we were yesterday? If you think you know who you are, you can't be a determinist. You only, quote, know, unquote, what you're caused to believe true.

And that's it for today. Thanks for listening. And for your reviews, likes, shares, and support. Especially to my donors. I've been your host Al, reminding you that it ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. Be seeing you. Be seeing you.

Who is number one?