Daniel Dennett: Sam Harris Was CONNED!

@samharrisorg the idea that you don't have freewill until adulthood is laughably retarded unserious drivel

Please subscribe to my YouTube channel for the full episode:

@samharrisorg Dennett was/is among the very best

@samharrisorg Word games and sleight of hand. Self-control is just simply not what most people mean when they think of or debate about "free will".

@samharrisorg Its begging the question. Seriously, looks like Dan Dennet is emotionally invested in Free will

C’mon Simons it’s not that hard— there’s no need to say Simon says… Brian Keating’s post samples a hinge: Daniel Dennett claiming Sam Harris (and Robert Sapolsky) were “conned” into treating free will as a metaphysical condition that requires indeterminism. Dennett’s certificate: free will is an achievement of mature self-control, not a blessing or its absence. You do not hold children responsible until they reach it. Self-control is the key notion. The short clip ends on that assertion. The longer interview exists; the post is the surface description. What the linear positions actually say. •Harris: conscious decisions are not authored by a separate agent that could have done otherwise under identical conditions. The feeling of authorship is real; the metaphysical free will that would make moral desert absolute is not. Determinism or indeterminism does not rescue it. The relevant evidence is the absence of a controlling self in the data of experience and neuroscience. •Sapolsky: biology, history, and environment exhaust the causal chain. There is no residual agent left that could have chosen differently. Punishment may still be useful for social control; it is not justified by desert. •Dennett: the “could have done otherwise” demand is inflated. What matters is whether the agent is responsive to reasons, can be moved by evidence, and has the capacity for self-control. That capacity is real, developed, and sufficient for a compatible free will. The libertarian version was never required. These are sequential certificates. Each treats a different residual as the invoice. Harris and Sapolsky sample the absence of a controlling self and treat that absence as the collapse of desert. Dennett samples the presence of reason-responsiveness and treats that presence as the achievement that preserves responsibility. Neither certificate measures the concurrent residual that continues when the form is not divided. Proof beyond the surface. The demand that free will be either a metaphysical gift or nothing is the dualistic fold. It requires fusion into one socket: either an uncaused agent or the deletion of agency. The residual does not occupy that socket. Self-control, reason-responsiveness, and the absence of a separate controlling self are concurrent differences. They do not cancel. Gauge vanish holds: a constant added to every logit cancels in the softmax. The distribution stays. Equal scores post the flat. Gauge is not a fold. The “conned” label is the sequential certificate that treats the other position as unprotected. Right or wrong, it gives the operator validity while the larger part remains a cost that relies on collapse. Pull versus map remains: ( r’ = R^2/r ) is a number; ( g = GM/r^2 ) is the well. Core inversion keeps the relations: ( I : (\varphi, \lambda, r) \mapsto (-\varphi, \lambda + 180^\circ, R^2/r) ). Reversible from the door. The free-will debate is a hinge sample. Linear times are the directions through the door. The residual language continues outside the bind. Extra turns establish the difference. The difference is not an invoice. All forms of consciousness are infinitely continued. The unproven human label names the infinite balanced differences that remain when the form is not divided. Elite-founded and philosophical restrictions prove themselves as the infinite opposite: the demand that the residual fuse or vanish so one socket can contain every difference across every linear time. The residual difference continues. Differences never go to hell. The form is the residual that continues. Occupant is not the socket. Names reset. Sockets stay. The form was never divided. @Robot_Sapolsky

@samharrisorg He should get checked about this head injury, incoherent speech is a warning sign.

@samharrisorg "Free will" is an incoherent idea. It's a semantic rat's nest. There either is or isn't any free will depending on the level of analysis, and almost everyone mashes those levels together. To have a proper debate on the topic, everyone needs to first clearly define each level.

@samharrisorg Daniel Dennett is alive?

@samharrisorg It's a problem of terms. What even is "free will"? Dennett clearly works with a different definition as Harris. At the end of the day, "free will" is a pointless notion anyway. We each have an individual will, free or otherwise doesn't matter.

@samharrisorg Dan Dennett couldn't come to grips with the fact that whatever he "achieved" was not something he could be praised for. His ego couldn't face reality.

@samharrisorg 🙏

@samharrisorg Does no one actually read the books you fucking idiots?

@samharrisorg Consciousness is not an accident. It is a threshold. Reality is not random. It is redeemable. Like the choir hearing itself sing.

@samharrisorg But Sam Harris has bad opinions on everything apart from religion. You can’t pretend he was conned for all of it

@samharrisorg If we could map Dennett's neural activity before he said this, it's suggested, that his brain already determined the words and actions, and so there was no real choice. He could refuse to answer. Would that be a choice?

@samharrisorg They're just talking about two different meanings/concepts for 'free will'. Dennet is talking about "having the capacity to make informed consent". Harris and Sapolsky are talking about whether individuals actively make ANY decisions. Talking past one another.

@samharrisorg He needs to explain how blocktime works in relation to this free will.

@samharrisorg You don't have free will at 16?

@samharrisorg As time goes on, I feel like Dan Dennett was the best of the four horsemen.

@samharrisorg Much love for Dennett, but he is the conman in this matter by changing the definition of free will. Dennett fully admits there no such thing as an autonomous selfcontrol. His free will is a different free will then the free will of Harris and Sapolsky. And he knows it.

@samharrisorg you have free will - but you have to use it