Yes, still being open to transhumanism, it nevertheless often seems to me that the most prominent in the field have simple psychological issues, often around hating their body. I read Elise Bohan's "Future Superhuman" not long ago. Excellent book, I really appreciate her writing. But I was left with the distinct impression that she may also have body dysmorphia type issues.
For those who ardently oppose the notion of free will, I find that they often seem to be motivated by a desire to "confront the ego" of the believer, in a kinda zen master way. I think it is good to look at our assumptions here. But I never heard of someone who looked extensively inside and discovered that objective reality survives. It seems to inevitably fail. So whilst being confronted by Sam Harris in full zen master mode might be useful therapy, the notion that objectively valid statements about the nature of free will might be made is itself pure fantasy.
Deeper down the psychological rabbit-hole, I've often entertained the idea that intellectualism (like any form of abstract thinking behaviour) may itself finally merely be a response to trauma. In Reichian character structure, the first defence that forms is escaping to the world of thinking when triggered.
As someone without an academic background in philosophy, I'm sure I'm missing most of the story here, but I wish I could've taken more away from hearing Zak. There were some points that seemed to be presented as too obvious to merit discussion, but I found unintuitive:
• Why would life in a deterministic universe be necessarily without meaning?
• I don't know much about Sam Harris' view on determinism other than reading his essay Free Will years ago. Is there something he's said since then that would merit using him as an example determinist? iirc, his essay presented determinism as an interesting intellectual curiosity which he believed was both scientifically true and practically irrelevant.
• The "heat death of the universe" that Daniel mentioned is another such belief with scientific truth and practical irrelevance. If true, the universe is on an irreversible course toward the complete and total end of all possibility. Is the view here that a deterministic universe would be necessarily meaningless, but a universe with such an end is somehow meaningful?
I say none of this to challenge the conversation. Though, I did find some of the arguments a little indulgent (e.g., remarking that opposing viewpoints are consistent with people suffering from brain damage). I just wish as a non-academic that I could've got more out of this as I feel like Zak would have some really interesting and less indulgent points to make on these questions.
I laughed at the idea of Sam Harris matter of factly telling his kids he loves them and instantly telling them not to think too much about it because he had no free will to think otherwise.
Another awesome interview. Thank you.
Yes, still being open to transhumanism, it nevertheless often seems to me that the most prominent in the field have simple psychological issues, often around hating their body. I read Elise Bohan's "Future Superhuman" not long ago. Excellent book, I really appreciate her writing. But I was left with the distinct impression that she may also have body dysmorphia type issues.
For those who ardently oppose the notion of free will, I find that they often seem to be motivated by a desire to "confront the ego" of the believer, in a kinda zen master way. I think it is good to look at our assumptions here. But I never heard of someone who looked extensively inside and discovered that objective reality survives. It seems to inevitably fail. So whilst being confronted by Sam Harris in full zen master mode might be useful therapy, the notion that objectively valid statements about the nature of free will might be made is itself pure fantasy.
Deeper down the psychological rabbit-hole, I've often entertained the idea that intellectualism (like any form of abstract thinking behaviour) may itself finally merely be a response to trauma. In Reichian character structure, the first defence that forms is escaping to the world of thinking when triggered.
This one was challenging.
As someone without an academic background in philosophy, I'm sure I'm missing most of the story here, but I wish I could've taken more away from hearing Zak. There were some points that seemed to be presented as too obvious to merit discussion, but I found unintuitive:
• Why would life in a deterministic universe be necessarily without meaning?
• I don't know much about Sam Harris' view on determinism other than reading his essay Free Will years ago. Is there something he's said since then that would merit using him as an example determinist? iirc, his essay presented determinism as an interesting intellectual curiosity which he believed was both scientifically true and practically irrelevant.
• The "heat death of the universe" that Daniel mentioned is another such belief with scientific truth and practical irrelevance. If true, the universe is on an irreversible course toward the complete and total end of all possibility. Is the view here that a deterministic universe would be necessarily meaningless, but a universe with such an end is somehow meaningful?
I say none of this to challenge the conversation. Though, I did find some of the arguments a little indulgent (e.g., remarking that opposing viewpoints are consistent with people suffering from brain damage). I just wish as a non-academic that I could've got more out of this as I feel like Zak would have some really interesting and less indulgent points to make on these questions.
I laughed at the idea of Sam Harris matter of factly telling his kids he loves them and instantly telling them not to think too much about it because he had no free will to think otherwise.