[Homo_Sapien]

(05-28-2013 12:22 PM)sylo Wrote:  

I ak still not getting your point fully. If you are bashing luck, which I think you are...so what? If you are in the right spot at the right time, can't that also mean you put yourself in the right spot, at the right time? I am reminded of a quote by Thomas Jefferson "I believe in luck. The more I work, the more luck I have." (Might not be verbaitum)

What is your end goal? What is your point? We are all equal and should share the wealth? That is what I am getting but I am not sure. You ask a lot of questions but I do not see any defining statements or solutions.

Sapien, what specifically do you have a problem with?

I don't think the OP is implying what you said about punishment, he's asking why people are punished or credited for events that are wholly based on luck rather than any personal decision. His personal belief is that people should be punished for their decisions. He doesn't seem to be suggesting a solution to the problem, as I think that would be not only impossible to implement but a bad idea in the first place, which is why I posted the Sam Harris video.

Harris argues that people cannot be held responsible for their actions. He gives the example of a typical murderer who has a combination of bad genes, a difficult childhood, current circumstances and/or a neurological make-up which is inclined to psychopathy. None of which the murderer has any control over (a victim of biology and circumstance). Essentially, if you had exactly the same body and life that he did, you would be a murderer too. Should we lock him up for the safety of society? Possibly.

Further, no evidence has been found to support the argument that we are the conscious source of our thoughts or decisions (free will), rather both are merely by-products of our brain structure / upbringing / past experiences / current circumstances / genes etc. Nobody can choose what to think, thoughts just arise in the mind.

Watch the video as Harris explains it much better than me and does an interesting experiment with the audience about where thoughts originate.

Another problem is that Christopher Columbus basically initiated the colonization and destruction of an entire native population, as well as brought the poison that is Christianity to the Americas. Go Columbus! Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I don't think anyone could say the subsequent genocide and mass oppression were worth any apparent discovery. I was just saying that it wasn't a good example of something someone should be given credit for.

Thirdly, I'm not sure how OP's post relates to Marxism, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it as maybe I've missed something. No sarcasm intended here.

Wutang Wrote:

So how do you reconcile this with being a on a forum that is devoted to men improving themselves and rests on the premise that people can change themselves by choosing to work at it? Not only that but the forum also mocks people who choose not to change (ie. fat chicks saying that can't do anything about it when it's really just them not wanting to do anything about it). Lots of intellectually inclined people have been taking free will to task in the last couple of years - as a matter of fact I've seen it a couple of times in this forum - but I haven't seen one person actually live out the idea to it's fullest extent.

A person's 'decision' to work at self-improvement is the same as the murderer mentioned above. Perhaps we (RVF members) don't have the right genes/brain chemistry to be naturally successful, or our parents didn't do something right when we were growing up, or it was just a coincidence that we stumbled upon the forum searching for a specific topic on game / travel / business and we stayed because we like the other discussions.

I don't agree with a lot of the things said on this forum but I stay because I find it a useful resource and a place where topics I'm interested in can be discussed by relatively smart people.

Again I'd urge you to watch the video I posted previously as it is extremely insightful. Harris is a neuroscientist and philosopher, an incredibly potent mix because he understands why we think the way we do, and he's bringing his knowledge to an audience of millions through being a great public speaker.

[Wutang]

I actually did watch the video and that's a reason I brought up the my point. Towards the end of his talk Harris seemed to do a 180 because he wanted to make clear his stance didn't lead to fatalism and talked about how you can still change yourself. He even used the word "choice" when referring to a person choosing to make a change to himself which I thought was sort of amusing in that it showed that even someone who does not believe in free will still has immense difficulty in not living and thinking as if he had it.

I don't discount that people certain have natural advantages and disadvantages and that they were dealt certain cards. I do think people do have the choice to choose between those cards though. For example, we might still be blue pill if we never stumbled upon Roosh's page, but we did and we were freely able to choose whether to follow the advice advocated on this page or we could have just rejected it and be like IRT or a beta male hater instead.

I can see why sylo thought this line of thought be associated with Marxism and totalitarianism. The logical outcome of such a worldview is that since no one has free agency and that everyone's actions is determined by previous causes that are material (ie. chemical and biological forces), which we should in theory be able to study and then eventually discover what sort of forces cause certain behavior which would mean that state could justify genetically programming people towards certain "acceptable" behavior. Or the state could also do a genetic analysis of anyone and determine that this person has a combination of genes that make them likely to become a criminal and preemptively jail or execute him ahead of time.

It would also seem to me like we can't make any sort of moral judgements about anyone's actions. For example, you disapproved of what Christopher Columbus did but by your and Harris' worldview you can't really make any judgement about what he did if he was just the product of his environment - which in case would be growing up in a zealous Catholic country that was interested in colonization. You can't be upset about that anymore then you could be upset about the alligator that attacks you that Harris uses as an example in his video.

[cardguy]

Hey Samseau,

Yeah - I really like Karl Popper. My favourite thinkers are those who write as clearly as possible and he is one of those.

He had an interesting essay where he seemed to challenge the philosophical basis of evolution. But others have said that his essay in this area was misunderstood. It is an interesting controversy which I haven't looked into for awhile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper...on_of_life

Also - Karl Popper had a rule that when he attacked an argument he made sure he had set up the argument he was attacking as clearly and as strongly as possible. He would then find the most persuasive part of that argument and start his attack there.

The idea being that if you can destroy your opponent's argument where it is strongest - it leaves your opponent with no means of escape from your argument (as long as your argument is correct that is!).

I thought that was a great rule of thumb. Anyway - I have being meaning to check out some more philosophy. And I am going to go over Popper's work again since his way of thinking is pretty close to the style I am most inerested in just now.

Also - since Karl Popper was so interested in the philosophy of science - I just want to mention a position that I hold to. It puts into words a concept which I have often thought of but failed to concisely express:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction

Lastly - in my earlier response I went over my interests in philosophy. Well - I forgot to mention that I am very interested in meta-philosophy as well. That is to say - philosophical questions analaysing the nature of philosophy (as a pursuit) itself.

It is a growing field - but I haven't read too much into it just yet. But a quick look on amazon throws up alot of some interesting works. Although I have read a nice book by Heidegger in which he argues the past 2500 years of philosophy has being a big mistake. In Heidegger's view - Socrates (the father of modern philosophy) took philosophy in the wrong direction compared to the direction some of the early pre-Socratic philosophers wanted to go in.

But most of Heidegger's work can be hard to appraise. More conventionally - Colin McGinn has an excellent book called The Problems Of Philosophy which argues that many of the most important questions in philosophy may be impossible for humans to solve. And there is an analytic philosopher (whose name I forget just now) who has a book which contains an essay tracing back the foundations of analytic philosophy to the nature (and grammar) of the German language. That is a work I would like to check out.

Another fun piece is 'On Philosophical Style' by Brand Blandshard which is devoted to criticising the terrible writiing skills of alot of the most important philosophers. And it advocates philosophers to write as clearly as possible so that there work can be even more powerful than it already is. I really enjoyed (and agreed!) with that book.

Lastly - I found this tidbit from Daniel Dennett to be an interesting thought experiment in terms of analysing if philosophy is closer to an art than a science:

http://www.edge.org/conversation/dennetts-deal

This article has being recently updated - so I am going to read the newer version now.

[cardguy]

Also - I love this interview with Richard Rorty. This clip where he discusses his childhood is so bleak. It is almost funny.

Still - he has my respect for being so honest in his critical description of himself. I really admire that.

[Bill]

Quote:

Lots of intellectually inclined people have been taking free will to task in the last couple of years - as a matter of fact I've seen it a couple of times in this forum - but I haven't seen one person actually live out the idea to it's fullest extent.

The thing is in general a guy who doesn´t believe in free will, thinks that people are "social" robots. There is no possibility to prove it wrong.

You say people who say they have no free will do not live out the idea. How must this living out to the fullest extent look like? I have asked myself the question but I didn´t find an answer.

Basically you are saying that determinists don´t believe and act according to what they are saying. You basically say we are hypocrites. Maybe yes to some extent. Believing in determinism does not change your life to much in my opinion. Why would we be so different? After all we are no psychopath just normal guys who accept that we all have huge in build rationalization hamsters for our "meaningless" life.

[Wutang]

I would say first of all it would involve not making any sorts of value judgement about anything and as Harris said, it would would mean you can't hold anyone responsible for anything they have done whether it be good or bad. If someone is a brilliant scientist or accomplished in whatever field they are in, you should give him no more praise or recognition then you would for someone who won the lottery. Someone like IRT or fat feminists shouldn't deserve any derision for being who they are. In fact, the whole mission and point of this website would be nullified and so would any notion of self-improvement as if there is no free will or any sort then there is nothing you can do to really improve yourself. It's nothing that "you' are doing after all, it's just forces molding you without you willing it.

Also as I wrote in my previous post, if you believe absolute determinism then it seems like a totalitarian, Brave New World type government would be the way to go and you shouldn't be aghast at the prospect of it. Democracy requires that the people under it be free agents that can plot out their own destinies. If they are not capable of doing that and are only products of forces beyond their control, then it undermines the whole basis of it. If people aren't willing agents then they are just cogs in a machine and should be managed accordingly.

[Homo_Sapien]

(05-29-2013 10:52 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

I actually did watch the video and that's a reason I brought up the my point. Towards the end of his talk Harris seemed to do a 180 because he wanted to make clear his stance didn't lead to fatalism and talked about how you can still change yourself. He even used the word "choice" when referring to a person choosing to make a change to himself which I thought was sort of amusing in that it showed that even someone who does not believe in free will still has immense difficulty in not living and thinking as if he had it.

I don't discount that people certain have natural advantages and disadvantages and that they were dealt certain cards. I do think people do have the choice to choose between those cards though. For example, we might still be blue pill if we never stumbled upon Roosh's page, but we did and we were freely able to choose whether to follow the advice advocated on this page or we could have just rejected it and be like IRT or a beta male hater instead.

I can see why sylo thought this line of thought be associated with Marxism and totalitarianism. The logical outcome of such a worldview is that since no one has free agency and that everyone's actions is determined by previous causes that are material (ie. chemical and biological forces), which we should in theory be able to study and then eventually discover what sort of forces cause certain behavior which would mean that state could justify genetically programming people towards certain "acceptable" behavior. Or the state could also do a genetic analysis of anyone and determine that this person has a combination of genes that make them likely to become a criminal and preemptively jail or execute him ahead of time.

It would also seem to me like we can't make any sort of moral judgements about anyone's actions. For example, you disapproved of what Christopher Columbus did but by your and Harris' worldview you can't really make any judgement about what he did if he was just the product of his environment - which in case would be growing up in a zealous Catholic country that was interested in colonization. You can't be upset about that anymore then you could be upset about the alligator that attacks you that Harris uses as an example in his video.

I didn't see any u-turns at all. When Harris was talking about the choice to either do nothing or improve ourselves, it was still within the context of all those prior causes he talked about.

One man's life: All prior causes > Accept determinism as fact > Conclude that fatalism is therefore the correct worldview > Do nothing

Another person who comes to accept determinism as fact may not conclude that fatalism is correct due to their own prior causes.

One point that he only hints at in this video with the references to utilitarianism, but has made explicitly in his books, is that the choices we make are also important because they lead to either suffering or happiness. Most of us would agree that a reduction in suffering is a good thing for everyone. So we can make the choice, albeit a choice which is itself the result of prior causes, to keep investigating ourselves and the world through scientific study and intellectual debate and to teach each other and our children that by exposing oneself to all possible channels of information, one can make the most informed 'choices', so that we may one day attempt to eliminate these causes that result in suffering (i.e. the removal of bad genes / finding a consensus based on scientific fact regarding the best way to raise children / mapping a human's brain to find the cause of any abnormalities and remedy that if possible etc.) This of course is a problem, as you mention, because there are completely innocent psychopaths, and who has the right to forcefully alter such a person's brain.

Although, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think Sylo is getting confused between historical materialism and determinism. The first being that human actions are primarily motivated (determined) by resources rather than politics or morality, the second being that the stateof anything is only determined by prior states. Secondly, Marxist theory eventually ends with the elimination of the state, and only distortions of true Marxist theory (see Stalinism) would result in totalitarianism. Personally I don't believe true communism (stateless and classless) could ever come about among major human populations, but that is for another thread.

With regard to the choice between swallowing the red pill or 'choosing' to disregard it, that choice would also be subject to all the factors that Harris mentioned (upbringing, genes, current circumstance, neurophysiology etc.) This is why feminists/betas see our discussions and conclusions as misogynist or chauvinist, and we see it as truth. We are coming from completely different places and leading completely different lives. We are not 'free' to choose whether to accept this. I'm sure most of us here at RVF were already inclined to take on board what fellow like-minded individuals had already discovered for themselves.

To take an example from my own introduction to the manosphere, I stumbled upon Rollo Tomassi's blog while searching for something else. I found that his objective criticism of traditional world-views just seemed to make sense and were incredibly interesting to me, but this was only because I have a rational and quite objective mind in addition to being interested in the topics he was discussing. A female/beta stumbling across Rollo's blog may not find it so interesting, rather insulting or too alien to comprehend.

I stressed Columbus' actions and their consequences to highlight that it was a bad example to use in his argument, but you're right in saying that condemning him is the same as condemning an alligator. I still judge people as if they did have free will because I only recently became interested in the subject and after 23 years of assuming free will exists and being human myself, it's not easy to change so soon.

I think Harris makes the most convincing arguments on the topic given his background in neuroscience. I think the debate will be settled, as he says, when we can fully understand exactly how our brain functions and the exact neurophysiology of every individual, and how this gives rise to consciousness / the mind / etc.

[Bill]

(05-29-2013 01:37 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I would say first of all it would involve not making any sorts of value judgement about anything and as Harris said, it would would mean you can't hold anyone responsible for anything they have done whether it be good or bad. If someone is a brilliant scientist or accomplished in whatever field they are in, you should give him no more praise or recognition then you would for someone who won the lottery. Someone like IRT or fat feminists shouldn't deserve any derision for being who they are. In fact, the whole mission and point of this website would be nullified and so would any notion of self-improvement as if there is no free will or any sort then there is nothing you can do to really improve yourself. It's nothing that "you' are doing after all, it's just forces molding you without you willing it.

Also as I wrote in my previous post, if you believe absolute determinism then it seems like a totalitarian, Brave New World type government would be the way to go and you shouldn't be aghast at the prospect of it. Democracy requires that the people under it be free agents that can plot out their own destinies. If they are not capable of doing that and are only products of forces beyond their control, then it undermines the whole basis of it. If people aren't willing agents then they are just cogs in a machine and should be managed accordingly.

Probably this should be discussed at the "free will thread" as I think we are getting slightly off topic here.

[Wutang]

"I didn't see any u-turns at all. When Harris was talking about the choice to either do nothing or improve ourselves, it was still within the context of all those prior causes he talked about.

One man's life: All prior causes > Accept determinism as fact > Conclude that fatalism is therefore the correct worldview > Do nothing

Another person who comes to accept determinism as fact may not conclude that fatalism is correct due to their own prior causes."

In that case, he shouldn't have used the word choice as there was no choice being made. It was only the outcome of prior causes that the being had no control over.

And if we should be making choices that lead to elimination of suffering, how should we be making these choices? How is a choice even being made between what is good or bad?

[Homo_Sapien]

(05-29-2013 02:04 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

"I didn't see any u-turns at all. When Harris was talking about the choice to either do nothing or improve ourselves, it was still within the context of all those prior causes he talked about.

One man's life: All prior causes > Accept determinism as fact > Conclude that fatalism is therefore the correct worldview > Do nothing

Another person who comes to accept determinism as fact may not conclude that fatalism is correct due to their own prior causes."

In that case, he shouldn't have used the word choice as there was no choice being made. It was only the outcome of prior causes that the being had no control over.

And if we should be making choices that lead to elimination of suffering, how should we be making these choices? How is a choice even being made between what is good or bad?

I think he uses it for lack of a better word, as it can still be applied to a decision which was the result of prior causes.

Your first question is one that requires lengthy philosophical and ethical debate which I'm not going to get into this late at night!

Your second question is irrelevant as you seem to be using good and bad as absolute terms. There is no such thing.

I think we can all agree that, in the time and place we are at right now in the universe, it serves us and our fellow animals best that the elimination of suffering in sentient beings is what we should be striving for.

Of course in the grand scheme of things (see: heat death of the universe), complete nihilism basically the only philosophy with any merit at all.

[Wutang]

For my second question, looks like I wasn't clear so I apologize. The main point I was driving towards is that before you seemed to be saying we should - with should implying that we have a duty to do so - choose something that leads to less suffering and avoid what leads to more. My question was how are we even able to make these choices? Under a deterministic worldview, we aren't. And if aren't then I don't see how we can have a duty to do so. Even if most of us agree that less suffering is a good thing, it seems like the most we can hope for is that the world has already been pre-determined to lead to a future where there is less suffering so there is no use in really talking about what we can do to create such a world whether it be becoming more well-informed or becoming more scientifically literate.

[Samseau]

Cardguy - how can you claim to enjoy clear writing and Heidegger? That's a contradiction in terms. Moreover Heidegger is garbage and I find no value in his work. Same goes for Rorty, or any other relativist. These guys are just pop philosophers and no one will talk about them in 100 years. That said, it does not mean these men cannot be great teachers. I simply abhor their conclusions but usually their expertise and knowledge of works they have already read is spot on. Naturally, this is how all philosophers should treat each other.

Popper, on the other hand, makes genuine philosophical progress in the tradition of Kant, a philosopher people will still be talking about 2000 years from now.

As for pessimistic induction, the idea that we aren't making progress in knowledge seems to be contradicted by the fact that humans continue to grow in mastery over the world - nuclear, space, nano, and computer technology make a strong case against pessimistic induction. Far more persuasive is the idea that we aren't making moral progress, and that our technological progress seems to impede on questions concerning humanity.

My advice to anyone who wishes to improve their life with philosophy is to stay away from relativists, who use self-refuting arguments in order to appear intelligent, and stick to the classical men seeking Truth, such as the Greeks, Romans, and Enlightenment thinkers.

These thinkers are much more practical and lead to real world successes. George Soros, for example, was a student of Popper and claimed to use falsification in becoming a billionaire. Robespierre read Rousseau. Darwin read Aristotle. Lincoln read Euclid.

Striving for knowledge, even if it is an impossible task, seems far more rewarding to me than striving for un-knowledge.

[cardguy]

I read alot of Heidegger - and didn't learn much from it to be honest. It was just an 'existensial phase' I went through. Still - he was very knowleedgable about the history of philosophy (particularly early philosophy). So - there was more to his work than just his ideas.

And the essay I mentioned wasfun because it was neat reading a guy trying to roll back philosophy 2500 years.

As for Rorty - never read him. I just became curious about him because of his voice. He has such a flat monotone voice that I am convinced he must have pretty severe Aspergers Syndrome. So - I was interested in seeing a guy whose mental 'disability' has probably being a help in his career.

Anyway - Samseau. What do you think of Wittgenstein's work? I liked the Tractatus (which is like Kant meets Frege) but didn't like the Philosophical Investigations. But it seems most people have it the other way round.

Still - I am a bit sceptical about his work. Since the Tractatus doesn't offer much more than you will find in Schopenhauer's work. But I am no expert. I just feel a bit suspicious about the personality cult which has built up around Wittgenstein. At my Uni (Manchester) all the professors (and students) thought Wittgenstein was the greatest philosopher ever. Even though Kant wasn't on the syllabus!

[cardguy]

Pessimistic Induction is more useful for fields like medicine where 'the scientific consensus' continually gets overturned. Still - it is a wider problem than just that. Indeed - a book recently came out that got alot of press. And that book covers alot more examples of this sort of thing.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/159184472X [The Half-life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date]

Don't forget as well that it seems that even Newton, Einstein and Darwin were not 100% correct in their work.

Newton's work was overturned by Einstein.

And then Einstein's work is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.

And more recently - the latest research suggests that some forms of Lamarckism seems to still be at work in Natural Selection. Which is something that would have surprised Charles Darwin. And which is something that Richard Dawkins said was probably impossible in principle about 20 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism#Current_views

[Wutang]

(05-29-2013 04:15 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Still - I am a bit sceptical about his work. Since the Tractatus doesn't offer much more than you will find in Schopenhauer's work. But I am no expert. I just feel a bit suspicious about the personality cult which has built up around Wittgenstein. At my Uni (Manchester) all the professors (and students) thought Wittgenstein was the greatest philosopher ever. Even though Kant wasn't on the syllabus!

Not surprising since Schopenhauer was one of the first philosophers Wittgenstein read and was a huge influence on him. Bryan Magee's "Philosophy of Schopenhauer" has a very good chapter on the influence of Schopenhauer on Wittgenstein.

Be sure to check out Bryan Magee's other works on philosophy. He's an amateur rather then professional philosopher and while he hasn't really done much original work on his own I haven't read anyone else that does a better job of summing up and articulating the great ideas in philosophy for the general public without dumbing it down as him. I would recommend "Confessions of a Philosopher". Magee knew Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper personally and wrote a chapter each about his experiences with each in that book. In particular he is a huge fan of Karl Popper's "The Open Society and It's Enemies" and many other of Popper's ideas and he gives a very good overview of it in "Confessions of a Philosopher". I see that you're British so I'm guessing there might be a chance you are at least slightly aware of Magee's name: he made a lot of television programs that appeared on British television back in the 70s and 80s that were geared towards bringing philosophy to the general public.

[Wutang]

Some quotes from "Confessions of a Philosopher". When I first read these, it inspired me to go out and read the book ASAP so I'm hoping it'll do the same for you.

http://www.basicincome.com/bp/bryanmagee.htm

"Popper held that all of us must inevitably hold metaphysical beliefs about the world, whether we like it or not, and he mischievously gave as a genuine example in his own case his belief in the existence of regularities in nature."

"When all analysis has come to an end, our belief in rationality is an act of faith, and an act of faith that can be justified, if at all, only by our success in meeting criticisms and surviving tests. Popper does not believe in ultimate foundations, neither for morality, nor for rationality, nor for knowledge, and his philosophy asserts that they do not need to be postulated in any of these fields."

"I do not think it will ever be possible to eliminate fashions in intellectual nonsense. They have existed for as long as human beings have existed because they meet so many strong human desires, including the desire for extravagant emotional self-indulgence. They give us all the answers—and this in turn gives us a sense of mastery of the problems that we see as confronting us, as well as a sense of superiority to the uninitiated. Real thinking is hard—not only labourious but more often than not unsuccessful, leaving us with a frustrating sense of our own inadequacy and our ignorance, not to mention exposing these to the raised eyebrows of others. It will always be easier to flee in the direction of what is safe, and safe because approved already. Our lack of self-confidence will always incline us to believe that if what we think is at odds with what a lot of intelligent people are saying then they are more likely to be right than we are. In practice it is not usually the case that the chief recommendation of abstract beliefs is their truth."

[cardguy]

Yeah - I'm a big fan of that book. It is one of the best books I ever read. I'm really glad I got to read it when I first became interested in philosophy.

His book on Schopenhauer is excellent as well. Indeed - Magee is very sceptical about full time academics since he feels they have to spend more staying up to date with the latest work that they don' get a chance to study the classics at lesiure and over long periods of time.

That whole book shaped my outlook in a way that no other book has.

I was only dissapointed that Magee didn't discuss Evolution in his book. Since it is one of the most powerful philosophical ideas ever. 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' by Daniel Dennett is a good analysis of the philosophical power of Darwin's work.

Because of that absence - I am a little worried that Magee may have overlooked an important area since it isn't classified as 'philosophy'.

[Wutang]

Perhaps he just didn't have have much to say about it. I don't think he overlooked it because it was science as opposed to philosophy since he was mentioned quantum mechanics in his works before and if I call correctly he also referred to Einstein's theory of relativity as one of the works that he's caused a huge change to his worldview. I remember him complaining about in "Confessions of a Philosopher" about how when he was a undergraduate history major at Oxford, he had to write an essay about some obscure vicar while barely being taught anything Issac Newton despite Newton coming up with a whole new science the revolutionized the Western world. I do think Magee has a healthy respect for the physical sciences.

[Homo_Sapien]

(05-29-2013 03:10 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

For my second question, looks like I wasn't clear so I apologize. The main point I was driving towards is that before you seemed to be saying we should - with should implying that we have a duty to do so - choose something that leads to less suffering and avoid what leads to more. My question was how are we even able to make these choices? Under a deterministic worldview, we aren't. And if aren't then I don't see how we can have a duty to do so. Even if most of us agree that less suffering is a good thing, it seems like the most we can hope for is that the world has already been pre-determined to lead to a future where there is less suffering so there is no use in really talking about what we can do to create such a world whether it be becoming more well-informed or becoming more scientifically literate.

We are able to make 'choices' in the sense that we can become well-informed and use our powers of reason to determine the best course of action to reduce suffering. We can discuss, debate, criticize and praise ideas. None of this requires free will.

You still seem to be stuck on the notion that determinism equals fatalism. A point which Harris swiftly rejected in the video.