Sam Harris on Free Will, Spirituality, and Artificial Intelligence

Watch the full interview:
Sam Harris (author and neuroscientist) joins Dave Rubin for a 2 hour sit down about Islam, Trump, Hillary, Religion, free will, and artificial intelligence. ***Subscribe:

This week’s Direct Message:

SUPPORT MONTHLY (Patreon):

SUPPORT ONE-TIME (PayPal):

What are your thoughts? Comment below or tweet to Dave:

Sign up for our newsletter with the best of Rubin Report each week:

Find us on Patreon:

******
Sam Harris
Author and Neuroscientist
Sam on Twitter:
Get the book:

******
Follow Dave on Twitter:
Follow The Rubin Report on Facebook:
Follow Dave on Facebook:
About Dave Rubin:

******
Care about free speech? Tired of political correctness? Like discussions about big ideas? Watch Dave Rubin on The Rubin Report. Real conversations, unfiltered rants, and one on one interviews with some of the most interesting names in news and entertainment. Comedians, authors, and influencers join Dave each week to break down the latest in politics and current events. The Rubin Report is fully fan-funded, find us on Patreon.

29 comments

  1. neo theskepticarena says:

    Gamma Ray Burst wrote “however an
    omniscience would have the necessary resources to anticipate anything and
    everything.”

    I’m also growing tired of your references to fairy tales.

    If you have proof of this omniscient being – feel free to present it.

  2. neo theskepticarena says:

    Gamma Ray Burst wrote “i think this
    would be termed combinatorial explosion and it is why we can safely assume
    that
    we are not brains in a vat.”

    Not really interested in your assumptions.
    What I was interested in, and asked for, was evidence.

    That is something I am still waiting for.

  3. neo theskepticarena says:

    Gamma Ray Burst wrote “omniscience
    would be knowing what every possible eventuality would be if certain
    parameters
    are set.”

    I’ve already explained that omniscience is knowing the outcome, the only
    outcome, as supported by the theory of Wave Function Collapse.

    Since you ignored my explanation – I understand that you must ignore it
    again.
    But you can’t say I didn’t try.

  4. neo theskepticarena says:

    Gamma Ray Burst wrote “in a physical
    universe, all matter interacts creating innumerable possibilities”

    While you have google open, search for dark matter;
    you should discover that this claim, like nearly all your other claims – is
    false.

  5. neo theskepticarena says:

    Gamma Ray Burst wrote “there are
    simply probabilistic outcomes based on external factors.”

    Your thinking is tied up into so many knots it could pass for an anaconda
    mating ball.

    See my previous advice to google “Wave Function Collapse.”

  6. neo theskepticarena says:

    Gamma Ray Burst wrote “there is no
    such thing as the single outcome”

    I would suggest that you google “Wave function collapse” and bring yourself
    up to speed.

    Your claim was so wrong – it doesn’t even rise to the level of wrong.

    Everything has ONLY a single outcome.

  7. neo theskepticarena says:

    Gamma Ray Burst wrote “I have no such
    evidence. Recollecting the past and reliving it vicariously through one’s
    children is the closest analogue in human behavior that I can summon.”

    How in the world did you conclude that activating neurons containing
    memories has anything to do with time travel?

    Ditto for children.

    Now you’ve gone beyond desperate.

    This is what happens when your ego takes over your brain:
    it reduces you to a desperate caricature of a reasoning person.

  8. neo theskepticarena says:

    Gamma Ray Burst wrote “I’m envisioning
    an omniscience that knows all potential outcomes not just the one you have
    “opted” for.

    You ignored my question, ignored the explanation that your claim of
    potential outcomes is nonsensical, and merely repeated your claim.

    Only in politics and religion does nonsense gain credibility by repetition.

    When people like you reach this point, trying to reason with you is
    fruitless.

    You are now in “ego” mode.

  9. neo theskepticarena says:

    Gamma Ray Burst wrote “actually, star
    gazing is evidence of time travel. light reaches us billions of years after
    it
    leaves the originating star, hence when it arrives to Earth, we are
    literally
    looking back in time.”

    According to your claim, when we see light that has traveled 8 minutes from
    the sun – everyone on Earth is time traveling.

    Since every photon that strikes your eye had to travel some distance to get
    there, everything you see happened in the past.

    How you are able to conclude that this fact equals time travel
    shows how desperate people become once their egos take over their brain,
    and hence, their argument.

    Now you’ve stopped thinking and you are merely engaging in game-playing,
    the purpose of which is to defend your ego.

  10. GrandSupremeDaddyo says:

    I hope Sam Remains as regular for the forseeable future. I had a similar
    experience to Dave being a fan of TYT and seeing them pretty much embody
    the fall of the left with Cenk’s treatment of Sam.
    The two of you are a pleasant reminder that I didn’t just unwittingly and
    arbitrarily become a right-winger.

  11. knox160 says:

    This comment is to “Gamma Ray Burst”

    You have been Dissssss-Misssssed.
    Exactly which part of “NEXT!”
    do you NOT understand?

    (also, it is unnecessary to upvote your own comments)

    (and blocking neo was quite childish but thanks for waving the white flag)

  12. knox160 says:

    Sports Fans – if you scroll down and read Gamma Ray’s last few comments you
    can see what happens to a Harris Fan Boy after he has been thrashed around
    like a gazelle in the jaws of a lion. He exploded like fireworks on the 4th
    of July into a thousand little Shit Balls.

    It was spectacular

  13. betty williams says:

    Wow. The comment exchange below is pretty amazing. One guy, Gamma Dude
    Somebody, completely blew his cookies when he couldn’t respond to
    questions. I would hate to date someone with a cerebellum that screwed up.
    By the way, if you chk my avatar you can see what I’m looking for in a man.

  14. B says:

    to me we will have to redefined, what is understood for the most when
    speaking of free will,
    it gives me more to consider and with Alan Watts in mind, Alan’s view upon
    being a cloud, a cloud is always perfect, not that a painted cloud does not
    appear as perfect as you wish.And the idea of or concept that there are no
    mistakes.

  15. ELEMTEY says:

    Da fuq. I’ve seen people on MDMA and it ain’t pretty, they grind their
    teeth, their eyes are fucked up and they puke everywhere. Then, the next 3
    days they are the grumpiest assholes to be around. I couldn’t bear to take
    it myself after taking care of people on it lol.
    Edit: Also, that seeing yourself through people’s eyes is what I know as
    paranoia. It’s such a debbie downer when I’m trashed. ;____;

  16. NavShay says:

    People always mistake bad behavior as a result of no consequence with
    having the free will to control the behavior. The reason Rubin doesn’t
    whack him with the book is because he learned during his childhood that
    behavior has negative outcomes. So his nervous system decides not to do it.
    People do not avoid misbehaving because they have free will, they do it
    because they learned the negative outcome, just as those who misbehave
    didn’t have the opportunity to learn that (either genetically or
    environmentally)

  17. neo theskepticarena says:

    NavShay wrote “People do not avoid
    misbehaving because they have free will, they do it because they learned the
    negative outcome”

    Can you support that assertion with evidence?

    The reason I ask is because I’ve begged about 100 of Harris’ Fan Boys for
    evidence (scroll back 1,000 comments) but not one has been able to do so.

    Hey Shay, maybe you will finally be that hero that everyone has been
    waiting for?

    Come on Shay – be THAT guy

  18. neo theskepticarena says:

    NavShay wrote “So his nervous system
    decides not to do it.”

    Do you have links to any scientific studies to support your assertion that
    the human nervous system makes decisions?

    How do you know that his nervous system decided not to do it?

    How do you know that his nervous system wasn’t overruled by his mind?

  19. neo theskepticarena says:

    NavShay wrote “The reason Rubin
    doesn’t whack him with the book is because he learned during his childhood
    that
    behavior has negative outcomes.”

    How do you know when Rubin learned that?
    Were you there?
    Did he tell you?

    Or are you just pulling that crap out of your ass like you did in your
    previous statement?

    (Sports Fans: big hint here – go with the last one)

  20. neo theskepticarena says:

    NavShay wrote “People always mistake
    bad behavior as a result of no consequence with having the free will to
    control
    the behavior.”

    How do you know people always make that mistake?
    Have you seen it yourself in “people always?”
    Does Sam Harris make that mistake? Isn’t he included in “people always?”
    Or did you read it in a poll?

    Can you answer any one of those questions?

  21. John Oliver says:

    free will is a strange myth isnt it? the illusion of agency makes sense
    from an evolutionary standpoint though. but free will is certainly not
    cased by anything beyond the same laws of physics that determine the path a
    star will travel around a black hole.

  22. neo theskepticarena says:

    John Oliver wrote “free will is
    certainly not cased by anything beyond the same laws of physics that
    determine
    the path a star will travel around a black hole.”

    Except that a star cannot choose to change direction, can it?

  23. neo theskepticarena says:

    John Oliver wrote “free will is a strange myth isnt it?”

    Ya know – I was just thinking the same thing about Calvinism …

    I mean Determinism.

  24. zeljkodjokovic says:

    The simple fact that hard determinism is not falsifiable suggests to me
    that the scientific explanation of nonexisting free will is not a valid
    one. You can’t turn clock backward and test that hypothesis so the claim
    that you would do the same thing and choose the same choice is simply not
    valid. That doesn’t mean that free will is correct explanation, it simply
    means that eather way of looking at it is the same in the power of
    explaning the phenomenon. My view on this subject is that the knowledge of
    nonexisting free will doesn’t change the fact that the illusion of free
    will is happening in reality. Just like saying that we may be living in a
    simulation doesn’t change the fact that reality is still happening the same
    without that knowledge.

  25. neo theskepticarena says:

    RetroKitten wrote “watch the video?
    who comes here to just comment”

    If you can control your snark for a moment,
    perhaps you can make an attempt to answer the question,
    which I will repeat:

    “What insights into free will?”

    If the answer was evident in the video,
    I wouldn’t have needed to ask the question.

  26. neo theskepticarena says:

    RetroKitten wrote “except chemistry
    and physics is at the root of all of it”

    Root of all what?

    What do you mean “at the root?”

    How do you know that only chemistry and physics “are” at the “root” of “all
    of it?”

  27. Marvin Edwards says:

    There is no such thing as “freedom from causation”. It is an oxymoron. In
    the absence of reliable causation, we cannot reliably cause any effect,
    that is, we can’t do anything. So this notion that we must somehow be free
    of causation in order to be truly free is a mental error, an oxymoron. When
    you think it through you will discover that what you will inevitably do is
    exactly identical to what you would have done anyway. And that is not a
    meaningful or relevant constraint. The hard determinist makes the original
    error and sells it to the priest. The priest invokes the supernatural to
    escape this imaginary constraint, resulting in the libertarian position.
    But both are equally deluded. The truth is that reliable causation empowers
    us. All of our scientific progress rests upon the presumption of a
    deterministic universe. To view reliable causation instead as something
    that enslaves us is a mental health problem.

Comments are closed.