You’re certainly right that it would change our criminal justice system but I don’t think it really matters from a day to day perspective if we know free will exists or not. Even if we know it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t break the illusion. You’ll still live your life making the best decisions you can and personally, I think people should just keep that mentality. After all, it’s out feeling that we are responsible for our actions that makes us want to be the best we can be. That being said, I do think we should keep free will in mind for our justice system. If most people get that we are basically physical systems, I think our justice system would become more geared toward rehabilitation instead of punishment for criminals. We would see criminals as simply the result if their environment and blame fate instead of the actual criminals, for their actions. I think the Norwegian prison system gets this well, but I won’t pretend it is easy to do. We all still feel a need for justice against those who wronged us. It will take a lot of willpower and education to just blame fate instead of people for crime.
The term "willpower" in itself seems outdated in a deterministic world. "Impulse control" might be a better term, as in "just another mental resource that can counteract our natural instincts". But even then, "control" implies agency and thus responsibility. Maybe in the end, impulse "control" would just be a "counter instinct", and depending on much of it you have, you would be more or less prone to following your impulses from your limbic system vs. those from your prefrontal cortex.
So it does make a big difference. We still rightly try to make the best decisions we can but we recognise that ultimately we're fated to select the option we do. It's ultimately a matter of luck and if we apllied that across the board, criminal justice, politics, how we treat ourselves and others, it makes a big positive difference.
@@cosmicprison9819 impulse control is correct, it’s part of our brains ability to operate in society. As for responsibility, it doesn’t change all that much, instead of seeking revenge we should seek to repair society by altering future antisocial behavior through rehabilitation or preventing it from happening by keeping someone from society.
The main problem for our moral system is how differently limited will is. If everyone's mind had the exact same limitations, we could still maybe hold everyone to the same objective standard. But from intelligence over medical conditions to personality traits, we're all determined by our neurological setup in so vastly different ways that such a standard that applies to everyone will never be equally achievable for everyone.
Therefore, getting the basics right is mandatory, starting with insisting everyone have an adequate epistemology before being allowed to manage money, vote, have a child, etc.
Spot on, most people don't understand this. It's called the common mind fallacy. Most people think everyone's mind is basically the same, bar severe impediments (psychosis, severe intellectual disability, anti social personality disorder). Most people think humans are blank slates, not unique beings with individual genetic blueprints and wiring. It's hard to know how alien some other peoples mind may be to yours. For example, there are some people, such as ER doctors, who have the tenacity and determination to work 16 hour shifts 7 days a week with a few vacations here-and-there for years on end. That's a are thing. You can't just will yourself to be one of those people. And if you can, you were one of those people all along.
Determinism sounds a lot like social Darwinism which was used to single out and stereotype and demonise certain groups of people in order to justify all kinds of state control and atrocities. I’m just not convinced that it logically follows that everything we can’t find a “physicalist” model for is an “ILLUSION”. It’s a question begging fallacy, an argument from ignorance and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. No one even knows what “matter” actually is and under moral subjectivism and moral relativism we are all on equal footing at the very least!! Correlation does not necessarily imply causation this is philosophy of science 101. Equally, the “natural sciences” can’t prove anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what [is] not what [ought] to be. “Science progresses one funeral at a time” (Max Planck) “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” (David Hume).
If you believe in casual determinism I think predeterminism is a given...and btw I do, still the illusion is strong so nothing changes. I was predetrmined to come to this conclusion anyway :))))
It's not right to say don't be depressed we might still be able to change the future. It's that we can't change the future but there is nothing depressing about it.
"Were Libet's student subjects required to participate in the experiment to pass his course, or did they participate of their own free will?" The question has nothing to do with Libet or his experiment, but it does illustrate what we mean when we use the term "free will". Free will is when a person decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence (for example, a significant mental illness that distorts their view of reality with hallucinations or delusions, or impairs their ability to reason, or subjects them to an irresistible impulse, other examples would be manipulation by someone else, or hypnosis, or authoritative command, etc.). That is the operational definition of free will, the one that everyone understands and correctly applies to most practical scenarios, and the one that is used to assess a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions. It requires nothing supernatural. It makes no claims to be uncaused. It just makes sense and it works. At least, that's everyone's initial understanding before they are infected with the philosophical paradox. The paradox is created by the illusion that a person must be free of reliable cause and effect in order to be "truly" free. This creates a paradox, because every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable cause and effect (without it, we could never reliably cause any effect, and would have no freedom at all). So, the little paradox, requiring us to be free of the very mechanisms of our freedom, stymies many otherwise intelligent people, like a Chinese finger trap. On the psychological side, we need to keep in mind that choosing, whether performed consciously or unconsciously, is still performed by us. And what is happening within the realm of conscious awareness must work hand in hand with unconscious processes. For example, suppose our unconscious mind decides to rob a bank. Both conscious and unconscious functions will be sharing the same jail cell. Note also that Libet's researchers must first explain to the subject what they expect him to do. And it is the person's deliberate choice to participate in the experiment that motivates and directs him to listen carefully to the instructions and try to carry them out.
There is no doubt that when people argue over free will they are arguing over whether we are fated to select the option we do. That is the ordinary operational definition which gives rise to our feelings about deserved consequences of chosen actions.
@@stephenlawrence4821 And how would one experience being "fated" versus the experience of not being "fated"? Universal causal necessity/inevitability is not a meaningful constraint. What I will inevitably do is exactly identical to me just being me, choosing what I choose, and doing what I do. That is not a meaningful constraint, because it is "what I would have done anyway".
@@marvinedwards737 It is a meaningful constraint because to have done what you should have done you'd have had to have been a different version of you with a different past stretching back to the beginning of time. You were just unfortunate that wasn't the case.
@@stephenlawrence4821 And that is the second impossible freedom, "freedom from oneself", that the hard determinist attempts to add on to the requirements of free will. (The first impossible freedom, is "freedom from causal necessity"). The hard determinist insists that the "free" in free will must be "absolute" freedom from everything. But there is no such freedom. Nor is there freedom from causal necessity. Nor is there freedom from oneself. But there actually can be a freedom from coercion and other forms of undue influence when choosing what we "will" do. Both the notions of "could have done" and "should have done" are retrospective views of the possibilities at a prior point in time. Causal necessity guarantees that I "would have done" the same thing given the same me, the same issue, and the same circumstances. But, given the same me, the same issue, and he same circumstances, I could have done any number of things (that I didn't do), and perhaps I should have done something different than what I did. The common hard determinist error is confusing (or conflating) the notions of what someone "can" do with the notion of what they "will" do. If something "will" happen, then it certainly will happen. If something "can" happen, then it may happen, or, it may never happen. Whenever there is a choosing operation in the causal chain, there will be at least two things that I "can" do at the beginning. And at the end, there will be exactly one thing that I "will" do, and at least one thing that I "could have done, but didn't" do.
@@marvinedwards737 No, it's that we need to have been free to do what we should have done. That's the free will people believe in. But we were prevented since causes would have had to have been in place stretching back to before we were born for us to have done it. Their absence is a "meaningful restriction". Nothing to do with freedom from ourselves since we would still have been ourselves if we'd done what we should have done b. t. w. But we'd have been in a different state. It's that we'd have needed to have been caused to do what we should have done.
No you can't - either you will, or you won't 😉. Either way, you're just along for the ride, watching wherever the car takes you. You're sitting on a roller coaster, but the course of the rails is recalculated every millisecond.
Consequences still happen. A ball still rolls down a hill even though it’s just the laws of gravity acting on a physical system. A person still goes to jail even though it’s just physics acting in a neural network.
@@cosmicprison9819 “No you can't - either you will, or you won't (. Either way, you're just along for the ride, watching wherever the car takes you.” Was that a “RATIONAL” claim or was it just “DETERMINED”? I’ll wait!! Furthermore, hard determinism is total and utter nonsense hidden behind the cloak of scientific authority and scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacies. It’s a self own on multiple levels!! Imagine telling this atheistic, nihilistic b…sht to child rapists and child murderers? Imagine actually telling a child rapist or child murderer that they had no freewill or choice but to rape and murder someone’s child? They would clearly use it to justify all kinds of evil and depravity. The nuances of objective morality and the nuances of moral accountability and moral responsibility will always be most hotly debated by those who want to justify evil and depravity!! Hard determinism is CRINGE atheism in full effect!! Materialism is dead in the water. It can’t even say that a child rapist and a child murderer is evil because apparently we are all nothing more substantive than determined machines, that is nothing more substantive than chemical and biological robots? That’s CULT speak and an enormous red flag right there!! As I pointed out already CRINGE atheism in full effect!! Remember the good old days when thoughtful atheists, that is when “thoughtful” fatalists and “thoughtful” epistemological nihilists used to give intelligent and powerful arguments for hard determinism??? NEITHER DO I!! Interesting fact, “NEW ATHEISM” that is determinism and epistemological nihilism is exactly like the old atheism if the old atheism was bitten by two infected bats called Darth Deterministic and DARTH PROFOUNDLY POINTLESS and got a over Zealous strain of RABIES!! Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! I rest my case!! CHECKMATE NIHILIST!!
@@inFAMOUSBlastshards “Consequences still happen” Sorry but if you’ve solved the HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS/DETERMINISM by reducing Truth and value, that is by reducing meaning and purpose to nothing more substantive than blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless “physically” determined processes, then I recommend that you get your repeatable scientific experiments published in a scientific journal as soon as humanly possible, before someone steals your genius, as you will definitely be nominated for a Nobel prize!! Correlation does not necessarily equal causation!! This is first year philosophy of science 101. Questions of meaning, that is teleological questions regarding meaning/purpose are a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category. You are now in the domain of metaphysics buddy!! And that’s our domain!! So this clearly leaves an enormous explanatory gap especially if you subscribe to this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction. So you clearly have an enormous burden of proof!! I’ll wait!!
A person, try as they might, cannot trace where a thought comes from. Its genesis is a product of a complex nexus of biology and environment of which the person has neither conscious control over nor chooses. Where is the free will if one cannot control or choose one’s thoughts?
“A person, try as they might, cannot trace where a thought comes from. Its genesis is a product of a complex nexus of biology and environment of which the person has neither conscious control over nor chooses. Where is the free will if one cannot control or choose one's thoughts?” Was that a “RATIONAL” question or was it just “DETERMINED”? I’ll wait!! Hard determinism is not a scientific position but a philosophical position and the irony and the absurdity is that it even undermines science itself, that is it even undermines rationality itself. It’s hardly surprising that the brilliant philosopher and award winning logician Alvin Plantinga pointed out that… “There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism.” (Alvin Plantinga) I rest my case!!
Me: *about to jump from my window*
Ben: "Now, if you're depressed after hearing this..."
Well, here you still are. Seems like you've grasped the answer to nihilism.
Nothing matters.. is true.
Nothing matters, and that's ok.. is more true.
You’re certainly right that it would change our criminal justice system but I don’t think it really matters from a day to day perspective if we know free will exists or not. Even if we know it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t break the illusion. You’ll still live your life making the best decisions you can and personally, I think people should just keep that mentality. After all, it’s out feeling that we are responsible for our actions that makes us want to be the best we can be. That being said, I do think we should keep free will in mind for our justice system. If most people get that we are basically physical systems, I think our justice system would become more geared toward rehabilitation instead of punishment for criminals. We would see criminals as simply the result if their environment and blame fate instead of the actual criminals, for their actions. I think the Norwegian prison system gets this well, but I won’t pretend it is easy to do. We all still feel a need for justice against those who wronged us. It will take a lot of willpower and education to just blame fate instead of people for crime.
The term "willpower" in itself seems outdated in a deterministic world. "Impulse control" might be a better term, as in "just another mental resource that can counteract our natural instincts". But even then, "control" implies agency and thus responsibility. Maybe in the end, impulse "control" would just be a "counter instinct", and depending on much of it you have, you would be more or less prone to following your impulses from your limbic system vs. those from your prefrontal cortex.
So it does make a big difference. We still rightly try to make the best decisions we can but we recognise that ultimately we're fated to select the option we do. It's ultimately a matter of luck and if we apllied that across the board, criminal justice, politics, how we treat ourselves and others, it makes a big positive difference.
@@cosmicprison9819 impulse control is correct, it’s part of our brains ability to operate in society. As for responsibility, it doesn’t change all that much, instead of seeking revenge we should seek to repair society by altering future antisocial behavior through rehabilitation or preventing it from happening by keeping someone from society.
This was a very helpful video. The case that free will is an illusion is even stronger than I thought.
Literally everything that can be replicably measured is evidence of full determinacy.
The main problem for our moral system is how differently limited will is. If everyone's mind had the exact same limitations, we could still maybe hold everyone to the same objective standard. But from intelligence over medical conditions to personality traits, we're all determined by our neurological setup in so vastly different ways that such a standard that applies to everyone will never be equally achievable for everyone.
Therefore, getting the basics right is mandatory, starting with insisting everyone have an adequate epistemology before being allowed to manage money, vote, have a child, etc.
Spot on, most people don't understand this. It's called the common mind fallacy. Most people think everyone's mind is basically the same, bar severe impediments (psychosis, severe intellectual disability, anti social personality disorder). Most people think humans are blank slates, not unique beings with individual genetic blueprints and wiring. It's hard to know how alien some other peoples mind may be to yours. For example, there are some people, such as ER doctors, who have the tenacity and determination to work 16 hour shifts 7 days a week with a few vacations here-and-there for years on end. That's a are thing. You can't just will yourself to be one of those people. And if you can, you were one of those people all along.
Determinism sounds a lot like social Darwinism which was used to single out and stereotype and demonise certain groups of people in order to justify all kinds of state control and atrocities.
I’m just not convinced that it logically follows that everything we can’t find a “physicalist” model for is an “ILLUSION”. It’s a question begging fallacy, an argument from ignorance and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. No one even knows what “matter” actually is and under moral subjectivism and moral relativism we are all on equal footing at the very least!! Correlation does not necessarily imply causation this is philosophy of science 101.
Equally, the “natural sciences” can’t prove anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what [is] not what [ought] to be.
“Science progresses one funeral at a time” (Max Planck)
“You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” (David Hume).
Very well presented, sir. Thank you. Comment added to appease the algo Gods.
Great stuff, thank you.
Great video. Unfortunately no compatibilistic arguments made at this time seem to defy the main logical reasoning for determinism.
If you believe in casual determinism I think predeterminism is a given...and btw I do, still the illusion is strong so nothing changes. I was predetrmined to come to this conclusion anyway :))))
It's not right to say don't be depressed we might still be able to change the future. It's that we can't change the future but there is nothing depressing about it.
Excellent video and channel!
There is literally no sense in which the will is free, but we may feel free to the extent we remain ignorant of causality.
2:40 I wonder do the findings in these studies also apply to our thoughts? As in our internal dialogue, visualization, etc
But 60% of predictions being correct is only slightly better than chance tho
Thanks
"Were Libet's student subjects required to participate in the experiment to pass his course, or did they participate of their own free will?" The question has nothing to do with Libet or his experiment, but it does illustrate what we mean when we use the term "free will".
Free will is when a person decides for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence (for example, a significant mental illness that distorts their view of reality with hallucinations or delusions, or impairs their ability to reason, or subjects them to an irresistible impulse, other examples would be manipulation by someone else, or hypnosis, or authoritative command, etc.).
That is the operational definition of free will, the one that everyone understands and correctly applies to most practical scenarios, and the one that is used to assess a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions. It requires nothing supernatural. It makes no claims to be uncaused. It just makes sense and it works.
At least, that's everyone's initial understanding before they are infected with the philosophical paradox. The paradox is created by the illusion that a person must be free of reliable cause and effect in order to be "truly" free. This creates a paradox, because every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable cause and effect (without it, we could never reliably cause any effect, and would have no freedom at all). So, the little paradox, requiring us to be free of the very mechanisms of our freedom, stymies many otherwise intelligent people, like a Chinese finger trap.
On the psychological side, we need to keep in mind that choosing, whether performed consciously or unconsciously, is still performed by us. And what is happening within the realm of conscious awareness must work hand in hand with unconscious processes. For example, suppose our unconscious mind decides to rob a bank. Both conscious and unconscious functions will be sharing the same jail cell.
Note also that Libet's researchers must first explain to the subject what they expect him to do. And it is the person's deliberate choice to participate in the experiment that motivates and directs him to listen carefully to the instructions and try to carry them out.
There is no doubt that when people argue over free will they are arguing over whether we are fated to select the option we do. That is the ordinary operational definition which gives rise to our feelings about deserved consequences of chosen actions.
@@stephenlawrence4821 And how would one experience being "fated" versus the experience of not being "fated"? Universal causal necessity/inevitability is not a meaningful constraint. What I will inevitably do is exactly identical to me just being me, choosing what I choose, and doing what I do. That is not a meaningful constraint, because it is "what I would have done anyway".
@@marvinedwards737
It is a meaningful constraint because to have done what you should have done you'd have had to have been a different version of you with a different past stretching back to the beginning of time. You were just unfortunate that wasn't the case.
@@stephenlawrence4821 And that is the second impossible freedom, "freedom from oneself", that the hard determinist attempts to add on to the requirements of free will. (The first impossible freedom, is "freedom from causal necessity").
The hard determinist insists that the "free" in free will must be "absolute" freedom from everything. But there is no such freedom. Nor is there freedom from causal necessity. Nor is there freedom from oneself.
But there actually can be a freedom from coercion and other forms of undue influence when choosing what we "will" do.
Both the notions of "could have done" and "should have done" are retrospective views of the possibilities at a prior point in time.
Causal necessity guarantees that I "would have done" the same thing given the same me, the same issue, and the same circumstances.
But, given the same me, the same issue, and he same circumstances, I could have done any number of things (that I didn't do), and perhaps I should have done something different than what I did.
The common hard determinist error is confusing (or conflating) the notions of what someone "can" do with the notion of what they "will" do.
If something "will" happen, then it certainly will happen. If something "can" happen, then it may happen, or, it may never happen.
Whenever there is a choosing operation in the causal chain, there will be at least two things that I "can" do at the beginning. And at the end, there will be exactly one thing that I "will" do, and at least one thing that I "could have done, but didn't" do.
@@marvinedwards737
No, it's that we need to have been free to do what we should have done. That's the free will people believe in. But we were prevented since causes would have had to have been in place stretching back to before we were born for us to have done it. Their absence is a "meaningful restriction".
Nothing to do with freedom from ourselves since we would still have been ourselves if we'd done what we should have done b. t. w. But we'd have been in a different state.
It's that we'd have needed to have been caused to do what we should have done.
Finally I can shoplift
No you can't - either you will, or you won't 😉. Either way, you're just along for the ride, watching wherever the car takes you. You're sitting on a roller coaster, but the course of the rails is recalculated every millisecond.
You just decided that after this video.
Consequences still happen. A ball still rolls down a hill even though it’s just the laws of gravity acting on a physical system. A person still goes to jail even though it’s just physics acting in a neural network.
@@cosmicprison9819
“No you can't - either you will, or you won't (. Either way, you're just along for the ride, watching wherever the car takes you.”
Was that a “RATIONAL” claim or was it just “DETERMINED”? I’ll wait!!
Furthermore, hard determinism is total and utter nonsense hidden behind the cloak of scientific authority and scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacies. It’s a self own on multiple levels!!
Imagine telling this atheistic, nihilistic b…sht to child rapists and child murderers? Imagine actually telling a child rapist or child murderer that they had no freewill or choice but to rape and murder someone’s child? They would clearly use it to justify all kinds of evil and depravity.
The nuances of objective morality and the nuances of moral accountability and moral responsibility will always be most hotly debated by those who want to justify evil and depravity!!
Hard determinism is CRINGE atheism in full effect!!
Materialism is dead in the water. It can’t even say that a child rapist and a child murderer is evil because apparently we are all nothing more substantive than determined machines, that is nothing more substantive than chemical and biological robots?
That’s CULT speak and an enormous red flag right there!! As I pointed out already CRINGE atheism in full effect!!
Remember the good old days when thoughtful atheists, that is when “thoughtful” fatalists and “thoughtful” epistemological nihilists used to give intelligent and powerful arguments for hard determinism???
NEITHER DO I!!
Interesting fact, “NEW ATHEISM” that is determinism and epistemological nihilism is exactly like the old atheism if the old atheism was bitten by two infected bats called Darth Deterministic and DARTH PROFOUNDLY POINTLESS and got a over Zealous strain of RABIES!!
Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting!!
I rest my case!!
CHECKMATE NIHILIST!!
@@inFAMOUSBlastshards
“Consequences still happen”
Sorry but if you’ve solved the HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS/DETERMINISM by reducing Truth and value, that is by reducing meaning and purpose to nothing more substantive than blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless “physically” determined processes, then I recommend that you get your repeatable scientific experiments published in a scientific journal as soon as humanly possible, before someone steals your genius, as you will definitely be nominated for a Nobel prize!!
Correlation does not necessarily equal causation!! This is first year philosophy of science 101. Questions of meaning, that is teleological questions regarding meaning/purpose are a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category.
You are now in the domain of metaphysics buddy!! And that’s our domain!! So this clearly leaves an enormous explanatory gap especially if you subscribe to this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction. So you clearly have an enormous burden of proof!! I’ll wait!!
We come into existence without choice. We do not choose to be born. Therein lies the answer from the get go.
A person, try as they might, cannot trace where a thought comes from. Its genesis is a product of a complex nexus of biology and environment of which the person has neither conscious control over nor chooses. Where is the free will if one cannot control or choose one’s thoughts?
What good would free will be anyway if you cannot choose to want what you want to want?
@@havenbastion I don't think it would be free will if you couldn't choose to want what you want to want.
“A person, try as they might, cannot trace where a thought comes from.
Its genesis is a product of a complex nexus of biology and environment of which the person has neither conscious control over nor chooses.
Where is the free will if one cannot control or choose one's thoughts?”
Was that a “RATIONAL” question or was it just “DETERMINED”? I’ll wait!!
Hard determinism is not a scientific position but a philosophical position and the irony and the absurdity is that it even undermines science itself, that is it even undermines rationality itself.
It’s hardly surprising that the brilliant philosopher and award winning logician Alvin Plantinga pointed out that…
“There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism.” (Alvin Plantinga)
I rest my case!!
Why you have a home phone
👏🙂
Very tasty
I tried to make micriwave popcorn in the oven, wouldn't recommend it to others.