@@MrJamesdryable yes,people think illusion means it doesn’t exist,but the separate self exists as an illusion.There is no inherent self to either have or not have free will
So many objections to the free will argument reduce to people supporting theories that humans do in fact have wills and varying degrees of willpower, but nowhere do they actually arrive at any conclusions as to how a will can function "free" from any contingencies. It is the idea of this "freedom" being somehow transcendent by nature that determinists reject, not the idea that we have relative degrees of control over our wills(control that manifests itself from our innate conditioning and instinctual desires to regulate ourselves, mind you). The best arguments I've seen come from compatibilists discussing the discrepancies between the language we use to describe these conscious phenomena and arguing for a value in relating to our wills as though they are free, but in so far as they actually try to establish the ontological foundations of it, the arguments are, as far as I'm aware, moot.
There's widespread confusion between philosophical free will, which is a metaphysical concept beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and "agency," which can be studied by various disciplines, particularly cybernetics. This confusion stems from a misunderstanding of "free" in a metaphysical sense versus autonomy and degrees of freedom within the context of self-organizing complex dynamical systems. Philosophical free will is largely irrelevant and arguably nonsensical, while agency is crucial and widely understood. We should focus our attention on understanding and fostering agency, which is essential for individuals and societies.
@He.knows.nothing I'm very new to this topic. Seems obvious to me that willpower is way more limited than we imagine it is, but I do like to believe in some level of willpower. Who are the compatibilists you refer to in your second paragraph?
@mrtumnusmusic I think that was Prof Alex Carter. I'm not 100% sure that's where I heard it but it was from another debate of Alex O'Connor's. It was a good watch if you're interested in the subject matter.
I always find the idea that we know we have free will from experience extremely funny. Of course most people will readily admit that 99% of their experience has nothing to do with free will at all because it just has to do with the world and obviously you have no control over that. Sense perceptions are out of our control, subconscious processes are running in the background all the time, emotions rise up within us unprompted, and even our own imaginations will create phantasms at the slightest suggestion from outside. But people still carve out that tiny little 1% and call it "me" and think that thing has free will. If you actually look at that thing closely, though, its clearly just a story meant to tie together all the stuff I mentioned in the previous paragraph and make sense of it and so "me" doesn't really exist. But the idea that a story could have free will is, admittedly, pretty funny.
I think that the more people believe they have control over their ability to focus, to focus on x sense perception instead of y, or x thought instead of y, it’s precisely that ability to focus with intention that give people their sense of freedom and ability to grow. So much that they focus everything on what they can control and much less on the rest of the world which they cannot. This tends to make people more successful.
Explaining determinism from past terms is a post-mortem examination of free will. It's like looking at a dead body to see if it ever comes to life again and, if it doesn't, say that the origin of life is as vile as it'll ever be.
@@FigmentHF Science, Newtonian physics is the wrong place to look for free will. Especially with our contemporary science based on an a prior ignorance
Hi, I reached out by email about my new book: The Definition of Free Will & A Model of Attention. Every discussion on free will seems to be missing the critical connection between focus of attention and free will. I would love to be on as a guest and think we would have a great conversation adding a new dimension to this topic that has recycled the same arguments for so long without any resolution
This is exactly what I’ve been thinking! I wrote this as a rough draft account of free will. Free will When a person has preconditions for several desirable options, and a faculty of reflection that isn’t compelled, they may: 1. Reflect on different reasons and evaluate them. Evaluation can change priorities. 2. Explore other options. 3. Act on one, or none. Reflection is essential to this process. Reflection is a self contained mental process that is not compelled in a certain direction. Evidence for reflection People can sit in a place of mental reflection and endlessly explore ideas and possibilities without compulsion to act. They have the ability to reflect on different parts of themselves. They can focus on x, y, or z sense perceptions, or on x, y, or z thoughts, and cycle through them by subjective reasoning. Subjective reasoning could be defined as reasoning that gains meaning upon reflection. This is in contrast with reasoning that is pre programmed by the speaker(in the formulation of the words) and/or listener(preconceived ideas). Reflection allows the programming to be questioned and thus not acted upon. We can compartmentalize ourselves and reflect on different parts, which have different motivations. This way we can “stop” and shift into neutral and focus on one part or another freely(semi-freely). It’s a specific ability. I’ve also been questioning whether we can always stop the car. If you’re driving too fast toward the cliff, you may only make the change if you do so well before the critical moment. So we may not be free in times of action, but before we reach times of action. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that and more about your book.
@@collin501 Thank you for such a well-thought-out and reflective comment! I really appreciate how you’ve outlined your rough draft on free will-it’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into the nuances of reflection, choice, and the interplay of motivations. Your points resonate strongly with the framework I’ve developed in my book, and I’d love to share how your ideas align with and expand on my work. Interpreting Your Ideas Your focus on reflection as an essential process fits beautifully into the dynamics I describe in my model. Reflection can be seen as a pivotal mechanism in the internal field of attention, where we evaluate subconscious suggestions and external stimuli. The ability to “stop” and compartmentalize motivations aligns with what I call expressive action-our capacity to consciously and voluntarily direct focus, even in the presence of competing influences. I also found your metaphor about "stopping the car" interesting. It underscores the importance of timing and preparation in exercising autonomy, which parallels the idea that while impressive actions (like subconscious impulses or external pressures) may arise unbidden, expressive action allows us to override or redirect these influences before critical moments. Summary of My Model In my book, I redefine free will as the ability to control focus, framing it through the lens of several interconnected concepts: Focal Energy and Motivation I liken focal energy to a form of monetary currency, with motivation as the “gold” that backs this focal currency. Just as monetary currency has value derived from something intrinsic, our attention is driven by underlying motivations. These motivations feed into what you describe as different parts of ourselves that compete for focus during reflection. Impressive and Expressive Action Impressive action refers to passive influences-like subconscious suggestions or external stimuli-that pull our attention. Impressive action refers to the passive reception of signals. It is that which is impressed upon us. For example, a fleeting worry or a loud noise might automatically & involuntarily draw focus. Expressive action, on the other hand, is our active ability to direct attention intentionally, even in the face of these impressive forces. It’s the foundation of autonomy and allows us to consciously engage with competing motivations or ideas. There is nothing we do, nothing we can say we control without fundamentally directing focus toward it. Focal Energy Distribution Patterns Focus isn’t singularly pointed like a laser; instead it takes the form of a constellation being distributed across various channels in the internal and external fields of attention. These distribution patterns reflect how we allocate energy-consciously or unconsciously-across different areas of focus. Reflection, as you described, involves shifting this distribution pattern inward to explore possibilities or weigh options. The essence of free will is the ability to consciously cast a focal energy distribution pattern. Subconscious Suggestions The subconscious provides a constant stream of internal impressive actions in the form of suggestions or motivations that arise from the periphery of the internal field. I call them suggestions as they are similar to hypnotic suggestions. These often convey their own energy and aim to compel us toward specific actions. However, through expressive action, we retain the ability to accept, reject, veto, or reinterpret these suggestions. Bringing It Back to Expressive Action I love how you highlight reflection as a space of freedom where ideas and motivations can be explored without immediate compulsion to act. In my model, this aligns with expressive action-the conscious act of deciding where to allocate focal energy. Even when impressive actions (like subconscious drives or external pressures) are strong, expressive action ensures that the ability to act independently always exists. Your mention of not always being able to “stop the car” is an important reminder of the limits of attention and timing. I interpret this as a cautionary note about the energy and preparation required for reflective action before reaching critical moments-a concept I aim to address in terms of attention’s vulnerability and the strategies needed to reinforce expressive control. I’d love to hear more about how you see your ideas evolving and how reflection, as you’ve described it, might fit into this framework. It’s exciting to see how closely our thoughts align and complement each other, and I truly appreciate your interest in my book. Let me know if you'd like to explore any of these concepts further!
@@collin501 Thank you for such a well-thought-out and reflective comment! I really appreciate how you’ve outlined your rough draft on free will-it’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into the nuances of reflection, choice, and the interplay of motivations. Your points resonate strongly with the framework I’ve developed in my book, and I’d love to share how your ideas align with and expand on my work. Interpreting Your Ideas Your focus on reflection as an essential process fits beautifully into the dynamics I describe in my model. Reflection can be seen as a pivotal mechanism in the internal field of attention, where we evaluate subconscious suggestions and external stimuli. The ability to “stop” and compartmentalize motivations aligns with what I call expressive action-our capacity to consciously direct focus, even in the presence of competing influences. I also found your metaphor about "stopping the car" fascinating. It underscores the importance of timing and preparation in exercising autonomy, which parallels the idea that while impressive actions (like subconscious impulses or external pressures) may arise unbidden, expressive action allows us to override or redirect these influences before critical moments. Summary of My Model In my book, I redefine free will as the ability to control attention, framing it through the lens of several interconnected concepts: Focal Energy and Motivation I liken focal energy to a form of currency, with motivation as the “gold” that backs it. Just as monetary currency has value derived from something intrinsic, our focal currency is driven by underlying motivations. These motivations feed into what you describe as different parts of ourselves that compete for focus during reflection. Impressive and Expressive Action Impressive action refers to passive influences-like subconscious suggestions or external stimuli-that pull our attention. It is the passive reception of signals. It's that which impresses upon us. For example, a fleeting worry or a loud noise might automatically draw focus. Expressive action, on the other hand, is our active ability to direct attention intentionally, even in the face of these impressive forces. It’s the foundation of autonomy and allows us to consciously engage with competing motivations or ideas. Focal Energy Distribution Patterns Attention isn’t singularly pointed like a laser; it more resembles a constellation being distributed across various channels in the internal and external fields. These patterns reflect how we allocate energy-consciously or unconsciously-across different areas of focus. Reflection, as you described, involves shifting this distribution pattern to explore possibilities or weigh options. Subconscious Suggestions The subconscious provides impressive actions in the form of suggestions or motivations that arise from the periphery of the internal field. These often convey their own energy and aim to compel us toward specific actions. However, through expressive action, we retain the ability to accept, reject, or reinterpret these suggestions. Bringing It Back to Expressive Action I love how you highlight reflection as a space of freedom where ideas and motivations can be explored without immediate compulsion to act. In my model, this aligns with expressive action-the conscious act of deciding where to allocate focal energy. Even when impressive actions (like subconscious drives or external pressures) are strong, expressive action ensures that the ability to act independently always exists. Your mention of not always being able to “stop the car” is an important reminder of the limits of attention and timing. I interpret this as a cautionary note about the energy and preparation required for reflective action before reaching critical moments-a concept I aim to address in terms of attention’s vulnerability and the strategies needed to reinforce expressive control. I’d love to hear more about how you see your ideas evolving and how reflection, as you’ve described it, might fit into this framework. It’s exciting to see how closely our thoughts align and complement each other, and I truly appreciate your interest in my book. Let me know if you'd like to explore any of these concepts further!
@@collin501 Thank you for such a well-thought-out and reflective comment! I really appreciate how you’ve outlined your rough draft on free will-it’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into the nuances of reflection, choice, and the interplay of motivations. Your points resonate strongly with the framework I’ve developed in my book,. Your focus on reflection as an essential process fits beautifully into the dynamics I describe in my model. Reflection can be seen as a pivotal mechanism in the internal field of attention, where we evaluate subconscious suggestions and external stimuli. The ability to “stop” and compartmentalize motivations aligns with what I call expressive action-our capacity to consciously direct focus, even in the presence of competing influences. I also found your metaphor about "stopping the car" fascinating. It underscores the importance of timing and preparation in exercising autonomy, which parallels the idea that while impressive actions (like subconscious impulses or external pressures) may arise unbidden, expressive action allows us to override or redirect these influences before critical moments. In my book, I redefine free will as the ability to control attention, framing it through the lens of several interconnected concepts: Focal Energy and Motivation I liken focal energy to a form of currency, with motivation as the “gold” that backs it. Just as monetary currency has value derived from something intrinsic, our focal currency is driven by underlying motivations. These motivations feed into what you describe as different parts of ourselves that compete for focus during reflection. Impressive and Expressive Action Impressive action refers to passive influences-like subconscious suggestions or external stimuli-that pull our attention. It is the passive reception of signals. It's that which impresses upon us. Expressive action, on the other hand, is our active ability to direct attention intentionally, even in the face of these impressive forces. Focal Energy Distribution Patterns Attention isn’t singularly pointed like a laser; it more resembles a constellation being distributed across various channels in the internal and external fields. These patterns reflect how we allocate energy-consciously or unconsciously-across different areas of focus. Reflection, as you described, involves shifting this distribution pattern to explore possibilities or weigh options. I love how you highlight reflection as a space of freedom where ideas and motivations can be explored without immediate compulsion to act. In my model, this aligns with expressive action-the conscious act of deciding where to allocate focal energy. Even when impressive actions (like subconscious drives or external pressures) are strong, expressive action ensures that the ability to act independently always exists. Your mention of not always being able to “stop the car” is an important reminder of the limits of attention and timing. I interpret this as a cautionary note about the energy and preparation required for reflective action before reaching critical moments-a concept I aim to address in terms of attention’s vulnerability and the strategies needed to reinforce expressive control. Let me know if you'd like to explore any of these concepts further!
@ Thank you. Yes I’d like to explore the topic more. It’s so interesting that you’ve made focus the heart of free will. I think that’s exactly right. I have a few questions and thoughts about statements you made. “Our focal energy is driven by underlying motivations.” Does this mean that our energy is equal to our motivations, but expressive action can take energy from X motivation and switch it to Y motivation? Or is it more that you can suppress X energy(store it for later) and allow energy from Y to become dominant? “Expressive action is the ability to direct attention intentionally, even in the face of these impressive forces.” I take it this is the ability to switch between various internal and external motivations. Is it based on focal energy, which is from already existing motivations? Can you explain more on how this process is free? I think that we are so heavily influenced by the mechanistic world view that we’ve lost sight of agency. Everything is matter in motion according to this worldview. But we have a strange ability to think about almost endless possibilities without acting on a single one! I like the term reflection because it gets away from mechanistic language. Reflection is a self contained process because it considers self. I think it is separate from motivation because it is the farthest removed from action mode. You could say more precisely it’s a form of action (which resembles your expressive action concept), but it’s an action with a sense of freedom. Someone could accuse the act of reflection(or expressive action) of being mechanistically determined, since the successive focus of thoughts could be based on pre existing desires, but I don’t think it is based on several reasons. One helpful idea is the field of attention. Having a field of vision and a periphery allows for such a freedom. If you have ten options you could pursue, reflection is the ability to stop and consider them all, as long as you choose to. The fact that you can consider them endlessly gives strong evidence for freedom, in my opinion. The switching mechanism I think is based on reflecting on the field of attention as you’ve described it, with use of subjective reasoning. Let me know what you think of this idea. The reason this it’s important, is that our conclusions could still come in a deterministic way even if we perceive ourselves reflecting/expressively acting. The conclusion we arrive at could simply be the result of mechanistic deterministic processes that impose themselves on the thought process. But why do we intuitively perceive independence, responsibility, and agency, in human life? What account can we give of this perception? If we subjectively determine things in independently, this would mean our perception of freedom isn’t an illusion. Here is an account of subjective reasoning, coming to meaning through free thought. I believe this is a better account of thought than a deterministic process where self loses all meaning. Meaning is arrived at by language metaphors. If you look at the development of human language, it’s completely full of metaphors. Humans are inventive and creative. They are able to play with metaphors. Children can do this too. The act of play points to freedom. In play, anything is possible. Constraints only apply at the moment you develop an actual plan of action. This allows humans to develop meaning subjectively, then match it up to the realities of the world. As they do this, they will take their subjective thoughts and correspond them to the world to get at the truth of the world. By analogy, that is the moment they put the car into gear and test out the engine. They have to make sure they have the right gear to correspond to the realities of their tires touching the pavement. They have a thousand gears that can interlock between the engine and the road. The clutch allows them to change the gear. They can engage their engine(free thought) and build gears(metaphors, that may or may not correspondence to outside world) to their liking, then test them out on the road. It’s not a perfect analogy. It’s a work in progress. Hopefully it makes sense. I’m curious on your thoughts about the subjective reasoning process.
Could the problem of free will simply be a product of a category error that's intrinsic to the way we construct thoughts about things? As a meditator you discover that impulses to act arise. With a developing capacity for awareness we can notice the impulse arise before we react and then we can resist the impulse to act. We don't really have a choice about whether the impulse arises in the moment but the more we train the body/mind to remain inactive in meditation, the more we can become aware of impulses to act and so it becomes more possible to resist the impulse to act. Over time, the control impulses have to drive behaviour become less powerful. This means that the choice we have is more to do with an intention to cultivate awareness of sensory input and impulses to act and carrying out that intention in our lives than it is a question of making a positive choice about doing one thing or another when the choice appears to arise. What's ironic is that trying to work out if we have free will doesn't much help us to do this. Much of the time we post-rationalise reactions to impulses (that may be triggered by situations) and construct a narrative that explains why we made a decision to act. We need a concept of cause and effect to construct this narrative. In fact, trying to solve the problem of free will may even impair our capacity to cultivate our awareness by training the mind to engage in a fruitless problem solving exercise.
Totally a category error. And very much agree with your experience. So clear that thoughts, desires, impulses arise spontaneously in the conscious mind when you meditate. And a great reminder to myself not to spend so much time on the analysis, rationalising side of things (bloody youtube). Cheers and peace
@@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer Can you give an example. Obviously if an idea is good you will continue to use it. So what do mean O’Connor’s a parrot. Do you mean he tries to pass other’s ideas as his own? I’m not aware of any of that and don’t want to be fooled. So please help me understand.
@@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer He's very very young. Expect much from him. He will write books and certainly lecture and teach one day. He is intelligent enough to know that such endeavours require more age and wisdom than he yet has.
Ask yourself: do I produce my thoughts, or do they just arise by themselves? Answer: they arise by themselves. Ask: can I predict what my next thought will be? Answer: no. A 'decision' is a thought. Game over for free will, guys. Try observing your own actual experience, rather than getting lost in endless abstract theorising: it really is endless and pointless.
@michaelferketic3540 False. Create a thought and observe the process. You will have several random options that roughly match the "desired" result, and you will compare them with a "good" option which is baded on parameters and NOT an "ideal idea".
@@goodquestion7915 I disagree, but that's up for debate. My main thesis is that free will is the ability to control the focus of attention. Not necessarily what comes into focus, but the ability to point and direct focus.
This actually demonstrates that WE dont exist, we are espontaneous harmonious processes continuous with everything else, this is free will. Your mistake is believing in the cartesian subject, as if somehow we were independent from anything else, and since we depend on everything, we wouldnt free, since there wouldnt be a simmetry. Free will is also true because "we" feel we are, this cannot be neglected.
@@beherenowspace1863 no, yhat's exactly what it means. If you can predict behavior with great accuracy (and not just guess), it means that you know the laws by which this behavior works. It means that behavior is subject to laws and dependent on them, and therefore not free.
@@eugen5343 If you can predict behaviour with great accuracy (which we can't, not even close compared to the predictions we can make of nature with QM), it means that you can describe this in terms of laws by which these patterns of behaviour match. This does not necessarily mean that behaviour is subject to laws and dependent on them, and therefore not free.
@@beherenowspace1863 Of course, I didn't say that these two concepts are the same. It's just that one implies the other, and they are interconnected. If an object is at least partially independent of the laws of nature (free will), its behavior cannot be accurately predicted, and vice versa.
First you have to define freedom. Freedom is a power, opposite to slavery. It requires self reflection. Free will: 1. When a person has preconditions for several desirable options, and a faculty of reflection that isn’t compelled, they have choice. 2. The person evaluates the options and reflects on different reasons to alter their desirability. 3. By altering desirability, they switch between options. Reflection: A self contained mental process that is not compelled in a certain direction. Evidence: People can sit in a place of mental reflection and endlessly explore ideas and possibilities without compulsion to act. They seem to have the ability to reflect on different parts of themselves. They can focus on one part or another, and on one feeling or another, on one possibility or another, by subjective reasons.
@@beherenowspace1863 free will is not an experience at all. It's the belief that we could do/could have done otherwise (in a special way) that in moral cases makes us morally responsible for the choice. The wrongdoer didn't have to do it, he had a choice.
Free will is the concept that we could have done otherwise without the need for variables we didn't choose to have been different to produce the different result. Check cases of blame and you'll quickly see that is true.
Great video! 🧠✨ Here are four distinct ways free will is often defined, each addressing different aspects without overlapping: 1. **Autonomy in Decision-Making:** This is the ability to make choices independently, free from external pressures or deterministic forces. However, some argue that subconscious biases and brain processes can limit true autonomy. 2. **Freedom from Determinism:** This concept suggests that our choices aren't entirely bound by prior causes or natural laws, allowing for genuine choice. Critics point out that randomness doesn’t necessarily equate to meaningful free will and that brain states often predict decisions. 3. **Moral Responsibility:** Free will here means being accountable for your actions because you can choose between right and wrong. The challenge is that if actions are predetermined, holding someone morally responsible becomes questionable. 4. **Self-Determination:** This is about shaping your own life path through deliberate choices and actions. Nonetheless, external factors like socioeconomic status and biological predispositions can restrict complete self-determination. There are no perfect definition of self and "free will". They are high level, packaged ideas that we use to make sense of human experience.
Why is it that people seem so ready to just take a pass on determinism? I don't think that people realise just what it means to say that determinism doesn't always hold. Something is "determined" if there was a prior event that gave rise to it, and something is non-deterministic if there was _no_ prior event that gave rise to it. An elephant wearing a pink tutu suddenly appearing before you in your living room would be non-deterministic. The sun suddenly disappearing at 9:45 am and then suddenly reappearing at 1:13 pm later that afternoon would be non-deterministic. And (if you _haven't_ seen this type of completely inexplicable thing happen before) absolutely _everything_ else you've _ever_ seen, heard, experienced, or thought, has been deterministic. Now, it _could,_ of course, be the case that determinism does not always hold at all times and places in the universe (and, in case anyone was wondering, quantum mechanics is a fully deterministic theory), but if it doesn't hold then it's at least the case that there's no good reason for thinking it doesn't. Yes, it's _possible_ that the Sun may simply disappear for a few hours tomorrow, and I guess it's _possible_ that an elephant wearing a pink tutu may suddenly appear in my living room, but why would I ever think those things would actually happen? And yet this is _exactly_ what these guys are doing here. Despite there being no reason whatsoever not to believe in determinism, they just blithely assert that their brains are causally disconnected from the rest of the universe. Or, to be more specific, they believe that their minds are causally disconnected from their brains. Because, to believe that free will exists one must believe that things can occur without there being any antecedent cause for it. I don't get it. It's completely whack.
i can ask you the opposite question and you will be incapable of giving me a better answer. Why are you so ready to just take a pass on free will? do you even realize what it means, about the nature of reality, to deny freedom? what it means about morality? about justice? about suffering? i bet you never thought about it, or else you would not defend this ludicrous idea of material determinism. And there are ways to think about free will where determinism in the physical universe remains untouched, since the only thing that needs to be free is the human soul, not the brain.
No. An elephant in a tutu appearing out of nowhere can be deterministic. Ask a pantheist where the universe came from and they'll answer from their pantheistic terms. No tertiary entity needed, so it's just rationality directed to the subject of desire.
Regarding the final paragraph. What is even the point of believing in determinism? Will you suddenly speak nonsense if you don't believe in it? Are my explanations uncoherential because I'm a compatibilist? Apparently, there's no actual consequence of ascribing oneself to the deterministic dogma. Really nothing is of interest. Neurological computionalistic explanations won't lose meaning. Quatum physics scientists can still do their work. It's like philosophical materialism. I see it as a necessary function in humanity, just as the function reductionism; but it doesn't works as a philosophy because, necessarily, it has to be turned into a dogma to work on a cause.
You haven't watched the video, right?😂 again and again they upheld the view that determinism is true, so your whole rant has completely missed the point
“The free will that’s worth wanting” is, in the late Daniel Dennett’s view, compatible with physical determinism. Where, in an immovable objective world, does the concept of value (“worth”) come from? Where does any concept come from?
i keep asking myself this question. I don't know how it is possible that free will deniers can't see that their idea of the universe is a frozen block where nothing happens and everything has already happened. And yet, a madman like sapolsky, will talk about empathy and how we must reduce suffering. he does not realize that in his worldview, suffering does not even exist, consciousness is an illusion, the self is an illusion and there is no one suffering, and even if there was a way to talk about suffering in any meaningful sense, there is nothing that we could do about it, that was not already going to happen anyways lol. They also fail to see that the pursuit of truth does not exist in a deterministic universe, since they don't actually have intelectual processes, its just the atoms in their neurons moving around according to the laws of physics, wich does not imply truth or a pursuit of truth in any sense whatsoever.
I do not see how determinism at the microphysical level does not imply determinism at the agential level. From a review : "Next up is the challenge from determinism, with which we are already familiar. The keystone aspect of the challenge is that determinism seems to imply that there are no alternative possibilities. Therefore, a person is incapable of making a choice. List replies by arguing that determinism in the fundamental physics does not necessitate ‘agent-level’ determinism, which is the level of a person’s choice. This stems from the central argument that free will is a high-level property. In this case, mental states like choices can be realised by multiple brain states. For example, all of our brains are slightly different, and yet we can each still form the intention to move a coffee cup. In this way, mental states are multiply realisable. List argues that this means there are multiple alternative possible intentions I could form, even if my brain state is predetermined by deterministic physics. Therefore, there can still be indeterminism at the agent level, even if there is determinism at the physical level." How realistic is it to assume that we cannot reliable infer (and I claim with almost certainty) from bodily behaviour, in a specified environment that we understand (meaning, that we know what choices and decisions the person has to make), to thought processes? Thought experiment: Let a person p make a succession of very simple actions we can model as binary: Either p does a or not-a. If p does not-a, then that person gets incinerated. If p does a, then on to the next action: b or not-b. If p does not-b, then p gets incinerated, if p does b, the on to the next actionn and so on. To make things more pressing, let p know about this set-up, i.e. p knows what to do in order to get not incinerated. A microphysical description of such a scenario would tell us what happens to the person (incinerated or not) and given a suitably fine-grained actions we can know with certainty what the persons intentions and (to a lesser degree?) mental states are. I would like to hear your thoughts! Does the above make at least some sense?
I don’t think that would prove determinism, because of the immediate pressure of the situation would reduce choice to a single option, if choice exists.
@@collin501 First, I do not think that there are proofs in philosophy. Second, I thought that the one point of List's reasoning is that determinism at the lower level does not imply determinism at a higher level. And that the possibility of various psychological explanations for behaviour leaves open enough wiggle room for freedom. But I think that an embodied person and the behavioural traces that his choices leave pretty much make only very few agential decisions plausible.
@@KripkeSaul why do people sit around and imagine a multitude of possibilities without following any of them? What kind of thought process is that? If you can pull the car out of gear and into neutral, and reflect in a “anything is possible” way, without any compulsion to act, then why would we think we’re just boiling over with compulsions and whichever wins out carries us off in a determined direction? I think that is the realm where freedom exists. Studying people in action-required situations is not the place to find freedom. In action-required situations, the mind/brain is mostly programmed already. That’s why to change, we need freedom to grow. To put it differently, I don’t think people have the freedom to stop their car or avoid the cliff unless they see the sign far in advance and start making the change well before it’s upon them.
I highly recommend inviting Michael Huemer for the free will series as well. By my lights he is one of the best contemporary philosophers and defenders of free will. You can as well discuss other stuff like moral realism, intuitionism, veganism as he is well known for defending such positions.
@@anteodedi8937 thought is “special “experience ,because it’s experience which can speak about non-existent experience. Thought says that there is a thinker of thoughts,but there is zero experience of that.
When an atheist debates with a believer about the existence of God, each of them is talking about a different thing, the God as conceived by an atheist has nothing to do with the God in the experience the believer may have. They're simply not talking about the same thing. Before any debate, both sides need to agree on a common definition of the object of their discussion. Otherwise, they run the risk of discussing two parallel things that never meet, and in the way each understands it. In this particular case, can anyone define what free will is, or tell us what it actually consists of?
You are begging the question to say that you have the correct definition of free will, from which the compatibilist is redefining it. The compatibilist thesis for free well has been around as long as the debate has been around.
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn Let's not pretend it's me who is twisting himself into pretzels here. Compatibilism goes very clearly against what anyone who didn't invest into constructing elaborate conceptual and rhetorical sand castles would understand as free will. The end result is not any kind of insight or advance in understanding, but a rhetorical game. Yes, there's still no foundation for ethics or value, but at least we beat the word into submission so we can carry on and pretend it's fine. For what it's worth, I can understand this: It's a hell of a predator, who would want to make eye contact with it? Best just look away and hope for the best
Interesting. One thing that puzzles me in many free will-discussions is the synonymous use of the concepts "free will" and "choice". Clearly, we have two quite different concepts here. In my mind, "free will" is more related to things like "the ability to have imaginations" than "choice." The latter describes the relationship between the mind and actual circumstances, while the former is restricted to the mind. For example, I can have the will to be Napoleon Bonaparte, but I can't choose to be it. Anyone? Another thing: "Free will" necessitates a self. Where would this self be located, one might ask? It must be situated in the conscious mind since the notion of an unconscious self doesn't make sense. Consequently, "free will" must reside in the conscious part of the brain/mind. We know there is a constant interaction between the conscious and the unconscious parts of the mind. For the "free will" to be free it must be able to operate independently of our unconsciousness. We then have three parts; the consciousness, the unconsciousness, and an at least partly unrelated self. So where would this self, containing its independent "free will," be located?
I invite anyone to try and debate this version of free will. 1) an undetermined choice 2) a conscious and intentional agent that settles this choice. 1a) Gives us leeway freedom (the ability to do otherwise) 2a) Gives us sourcehood freedom. (The agent is the source of the event, he can make the event happen or prevent the event from happening) One could even go farther and say reasons and goals are tools, enabling conditions that the agent can use to bring about or prevent the desired event. Im telling you, if ones gives me 1) and 2), I have all I could want from free will. But for 1) we only need indeterminism and for 2) we only need evolution and natural selection, as species that take advantage of alternative possibilities seems to be an obvious evolutionary advantage. We only need either weak or strong emergence to have the ability in 2) Libertarian free will is very much miss missunderstood and underestimated.
What do you specifically mean by 1. An undetermined choice? An option to do more than one thing? If so this doesn't say anything about free will. If it provides for a genuine, all things considered ability to have done otherwise then how does this argument not fall prey to the problem of luck? I don't see how we don't have two things in conflict with each other. I don't rule out entirely that they may not be but I'm hardly the only person that sees 1 and 2 these being mutually exclusive. At least, if you mean what I think you do. More elaboration is certainly required.
@RodrigoFernandez-k2i This is a common misconception. Indeterminism should be seen as the opposite of causal determinism. That is, Indeterminism just means, an event or state of the world can have multiple outcomes. That's it. If the world is indeterministic, then we can have undetermined choices. That is to say, a choice has many live options. It can be settled in different ways because of indeterminism. Because, if indeterminism obtains, then alternative possibilities exists. If they exist, it seems plausible to think that it would be a net evolutionary advantage for the species able to exploit APs. It's very relevant as it gives us the ability to prevent or not do an event morally reprehensible. So we can really avoid doing something wrong. If we can avoid it, we should be considered morally responsible. Notice, the indeterminism is in the choice itself. The agent simply determines (settles) the choice. There is no relevant randomness when it comes to the agent choices. He is influenced, motivated and inspired by reasons and goals, not caused by any of them.
@RodrigoFernandez-k2i This is a common misconception. Indeterminism should be seen as the opposite of causal determinism. That is, Indeterminism just means, an event or state of the world can have multiple outcomes. That's it. If the world is indeterministic, then we can have undetermined choices. That is to say, a choice has many live options. It can be settled in different ways because of indeterminism. Because, if indeterminism obtains, then alternative possibilities exist. If they exist, it seems plausible to think that it would be a net evolutionary advantage for the species able to exploit alternative possibilities. It's very relevant as it gives us the ability to prevent or not do an event morally reprehensible. So we can really avoid doing something wrong. If we can avoid it, we should be considered morally responsible.
At 38:00 min he discusses the idea that the strongest impulses don’t just win out (as a final decision) but that something in addition functions as “regulators”. This could be deterministic (probably is) … but it is still the key (imo) to understanding how decisions seem to be freely made. That internal regulative process is what needs to be scientifically investigated … it is value driven.
I’d like to hear more about the ability to self reflect, and to reflect on dozens if not hundreds or thousands of possibilities without being compelled to follow any. What is that mental ability? How might it relate to free will or the illusion of free will, whichever view you take?
both "Movies" and "Behind the scenes making of documentaries" both exist, and can compliment each other. We can have reductionist descriptions along side rich narrative interpretations. We need to stop being so binary.
"everything i disagree with is magic! I don't have to justify why my opponent is wrong I just have to say they believe in magic!!!" 🙄, i could find it believable that philosophical materialists do not have free will and everyone else does because their arguments are so incredibly unselfaware or critical. I do not think you even know what you mean when you say the word "magic", could you provide a definition to "magic" that is beyond "thing i disagree with"?
@@FigmentHF when things are explainable in terms of their building blocks, an additional higher level explanation is going to be redundant. it's only going to have a pragmatic value, no fundamental existence
@@charlespate5639 my opponent is the one that has to justify the appeal to complexity. there's no obvious path in principle from complexity to an ontological shift
It seems you didn’t listen to what he actually said. For example, if you have a single plank of wood, does that constitute being “ a house?” Does a single nail constitute being “ a house?” Does a wood beam or a nail have to be “ a house” in order to accept houses exist? Why in the world are you casting doubt on the obvious fact that things, like houses, can have properties that their individual constituent parts do not have on their own?
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn Ontologically, there is no such thing as "a property of a house", this is all made up magical spooky stuff. Show me where the property exists in objective reality. If you can't then maybe you are just making things up.
You are super close to ditching the idea of free will! Yes, you are correct to take into account more than desires. An agent (a human, say) has beliefs, memories, some information in working memory, habits, temperament, various tendencies, preferences, proclivities, but also operates by means of mental processes, such as attention, perception, reasoning, pattern detection, unconscious inference & prediction, impulse inhibition, counterfactual representation of options, weighing of options, and decision making. All of these are important for making a choice and action. And you can write down an example where all of these elements are at play. And the kick is: you won't need "free will" for anything here. You won't find "free will" anywhere. This entire process is explainable in naturalistic, non-metaphysical terms, where "free will" is not needed and where "free will" has no place. What you describe is more in line with agency and decision making. Concepts important in cognitive science, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience. I suggest less philosophizing and more learning about relevant sciences. It will be worth it!
I think you’ve missed the point: compatibilism IS the thesis that free will is compatible with our being fully determined. Many of the features you mention help form the basis of a “ free will worth wanting.” The mistake is to think that free will was based on or required something extra, or required being accepted from the causal chain.
Women who were pregnant with second or third trimester fetuses during the invasion of Poland during WW2 experienced severe famine in winter. This would result in an epigenetic effect called the Dutch Hunger Winter, where because of the famine the next generation of Polish children would have significantly higher obesity rates. What part did free will play in whether or not these children would have obesity on not?
Watched half way and I can't see where he put up a convincing argument against hard determinism. I have to agree with a Sam Harris' and Sapolsky's take that most compatabilist come across and confused on the matter
1) If my actions depend crucially on something I do not control, then I do not control my actions. 2) My actions depend crucially on my beliefs. 3) I do not have control of my beliefs. I cannot choose to be convinced or not of the things I am or not am convinced of. You might say I can control whether and how I investigate or test my beliefs for their truth. But that only pushes the problem back a step; I do not have control over whether I believe I ought to test my beliefs or how I ought to go about doing so. 4) Therefore I do not control my actions.
Hmm... compatibilists would deny 1. It's already the case that your actions depend crucially on your being born, and you do not control your birth, and yet you do have control over your actions, says the compatibilist, according to a compatibilist notion of control.
Maybe we can compatibilist-proof the argument this way: 1) If my desires, second-order desires, sensitivity to reasons, standards of right and wrong, and whatever else compatibilist conditions of freedom depend crucially on something I do not control, then I do not control my actions. 2) My desires, second-order desires, sensitivity to reasons, standards of right and wrong, and whatever else compatibilist conditions of freedom depend crucially on my beliefs... etc. a manipulation argument via doxastic involuntarism
@BenStowell Why do you think your being convinced of anything has anything to do with its truth? If you do not direct your belief forming activities towards truth, why think that is where you have arrived? To be so situated with respect to a fact, that where it so, you would believe it so, and we're it not so, you would not believe it so (ie. to have knowledge) would be something one falls into by pure happenstance if not done intentionally. In which case, there is no reason to believe one's beliefs (they are causally independent of truth). Now, apply the above to what you posted.
@@jeffreyscott4997while your words are fine, they appear to ignore the fact that fitness describes one being a good fit within their environment. That is, that one correlates with ones environment in a real, a true, sense and this is why they are fit and why they and their progeny thrive. It is not by choice that evolution results in fit individuals, but due to mechanisms of nature. So it is not by happenstance that one comes to truth, but rather because they instinctually employ inherited methods (sight and smell and cognition, etc.). These are equally determined as well and so your suggestion does not defeat a deterministic account that is simultaneously rational and yet, not free.
For anyone who denies the proposition *someone could have done otherwise”*to be true in any real or robust sense, I would like to see how they could possibly justify… well, countless things… but for instance: the concept of judging anyone negligent, or criminally negligent. Even if we shelve the idea of “ basic moral dessert”… we still have to make judgements about people, including the type of judgements that draw the law upon somebody. The concept of negligence , and criminal negligence, relies on accepting the proposition “ someone could’ve done otherwise.” So let’s take an example : A trained and capable lifeguard , John, is sitting in a chair near the mouth of a hotel swimming pool, and which nobody is currently swimming. John is sitting on his lifeguard chair reading a magazine. A toddler has wondered away from her family and falls into the deep end of the pool and immediately begins drowning, right in front of John . John is clearly aware of what happening, he pulled down his magazine for a moment watching the child drowning, and then simply pulls his magazine back up and continues reading, allowing the child to die in the pool. No, we are going to have to be able to make judgements about John in this situation. At the very least, John would be fired and never be hired as a lifeguard again. But it all likelihood a charge would be product as John of criminal negligence as well. But what is the logic of making judgements against John? It can’t be against the action that he chose to do . What’s wrong with sitting in a chair reading a magazine? Nothing morally wrong with that. Nothing legally wrong with that. People sit in chairs and read magazines all the time and we don’t worry about their character. It’s obvious ; John is condemned not by what he chose to do, but on the fact that he COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE and saved the child. So John is condemned on what he did not do, but COULD HAVE DONE. And if we do not have any true robust sense of “ someone could’ve done otherwise” then how could we possibly make such judgments? Any takers? Anyone want to FULLY deny there is any true sense of “ somebody could’ve done otherwise?” And if so how would the logic of judging John’s behaviour work on your account?
Are you suggesting that John had typical cognitive and affective process in the brain and just decided by the power of free will and conscious intention to ignore all things that instinctively move 'normal' person with healthy imagination and mirror neurons?
@PeterIntrovert No. Rather I posted some specific questions about the logic of judging John’s behaviour. Would you like to try actually answering those questions? Would you agree that we can justify a negative assessment of John’s behaviour? That John should be fired and shouldn’t be a lifeguard ever again? And even that John could be held criminally negligent? If so, on what basis ? What’s wrong with just sitting in a chair reading a magazine?
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn In that case your whole argument is sophistry. I will focus on the main point but there are problems with your framing too. And this is simple, John will face consequences not based on what he could do but what he did - ignored the situation. It's not about sitting and reading but when confronted with a situation he made the decision to not engage. Therefore we are talking about what he DID about what was in his social contract and not what he could do. I will not even go further by saying that the situation you presented is unrealistic. And when we add conditions to make it realistic then all point to lack of FW and making the act of judgement very human but irrational.
@@PeterIntrovert @PeterIntrovert First, People are judged negligent all the time, including criminally negligent. The logic is the same . I have simply done what we often do in philosophy : provided a scenario in which the negligence is very clear so as to investigate the intuitions involved. Your attempt to reframe the issue is simply dancing around the problems hidden in your response, that you simply aren’t making explicit. *And this is simple, John will face consequences not based on what he could do but what he did - ignored the situation. It's not about sitting and reading but when confronted with a situation he made the decision to not engage.* Which implies exactly what I said: John made a decision: he COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE and saved the child, but he chose the other option of not saving the child, right? Can you just be explicit about the fact that you are accepting that John could’ve done otherwise? Here let’s make it even more explicit if you’re still having trouble with this. Take an alternative scenario: Instead of John, the healthy and trained lifeguard sitting near the pool, we have Fred sitting near the pool, overlooking the deep end. However, unfortunately Fred is in a wheelchair and has ALS like Stephen Hawking did. Fred has been wheeled there by an assistant who has gone to get him something from his room, leaving Fred overlooking the pool, the only person there. Then we have the scenario with the toddler straying away from her parents and falling into the deep end of the pool near Fred, who sees this all happen. And Fred, in his wheelchair, unable to get out or even shout to anybody to help, watches helplessly as the child drowns in front of him. Here we have two different scenarios, and which a man is seated in front of the swimming pool, and who both apprehend a child is drowning in front of them. In both scenarios, neither man helps the child. But we would have significantly different judgements as to the culpability and character of each man right? In John’s case, we would have a highly negative judgement of his character, and he would be held RESPONSIBLE in someway for the scenario of the child drowning - even criminally negligent. Whereas, we would not make this judgement about Fred, would we ? if anything we would judge Fred with deep compassion; it’s not only a tragedy for the child drowning as a tragedy for Fred having had to witness such a terrible thing helplessly. So what is the logical difference between how we are going to judge John and Fred in the scenario? The difference is obvious, isn’t it? We don’t hold Fred responsible because he “ just sat there in his chair, not helping.” It’s because Fred COULD NOT HAVE DONE OTHERWISE and saved the child. Whereas in John’s case, we understand that John COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE and saved the kid, but chose not to. Right? If this analysis is incorrect please point out exactly how. If you were going to remove the proposition that John could have done otherwise than what he did, again exactly how would your logic work to hold John responsible in anyway for what happened to the child? (that we would make judgements about his character, fire him hold him, criminally, negligent, etc..)
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn a meteor fell on the earth a meteor could miss the earth Those are not the same meteor. One is real with causal chain and other is hypothetical.
Why we don't have free will. Free will is the concept that we could have done otherwise without the need for variables we didn't choose to have been different to produce the different result. That is impossible. That is what people ordinarily mean by free will. That's why it appears like neither determinism nor indeterminism could give us free will.
The very question of whether or not there is "free will" [the ability of an agent to make appropriate decisions within the limits of its form] is an act of the very decision making called into question. This is a self evidencing principle - though, a tool. It must be exercised/practiced to greater advantages.
My belief is that determinist are bringing to the introspective phenomena that people refer to as "freely willing" a conception of "free will" that comes to them from ouside of experience. In other words, they are being rationalists. The question shouldn't be "Do we have free will?", but "What is free will?". To insist upon an apriori answer, rather than an aposteriori answer, seems like dogmatism to me.
The colloquial discussion of free will tries to convert a Christian concept based on some metaphysical nonsense (and a relationship between a monotheistic god and a believer) into something the sciences can understand. Even if one *had* a deterministic (rather than purely probabilistic ) system we know that such system can create mind-boggling complexity that renders predictability close to impossible. So the question is rather, what purpose is served in answering a fundamentally theological question in the only way appropriate, i.e. in a probabilistic fashion? Why do people feel the need to recover their 'agency' by telling themselves that they have free will? In what way do they behave differently if they knew that the do have it or don't have it? Do they become more responsible or less responsible in their actions? This is a question that can be answered by empirical enquiry. Human beings as populations of (social) brains behave in very predictable fashions and those behaviours can be represented by probability distributions. Trying to draw (arbitrary) lines of an ontologically categorical nature into such probability distributions is silly.
Coming from the top down, one does not come to the bottom. Everything opens up so let's get out of the box of determinism. Structure may be determined but we are not what we see.
free will phenomenology-the vibe of freedom; + i expect reality to continue & resemble the past in important aspects, + i experience, i am a POV, + i don't know what the future will be arbitrarily precisely, + i observe a variety of occurrences, + i infer indeterminacy from my thoroughgoing ignorance & lack of access to (un)known unknown information. so i may feel that i can choose & acrualize one from several virtual options, because i can mentally simulate different scenarios happening, using past data.
i think we need to radically reduce everything down to the behind the scenes, making of "vents" that produce a kind of stochastic and complex smoke, and then paint a rich mythopoetic story onto the smoke. We need both, meaning and understanding.
Block-Universe is a good concept to visualize determinism, but the future part of the block is obscured, calculating its state most often is computationally irreducible, kudos to Wolfram In light of that, confusing complete causal constraint on one's will vs dealing with unforseenable future lying beyong him - is understandable
“Subatomic particles aren’t coloured.” That’s not great scientific awareness. Colour in science is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation. It is characteristic of particles changing energy levels, and is transmitted by photons - particles.
Our lifelong dreams made manifest. Or our lifelong dreams destroyed. The navigator guides us from A to B. Temporal rumination of collective free will. My navigator is my consciousness. Cybernetic feedback, rhyme in loops.
To me free will doesn't make sense because it would basically mean chaos. Like there must be extremely strong biases against doing certain things or against doing certain things or there would be complete chaos. Why would even such a thing be desirable?
I think there is an option that doesn't seem to be considered that could support a form of libertarian free will (could have done otherwise). However, many people probably won't like it because it invokes an intentional agent that is foundational to how reality gets constituted (occurs the way it does, moment by moment). Typically this agent is called God but it might also be thought of as a cosmic mind. My ontology is a divine idealism (a theistic form of idealism). In this model there are no laws per se (non-intentional and autonomic). Instead *every* event in the cosmos occurs intentionally in the mind of God. So every event is free and intentional. This includes both the regularities that science studies and the novelties that quantum mechanics implies. However, another key part of this ontology is what I call an aspect monism (or a priority monism). In this theistic framework, there is both a God-as-transcendent and a God-as-living. The God-as-living part represents each and every entity in the cosmos. This plurality in God occurs through kenosis (divine self-emptying or limiting). Where a could-have-done-otherwise comes in for humans is that as aspects of God, they inherit a limited, constrained freedom from the unconstrained, ultimate freedom of God-as-transcendent. So, reality gets constituted within the continual dialog and participation with God-as-transcendent and God-as-living (all aspects). So, in this approach, there is real freedom of choice without having to invoke magic or violation of laws (there are no laws). Look for the divine life communion for more on this.
Free-will, memories, and emotions are all integral and abstract faculties of the conscious mind which is also abstract: It is not a physical phenomena. Because we exist in the deterministic universe of cause and effect in which the actions of one physical system is caused or affected by the previous actions of another physical system, neuroscientists, materialists, physicalists, and determinists believe that consciousness must therefore also be caused by the previous actions of another system, namely the neural activity of the physical brain. Yet despite years of research, neuroscientists have thus far failed to find any signs of consciousness, memories, or emotions being generated by any part of the physical brain, let alone by the firing of the neurons; thus, the 'brain makes mind' theory still remains unproven to this day. Yet, despite this, they continue to quote the theory as if it is fact; so much so that they have managed to convince a large proportion of the scientific community and the public that it is: If you keep spouting the same mantra over and over again without critique, it soon becomes the accepted "truth". Not only has this lessened the burden of proof on them to substantiate the theory, but it has also enabled them to effectively exclude consciousness as an independent variable from all of their experiments on free-will, focusing solely on the neural activity of the brains of test subjects: Why waste your time observing, testing, and measuring something you cannot find. Not surprisingly, when test subjects with electrodes attached to their heads are given tasks in which they are asked to select one option from several and the neuroscientists detect and observe neural activity occurring in their brains at the moment they make their selections, they (the neuroscientists) attribute the responsibility for the choices to the neural activity of the brains of the test subjects and not to their conscious minds. So even before the experiments have begun, they have already been rigged to favor the 'brain makes mind' theory. Fortunately, flawed and biased "scientific" experiments are not required to substantiate the reality of free-will. All that is required is a little bit of logic and commonsense. In erroneously claiming that it is the neural activity of our brains that are responsible for the decisions, choices, plans, and actions that we make and take in life and not our conscious minds, and that we humans therefore do not have free-will, neuroscientists, materialists, physicalists, and determinists have failed to take into account the glaring and obvious roles that our memories and emotions which are again, integral faculties of the conscious mind, play in most of the decisions, choices, plans, and actions that we make and take in everyday life. It is the memories of our life experiences that we have accumulated and stored in our conscious minds overtime and the way that those experiences made us feel emotionally that influences most of the decisions, choices, plans, and actions that we make and take in everyday life. If an experience from the past was sad, painful, or traumatic, then we are unlikely to want to repeat it in the future. On the other hand, if a past experience was enjoyable, then we will want to repeat it in the future. "When we mourn the death of a loved one, this is an emotional response influenced by the fond and loving memories that we have accumulated and stored in our conscious minds of that person overtime, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the physical brain. *When we make plans to vacation on a favorite tropical island for the end of year holidays, this is an emotional decision influenced by the enjoyable memories that we have stored in our conscious minds of previous holidays on the island, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the physical brain. *When we decide to buy tickets to see a favorite singer perform live in concert at the weekend, this is an emotional decision influenced by the love and admiration that we feel for the singer and his/her songs, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the physical brain. *When a dog or cat suddenly and unexpectedly runs out in front of our car as we are driving along the road, our immediate reaction is to brake abruptly or try to swerve to avoid hitting it. This reaction is 'driven' by our emotional concern for the life and safety of the animal, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the physical brain. The self is consciousness, not the 3-D avatar of the physical body. Consciousness resides at the higher 'Micro' dimension of the 'Universal Life Field' which permeates all dimensions and all levels of perception within each. The physical brain acts as a transducer of consciousness, enabling it to experience the 3-Dimensional universe through the five senses from the higher 'Micro' Dimension of the 'Universal Life Field', in the same way that a virtual headset and a virtual avatar enables a person to experience the world of virtual reality: The person does not reside in the world of virtual reality, just as consciousness does not reside in the 3-Dimensional universe of cause and effect. In this sense, the 3-Dimensional universe can be seen as a 'simulation' which we experience through the 3-D headset of the physical brain and the 3-D avatar of the physical body from the higher 'Micro' Dimension of the 'Universal Life Field'. Free-will is as self-evident and as real as daylight radiates from the sun. Unfortunately, too many people have chosen to abandon their sense of logic and have allowed themselves to be 'blinded and bamboozled by the science' instead; and as a result, they cannot see the wood for the trees, even when it is staring them right in the face...
Active and restless aetheists - are closer - to the miracle of mysticism - than dogma crushed religionists. Free thinking - is dynamic and free and it dances - joyfully.
I'm not sure of the point here. I'm about half way through and it feels like I've heard no argument besides "vibes". Seems like he's saying, "from a first person perspective it appears that I have free will so I must have free will." Just end it there and save all of us 2 and a half hours. If all that matters here is some first or secondhand account, then what's the point of philosophy? We could just ask each other how we feel about philosophical topics and just have the answers. Either I'm not following or nothing coherent is being said here. Edit: Also, if he refuses to define it, then how do we even know what he's talking about besides some amorphous vibe?
The most grave error for Richard is to be guilty of allowing a role for "spooky stuff" in relation to free will and consciousness etc. Richard appears to be of the view that it is an axiom of proper understanding of philosophy to rule out non material aspects as a first step or perhaps as a necessary pre supposition. Once that move is made, determinism or his ill defined compatibilist version follows necessarily. The real issue then is Richard's dedication to no spooky stuff.
Concerning freewill deniers , for example Sam Harris and Alex O'Connor. I have to wonder how they are able to live in accord with that belief... surely they have friends - "Hey Tom , would you like to come over for dinner tomorrow ?" What could that possibly mean ? are they just cruelly taunting Tom ? slapping him across the face with his impotence ? He has no agency , he might show up for dinner or he might not , but either way he couldn't have made that decision , for he has no free will.
I imagine it would mean "do you want to come over for dinner tomorrow?" Not sure why you find the idea confusing since Alex's O'Connor's entire argument against free will is that people only do what they desire.
@beherenowspace1863 Interactions are back and forth deterministic processes that are not unidimensional. The sense of a seperate self is false because nothing in the universe can be separated from anything else. That is an impossibility. The self is a continuous series of infinite events that converge into a conscious moment that is expressed through the will. Whatever choice a person makes is the choice the universe has made. Like a single ocean wave is the movement of the whole ocean, a single human action is the movement of the whole universe. That is the true self. The false self is a dualistic mental illusion, self and other, created by the brain as tool to function in the world.
In the universe we have a degree of hazard and chaos. This is what allows for freewill. Nevertheless, freewill Exists in potential. It must Be developed. We have to see a free choice to be able to make a free choice and not an automatic reaction or predetermined action.
@12:00 because analysis did not work out you gave up analysis. lol. This is not a healthy attitude. If you _analyze_ Richard's defense it is analytical, the only difference with the ultra-nerds is that he uses soft concepts. That can _always_ be cached out in probabilistic terms, analytical terms, even if the conclusions are not numerical. In metaphysics you only need *_possibility_* and the rest is faith. Also, note how vague he is about Naturalism. I am a naturalist too, and a Unique uncaused cause of all things is in my account of Nature. Physicalism is dumb, but as a working physicist I always pragmatically adopt physicalism in my science, it would be dumb not to. Thus I hold to the Principle of Sufficient Reason - pragmatically (for the science) but also spiritually/idealistically (for the honesty). I also write and lecture on macroeconomic justice, for which I discard totalizing physicalism and retain only the science I obtained from physicalism.
Hardline physicalists are basically philosophical fascists. lol. They seek a purity aesthetic, and it is laughable if not so tragic. I am certain most of them eschew political fascism and favour liberalism.
Use the right - to use your will - to work in the field of research and duty. See that the individual will - obeys the Special Will - Nature and the Real Being. Just so - and may all - be successful.
Interested to hear from people who believe in free will: it seems that some people have a perception or intuition of free will, and others don't. Do you think that people with no subjective experience of free will also have free will, or is it only those with the subjective experience?
@@beherenowspace1863 No, I've never experienced anything that felt like free will. I have no idea what that would even feel like. I can somewhat sympthise with your frustration, because it baffles me when someone like Daniel Dennett claims that "consciousness is an illusion", which is an absurd statement to anyone who has experienced consciousness. So maybe Daniel Dennett just doesn't experience qualia they way others do, and I don't experience free will the way others do.
@@SquishypuffDave Have you never felt like you have made a decision that you could have made differently? It only needs one person to have free will for it to exist :)
I want to believe in free will, but compatibilism has never convinced me. you are just using the same word to refer to something different. 5:26 then use a different word, don't hijack the one that already exists, it really pisses me off, it feels disingenuous
That why compatibilists are laughable (harsh words, I know). They want to have a word and its positive connotations in their vocabulary without the metaphysical baggage.
This is your feeling on the matter. Although for someone like myself, I always had some sense of "I am free to do X" that didn't involve "I am a prime mover of my own actions." And when others revealed that's what they think free will means, it seemed absurd to me. Then I am told unless we have the extremely unrealistic version of free will, we can't morally blame people. Which piles oddity upon oddity to me, because I'd say of course we can. Now, who among us is more prominent in the population? I can't be too sure. Most people probably don't even think about this issue.
Yours is a very common misunderstanding, as if YOU happen to know the “ real” definition of free will, and from there, the combatabilist is redefining it. You’d actually have to show an argument forgot that because otherwise, you are begging the question, since compatibilism claims to account for real free will as well.
Compatabilist's can define free will so that it fits i a deterministic worldview, thats fine, but in doing so, they've arbitrarily carved out a certain deterministic process and labeled it, nothibg more. I don't think that this term is describing anything meaningful. "Everything is determined by impersonal physical processes, but THESE physical processes are special because they're complex, and I can't predict their outcome. Because this physical process is complex and I can't predict its outcome, I feel justified in calling it a causal agent, and it is deserving of praise and blame." Why call it "free" and why call it "will"? It seems to me that what we experience as "free will" is just a first person felt experience of a neural network playing out data processes. What's important is just deserts and whether or not blame and praise are justified, and the compatabilist definition of free will, even if we accept it, doesn't establish a clear explanation of why certain determined physical processes can be considered actions of a causal agent and the preceeding processes as determined without causal agency.
You say that compatibilists have “ arbitrarily” carved out a certain chain of causation? Far from it. Has it ever occurred to you that literally every single one of our causal explanations - whether it is every day observations or scientific - is doing just that? If you take your car in because a headlight is not working and the mechanic upon taking a look explains “ The light isn’t working because a fuse burnt out” … do you reject that explanation because he is not giving you an account of every antecedent cause stretching back to the Big Bang? Of course not. We are always at all times looking to specific parts and a causal chain to understand a specific phenomenon. And we can identify in human beings, a process of reasoning and deliberation that makes sense of our choices, and we can examine under what type of circumstances we are “ more free” or “ less free” of constraints on doing what we want for our own reasons.
i's don't think there's a performative contradiction between deciding on a way of action and having no idea if it was determined or not, or even being totally convinced that it was already determined since the beginning of time.. if it's gonna be about how i'm better cause i chose to make better decisions in life then i better decide to rid myself of free will while i still believe in it .. cause that's a childish distraction..
also.. when you in a state of "flow" you don't feel like you're making decisions although you're acting well enough so as to not be constantly disrupted by questioning your actions...
Modern physics doesn't support strict determinism and the universe's fundamental probabilistic nature allows for nondeterministic proceses at all scales. Quantum effects were experimentally proven at molecular scales, which is enough to affect biological and chemical systems, and can theoretically happen at larger scales as well. It is obvious that macroscopic determinism is the ilusion. As for the nature and the freedom of will I do not know, but I enjoy these videos. Keep up the good job!
No other debate is so silly and composed of people talking about different concepts under the same name, in different directions, with no intelligent thoughts anywhere to be found. On one side, there is experience of choice, on the other determism or stochastic determination of actions choice and will. It is nonsense to say the two sides are incompatible, and it is also equally nonsense to suggest anyone has any clear idea about what agency independent of the world as it is would even mean. To say the otger side is wrong is absolutely bollocks.
The very notion of libertarian free will is completely and utterly incoherent. It’s like saying you can think a thought before you think it. It’s just total nonsense.
@@chasetuttle2780 There is still free will, but it must be in a specific methaphysical framework. Because determinism and compatibilism are also false.
since that's what most people mean with free will. and since it's incorrect, we can just say that free will doesn't exist. and compatibilists have to be honest enough to say they don't believe in free will either. they just use the word to refer to something else
Lmao why is this guys university prestige is highlighted, but not for Alex O'Connor when he literallywent Oxford which ranks higher for philosophy and theology
Either your actions are determined by previous desires, goals, or influences, or your actions are entirely random. Free Will is both logically impossible( Law of Excluded Middle) and incoherent. No, compatibilism isn't an alternative option and is just determinism masked by specific rhetorical and semantic pedantry and unneeded comprises. Also, the fact that 18.83%(18.20%) of philosophers believe in libertarian free will is a clear indication that analytical philosophy is deeply flawed from a metaphilsophical angle. The same issues arise with the "self", "qualia", and other incoherent apriori crap. It makes sense that someone who thinks that NDE's are veridical and that idealism is reasonable would consult a random Cambridge philosopher and cherry pick what they said in spite of countless objections made by numerous other scientists and scholars( with both scientific and logical problems with the idea).
“Free will” is a meaningless term. It can’t be defined. The will itself is a very complex thing, it’s contradictory. Only silly theologians still talk about it.
It's almost impressive how a person can keep talking without really saying anything. It's ironic, that nobody would even listen to you, if you didn't use the people like Harris or Sapolsky for publicity. But you don't actually address any of their arguments, you just say that according to you, they can't solve the problem of free will.
Dennett supported Compatibilism for fear of having "those people doing dastardly things in their low IQ way of thinking". But Tom, as far as I hear, has the "impression that his will is free", which I think is un-philosophical of him
Dennet is a stubborn idiot who literally is o ly capable of having ideas arise that he had no control of based on all he already knows, and is incapable of changing his mind. Test this and check… sorry Daniel RIP
look at this page of someone's writing, now look at this page...but whatever you do, don't look at your own lived experience, which is the only reality: then you'd miss all the fun of conceptual mind-games...
Neuroscientist/philosopher here: While he regurgitates the 'compatibilist' argument for a free will and states at 29.04 that not much has changed since Hume he fundamentally misunderstands the framework on which all neuroscience and all the sciences are built since the 19thC: a probabilistic framework! If he doesn't get that this is is fundamentally different in terms of how causality is seen, measured and tested, then he misses the plot altogether - which he does. The rest must needs be hot air.So he engages in a long defunct conversation between the early nominalists and Hobbs, not in the fact-driven and probability-based interpretations in all the sciences since Boltzmann.
@@StephenLawrence-re8ub No it is not. The whole way we think about traditional 'causality' and decomposing into complex probability distributions has fundamentally changed the way we think about this world. This revolution goes back to Boltzmann and apparently some philosophers have still not understood what this transformation means!
Determinism is only valid for closed systems - and humans are not closed systems so the argument does not even apply. Humans make decisions based on external stimulus and their internal states that is free enough for me.
@13:00 You Professional Thinking People are missing an understanding of Top Down causation. Jaegwon Kim spent his entire life trying to solve the puzzle, and failed. He did not comprehend quantum mechanics in spacetime. Few do. To give you a hint: consider a spacetime cobordism, the future boundary of which is a future Cauchy hypersurface. If in the cobordism there are nearly closed timelike curves on the Planck scale (which almost every model for "quantum gravity' would admit) then _generically_ the future boundary has *_non-redundant_* boundary data. From a logical angle the same thing is said by noting QM has fundamental non-locality in a Minkowski frame but does not violate relativistic causality. (Though this angle is dumb, since it has no spacetime geometric content.) What this means is that the future supplies non-redundant data for the cobordism. Clearly, without any metaphysics mumbo-jumbo, this means Top Down causality is a thing. The future or our present is not determined by the data on any past Cauchy boundary (our past lightcone). You do not need to twist any brain pretzels and emit word salads about "emergence".
By “metaphysical mumbo jumbo” you mean not assuming some type of materialism or naturalism then sure, but this is a philosophical dispute you need to explain why it’s mumbo jumbo. Now I am not a libertarian when it comes to free will but a lot of the objections from lay people are not good.
@RichHarkness this has been a standard academic position for a long time, I just know how to corner people in a debate about it. I didn't beg the question. Give me a version of free will that is compatible with non-deterministic decision making. Remember that non-deterministic means it happens for no cause, aka no reason whatsoever. There is no other option. Determined (caused) or not determined (not caused.) No other option. Give a compatible definition of free will, and I will show you it's an entirely deterministic process that already has a different label in English.
In the context of the free will debate, you are very obviously begging the question , and don’t seem familiar with compatibilism. You are simply stating that free will is incompatible with determinism - “ if it’s determined, it’s not free will” which is very much begging the question against compatibilism. Do you understand compatibilism?
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn No, I am very obviously NOT begging the question, as my conclusion is not assumed in any of the premises. You know, the definition of question begging. So, point out where that happened and/or let's just talk about the definition of free will and why it's not coherent or compatible with determinism or non determinism. My short statement does* assume compatibilism doesn't work, yes. That is in NO way even close to an alternate universe that's even slightly parallel to a reality where that's even remotely akin to begging the question. Assuming is not begging the question. Yes, my statement assumes compatibilism is wrong. So what? I'll give my reasons why I came to that conclusion, and we can talk about whether they're reasonable or not. Pretty simple stuff. Compatibilism is the idea that an act is considered free will if the cause is determined internally. My problem with compatibilism is that it re-defines free will, so, it's not even the same concept. It's the same thing as saying God is the globe and the globe exists, therefore God exists. This makes it utterly pointless, as it takes the label that has a ton of other baggage and changes the definition to something that already has a different and common label. The free will compatibilism talks about is simply freedom. It is indistinguishable from the plain concept of JUST freedom. Lack of coercion. That's it. It's the same concept. So, it just obscures language for absolutely no reason except an emotional attachment to the SOUND of the certain syllables that are contained in the phrase "free will." The other reason compatibilism is a nonsense philosophy is that in fact the "internal" decision is ultimately ALWAYS caused by outside factors. Your genetic and developmental outcomes are ALL determined externally, and every single one of your perceptions and decisions after that point will be determined environmentally. The dichotomy between external and internal causes is blatantly, factually, empirically, and ontologically false. So, compatibilism is as incoherent as any other formulation of free will.
@@SnakeWasRight *Assuming is not begging the question.* It is if what you are assuming is under debate ! And it seems like you’ve done it again, for instance assuming a certain definition of free will that is incompatible with determinism. That certainly does beg the question in the context of discussing this with a compatibilist (like myself). *Compatibilism is the idea that an act is considered free will if the cause is determined internally* That’s a version of source compatibilism. I myself prefer leeway compatibilism. Are you familiar with how they differ? *My problem with compatibilism is that it re-defines free will, so, it's not even the same concept* So here I’m apparently supposed to simply accept YOUR definition of free will, that just happens to be incompatible with free Will. Where of course the compatible definition would be compatible. so you are implicitly begging the question and need to actually show why I asked to accept YOURs as “the” definition of free will from which the compatibilist is redefining it. You can’t just assume and assert this stuff. Because compatibilists generally argue that we are providing an account for free will that captures the essential features usually associated with every day decision-making, responsibility, moral, and otherwise, the phenomenology of decision-making in which people believe “ I could’ve done otherwise” etc. So you can’t just assert the compatibles are redefining things. As long as people have been thinking about free, will there has been a compatible account of free will. This is not like compatible has simply shown up late in the game to redefine things. Not to mention that empirical research into everyday free will intuition uncovers quite a bit of compatibilist intuitions. *The free will compatibilism talks about is simply freedom. It is indistinguishable from the plain concept of JUST freedom. Lack of coercion. That's it.* Incorrect. “ Freedom” is far too broad a term to substitute for free will. There are very specific philosophical issues that any account for “ free will” speaks to. For instance: If I make a decision between two different actions, and I choose an over B, is it true to say “ I could have done otherwise, and chosen be instead?” And if so, what does that mean? Am I the relevant cause and author of my actions and decisions? Do I have the type of relevant control and freedom to make that author, and to be held morally responsible for my actions? Etc.. Merely intoning the word “ freedom” doesn’t actually answer all those questions that any free will thesis has to answer. And once you start answering those questions… yes most people and most philosophers will take you to be addressing the issue of free will. The important thing is to not beg the question to begin with - like starting with free will definitions that rule out compatibilism from the start.
how do i GET this ''free willy thingy'' ??? what IS it and where does it come from , where does it FIT IN ??? EITHER you do something for previous reasons , in which case the action is DETERMINED OR you do something ... for NO reasons , which makes the action RANDOM , where EVEN IS THIS OTHER SLOT TO PUT SOMETHING IN ??? where IS IT ? how do you SLIP IN free willy ?? in which slot ? BOTH SLOTS ARE OCCUPIED ... WHAT EVEN ... IS IT ... ?? you can't even explain this concept ... to yourself , let alone to someone else , ... but it's '' a real thing in reality '' , is it ??? FUCK MAN , ... HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ???? the ONLY ''free will'' people have ... is to pick between the choices ... they WOULD ALREADY HAVE PICKED FROM , that's NOT a free willy , that DETERMINED BY THE CHOICES YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU , WHICH ... OF THE CHOICES , you would have picked the same thing ... every god damn time , OR YOU WOULD HAVE PICKED ... AT RANDOM ... WHERE IS free willy ? and BWT , ''randomness'' ... is an ACTUAL FORCE IN THE UIVERSE , so we know THAT's REAL , MOST things in the universe are DETERMINED ... and RANDOMNESS ... IS A FORM OF DETERMINISM , so basically , all we have ... IS a determined world , FULL STOP !!! where IS FREE WILLY ???
I don’t think you have thought this through very well. You mean you never experienced choosing something for yourself for the reasons you personally have to choose it based on your own goals and deliberations?
Maybe have a think about freewill after you've had something to eat... Brain doesn't work too good if ya don't feed it. P.S why is this guy reading a script? actual NPC alert
Positive/Negative: Choose. Empathy+/Narcissism- Choose. You are destined to make the choices you are going to make, so make them good ones. You can prove it to yourself by always choosing +ve. No matter how hard the test, in any moment, you can choose +/-. The exercise of Free Will to +ve is the meaning of life; Choose to Love God, and know you are Loved. Do your job, soldier Rev 13;18
After unintentionally clicking on it, the fact that they still chose to continued to watch the video instead of stopping or changing the video still demonstrates that they have free will.
@sabhishek9289 , But did they actually think and use their freewill to do whatever they did?? Did you use your freewill to post a reply to my comment!!??
I just clicked to see the comments. I heard on one of the previous videos the kind of arguments this channel uses for free will, can't be bothered listening to them again.
Actually, that’s not true. Especially if we are talking about issues like free will, intelligence, consciousness, and even artificial intelligence, etc. Daniel Dennett for since used to collaborate with cognitive scientists. There’s other philosophy, such as Patricia Churchland and Andy Clark, who for instance, work with cognitive scientist to explore how the brain interacts with the body and environment to generate perception and action. Philosophers can help clarify ideas, concepts, and arguments, which can be helpful.
Go on. Describe every action of mine with a scientific terminology. May it be good for something. Or good for nothing. Free will existing or not wouldn't change the fact that all of our explications (to be considered as such) have to be coherential and, therefore, give the impression that all of our actions are predetermined.
As a bunch of people explained to you in other videos about this theme and they are doing it again in the comments the problem with you is that you have no idea of what "free will" is, or what "will" is for that matter. You try to come up with a definition of will that you seem to believe compatible with science (and fail even in that) but again and again you just show how you are incapable of understanding what "will" is. Instead of trying to prove to everyone how stupid you and professors from Cambridge are, try to understand what "will" means first. But since you lack the most basic understanding of anything at all, don't do it alone, learn from people what "will" means. After you can agree with "free will deniers" what "will" is, you can then disagree with them. But if you can't agree on what "will" is, then what is hapening is not a dialogue, or confrontation, it is just you making something up and proving to people who enjoy your fantasy that what you made up is a valid argument. Like playing RPG or arguing fantasy in general, the discussions you proposed about "will" are no different from arguing about Thor's Hammer, the Mjolnir, or asking a Dungeon Master if your Rogue can climb a 15 feet wall. A certain level of consensus is necessary to call something a discussion, what you are doing is simply ignoring what "will" means, seriously, how many people need to tell you that in how many different ways until you understand? There is no amount of arguments that will validate a wrong definition, everything built upon a wrong definition will be wrong. At last but not least, you come from a lineage of philosophical stupidy like mind and matter duality, mind over matter and so on, I don't know if you know you do that, sometimes you seem too oblivious to even notice your difficulty with the subject come from it, but sometimes you seem to lack the most obvious knowledges like the fact that your experience with the world and with your own mind are not data, they are not valid arguments, they do not prove anything at all, on the contrary, they are the basics to disprove lots of things. Anyway... just listen to the quadrillion people telling you that you are working with an absurd definition that do not describe "will" at all. Please, stop embarassing yourself (and people you drag into this mess).
Goodness that was quite a rant. Not sure what brought that on. But were you going to explain to us at some point what the “ will” is? (it’s a notoriously tricky concept to pin down to everybody’s satisfaction… but give it a whirl)
If the "self" is an illusion, then free will definitely is.
You realise there is no inherent self,when you realise there is no inherent self to realise it.
You can't have an illusion if you don't have a self ..
@BillyThetit The illusion is real, but no one's having it.
@@MrJamesdryable yes,people think illusion means it doesn’t exist,but the separate self exists as an illusion.There is no inherent self to either have or not have free will
@robertjsmith This guy gets it.
So many objections to the free will argument reduce to people supporting theories that humans do in fact have wills and varying degrees of willpower, but nowhere do they actually arrive at any conclusions as to how a will can function "free" from any contingencies. It is the idea of this "freedom" being somehow transcendent by nature that determinists reject, not the idea that we have relative degrees of control over our wills(control that manifests itself from our innate conditioning and instinctual desires to regulate ourselves, mind you).
The best arguments I've seen come from compatibilists discussing the discrepancies between the language we use to describe these conscious phenomena and arguing for a value in relating to our wills as though they are free, but in so far as they actually try to establish the ontological foundations of it, the arguments are, as far as I'm aware, moot.
There's widespread confusion between philosophical free will, which is a metaphysical concept beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and "agency," which can be studied by various disciplines, particularly cybernetics. This confusion stems from a misunderstanding of "free" in a metaphysical sense versus autonomy and degrees of freedom within the context of self-organizing complex dynamical systems.
Philosophical free will is largely irrelevant and arguably nonsensical, while agency is crucial and widely understood. We should focus our attention on understanding and fostering agency, which is essential for individuals and societies.
@He.knows.nothing I'm very new to this topic. Seems obvious to me that willpower is way more limited than we imagine it is, but I do like to believe in some level of willpower. Who are the compatibilists you refer to in your second paragraph?
@mrtumnusmusic I think that was Prof Alex Carter. I'm not 100% sure that's where I heard it but it was from another debate of Alex O'Connor's. It was a good watch if you're interested in the subject matter.
@@PeterIntrovert I completely agree with this.
@@He.knows.nothing thanks!
I always find the idea that we know we have free will from experience extremely funny. Of course most people will readily admit that 99% of their experience has nothing to do with free will at all because it just has to do with the world and obviously you have no control over that. Sense perceptions are out of our control, subconscious processes are running in the background all the time, emotions rise up within us unprompted, and even our own imaginations will create phantasms at the slightest suggestion from outside.
But people still carve out that tiny little 1% and call it "me" and think that thing has free will. If you actually look at that thing closely, though, its clearly just a story meant to tie together all the stuff I mentioned in the previous paragraph and make sense of it and so "me" doesn't really exist. But the idea that a story could have free will is, admittedly, pretty funny.
Hence the predictability of the youtube comments section on any video discussing freewill.
I think that the more people believe they have control over their ability to focus, to focus on x sense perception instead of y, or x thought instead of y, it’s precisely that ability to focus with intention that give people their sense of freedom and ability to grow. So much that they focus everything on what they can control and much less on the rest of the world which they cannot. This tends to make people more successful.
Explaining determinism from past terms is a post-mortem examination of free will. It's like looking at a dead body to see if it ever comes to life again and, if it doesn't, say that the origin of life is as vile as it'll ever be.
I wonder what is behind free will denial being promoted so much
Yes! And I wonder why NOONE ever mentions the connection to focus and attention
Not sure but my book just got released at appears #4 in Amazon search results for 'free will' right underneath the big deniers Sapolski and Harris
science
@@FigmentHF Science, Newtonian physics is the wrong place to look for free will. Especially with our contemporary science based on an a prior ignorance
Feels edgy. Is counterintuitive and helps to attract attention.
Hi, I reached out by email about my new book: The Definition of Free Will & A Model of Attention. Every discussion on free will seems to be missing the critical connection between focus of attention and free will. I would love to be on as a guest and think we would have a great conversation adding a new dimension to this topic that has recycled the same arguments for so long without any resolution
This is exactly what I’ve been thinking!
I wrote this as a rough draft account of free will.
Free will
When a person has preconditions for several desirable options, and a faculty of reflection that isn’t compelled, they may:
1. Reflect on different reasons and evaluate them. Evaluation can change priorities.
2. Explore other options.
3. Act on one, or none.
Reflection is essential to this process.
Reflection is a self contained mental process that is not compelled in a certain direction.
Evidence for reflection
People can sit in a place of mental reflection and endlessly explore ideas and possibilities without compulsion to act. They have the ability to reflect on different parts of themselves. They can focus on x, y, or z sense perceptions, or on x, y, or z thoughts, and cycle through them by subjective reasoning.
Subjective reasoning could be defined as reasoning that gains meaning upon reflection. This is in contrast with reasoning that is pre programmed by the speaker(in the formulation of the words) and/or listener(preconceived ideas). Reflection allows the programming to be questioned and thus not acted upon.
We can compartmentalize ourselves and reflect on different parts, which have different motivations. This way we can “stop” and shift into neutral and focus on one part or another freely(semi-freely). It’s a specific ability.
I’ve also been questioning whether we can always stop the car. If you’re driving too fast toward the cliff, you may only make the change if you do so well before the critical moment. So we may not be free in times of action, but before we reach times of action.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on that and more about your book.
@@collin501 Thank you for such a well-thought-out and reflective comment! I really appreciate how you’ve outlined your rough draft on free will-it’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into the nuances of reflection, choice, and the interplay of motivations. Your points resonate strongly with the framework I’ve developed in my book, and I’d love to share how your ideas align with and expand on my work.
Interpreting Your Ideas
Your focus on reflection as an essential process fits beautifully into the dynamics I describe in my model. Reflection can be seen as a pivotal mechanism in the internal field of attention, where we evaluate subconscious suggestions and external stimuli. The ability to “stop” and compartmentalize motivations aligns with what I call expressive action-our capacity to consciously and voluntarily direct focus, even in the presence of competing influences.
I also found your metaphor about "stopping the car" interesting. It underscores the importance of timing and preparation in exercising autonomy, which parallels the idea that while impressive actions (like subconscious impulses or external pressures) may arise unbidden, expressive action allows us to override or redirect these influences before critical moments.
Summary of My Model
In my book, I redefine free will as the ability to control focus, framing it through the lens of several interconnected concepts:
Focal Energy and Motivation
I liken focal energy to a form of monetary currency, with motivation as the “gold” that backs this focal currency. Just as monetary currency has value derived from something intrinsic, our attention is driven by underlying motivations. These motivations feed into what you describe as different parts of ourselves that compete for focus during reflection.
Impressive and Expressive Action
Impressive action refers to passive influences-like subconscious suggestions or external stimuli-that pull our attention. Impressive action refers to the passive reception of signals. It is that which is impressed upon us. For example, a fleeting worry or a loud noise might automatically & involuntarily draw focus.
Expressive action, on the other hand, is our active ability to direct attention intentionally, even in the face of these impressive forces. It’s the foundation of autonomy and allows us to consciously engage with competing motivations or ideas. There is nothing we do, nothing we can say we control without fundamentally directing focus toward it.
Focal Energy Distribution Patterns
Focus isn’t singularly pointed like a laser; instead it takes the form of a constellation being distributed across various channels in the internal and external fields of attention. These distribution patterns reflect how we allocate energy-consciously or unconsciously-across different areas of focus. Reflection, as you described, involves shifting this distribution pattern inward to explore possibilities or weigh options. The essence of free will is the ability to consciously cast a focal energy distribution pattern.
Subconscious Suggestions
The subconscious provides a constant stream of internal impressive actions in the form of suggestions or motivations that arise from the periphery of the internal field. I call them suggestions as they are similar to hypnotic suggestions. These often convey their own energy and aim to compel us toward specific actions. However, through expressive action, we retain the ability to accept, reject, veto, or reinterpret these suggestions.
Bringing It Back to Expressive Action
I love how you highlight reflection as a space of freedom where ideas and motivations can be explored without immediate compulsion to act. In my model, this aligns with expressive action-the conscious act of deciding where to allocate focal energy. Even when impressive actions (like subconscious drives or external pressures) are strong, expressive action ensures that the ability to act independently always exists.
Your mention of not always being able to “stop the car” is an important reminder of the limits of attention and timing. I interpret this as a cautionary note about the energy and preparation required for reflective action before reaching critical moments-a concept I aim to address in terms of attention’s vulnerability and the strategies needed to reinforce expressive control.
I’d love to hear more about how you see your ideas evolving and how reflection, as you’ve described it, might fit into this framework. It’s exciting to see how closely our thoughts align and complement each other, and I truly appreciate your interest in my book. Let me know if you'd like to explore any of these concepts further!
@@collin501 Thank you for such a well-thought-out and reflective comment! I really appreciate how you’ve outlined your rough draft on free will-it’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into the nuances of reflection, choice, and the interplay of motivations. Your points resonate strongly with the framework I’ve developed in my book, and I’d love to share how your ideas align with and expand on my work.
Interpreting Your Ideas
Your focus on reflection as an essential process fits beautifully into the dynamics I describe in my model. Reflection can be seen as a pivotal mechanism in the internal field of attention, where we evaluate subconscious suggestions and external stimuli. The ability to “stop” and compartmentalize motivations aligns with what I call expressive action-our capacity to consciously direct focus, even in the presence of competing influences.
I also found your metaphor about "stopping the car" fascinating. It underscores the importance of timing and preparation in exercising autonomy, which parallels the idea that while impressive actions (like subconscious impulses or external pressures) may arise unbidden, expressive action allows us to override or redirect these influences before critical moments.
Summary of My Model
In my book, I redefine free will as the ability to control attention, framing it through the lens of several interconnected concepts:
Focal Energy and Motivation
I liken focal energy to a form of currency, with motivation as the “gold” that backs it. Just as monetary currency has value derived from something intrinsic, our focal currency is driven by underlying motivations. These motivations feed into what you describe as different parts of ourselves that compete for focus during reflection.
Impressive and Expressive Action
Impressive action refers to passive influences-like subconscious suggestions or external stimuli-that pull our attention. It is the passive reception of signals. It's that which impresses upon us. For example, a fleeting worry or a loud noise might automatically draw focus. Expressive action, on the other hand, is our active ability to direct attention intentionally, even in the face of these impressive forces. It’s the foundation of autonomy and allows us to consciously engage with competing motivations or ideas.
Focal Energy Distribution Patterns
Attention isn’t singularly pointed like a laser; it more resembles a constellation being distributed across various channels in the internal and external fields. These patterns reflect how we allocate energy-consciously or unconsciously-across different areas of focus. Reflection, as you described, involves shifting this distribution pattern to explore possibilities or weigh options.
Subconscious Suggestions
The subconscious provides impressive actions in the form of suggestions or motivations that arise from the periphery of the internal field. These often convey their own energy and aim to compel us toward specific actions. However, through expressive action, we retain the ability to accept, reject, or reinterpret these suggestions.
Bringing It Back to Expressive Action
I love how you highlight reflection as a space of freedom where ideas and motivations can be explored without immediate compulsion to act. In my model, this aligns with expressive action-the conscious act of deciding where to allocate focal energy. Even when impressive actions (like subconscious drives or external pressures) are strong, expressive action ensures that the ability to act independently always exists.
Your mention of not always being able to “stop the car” is an important reminder of the limits of attention and timing. I interpret this as a cautionary note about the energy and preparation required for reflective action before reaching critical moments-a concept I aim to address in terms of attention’s vulnerability and the strategies needed to reinforce expressive control.
I’d love to hear more about how you see your ideas evolving and how reflection, as you’ve described it, might fit into this framework. It’s exciting to see how closely our thoughts align and complement each other, and I truly appreciate your interest in my book. Let me know if you'd like to explore any of these concepts further!
@@collin501 Thank you for such a well-thought-out and reflective comment! I really appreciate how you’ve outlined your rough draft on free will-it’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into the nuances of reflection, choice, and the interplay of motivations. Your points resonate strongly with the framework I’ve developed in my book,.
Your focus on reflection as an essential process fits beautifully into the dynamics I describe in my model. Reflection can be seen as a pivotal mechanism in the internal field of attention, where we evaluate subconscious suggestions and external stimuli. The ability to “stop” and compartmentalize motivations aligns with what I call expressive action-our capacity to consciously direct focus, even in the presence of competing influences.
I also found your metaphor about "stopping the car" fascinating. It underscores the importance of timing and preparation in exercising autonomy, which parallels the idea that while impressive actions (like subconscious impulses or external pressures) may arise unbidden, expressive action allows us to override or redirect these influences before critical moments.
In my book, I redefine free will as the ability to control attention, framing it through the lens of several interconnected concepts:
Focal Energy and Motivation
I liken focal energy to a form of currency, with motivation as the “gold” that backs it. Just as monetary currency has value derived from something intrinsic, our focal currency is driven by underlying motivations. These motivations feed into what you describe as different parts of ourselves that compete for focus during reflection.
Impressive and Expressive Action
Impressive action refers to passive influences-like subconscious suggestions or external stimuli-that pull our attention. It is the passive reception of signals. It's that which impresses upon us. Expressive action, on the other hand, is our active ability to direct attention intentionally, even in the face of these impressive forces.
Focal Energy Distribution Patterns
Attention isn’t singularly pointed like a laser; it more resembles a constellation being distributed across various channels in the internal and external fields. These patterns reflect how we allocate energy-consciously or unconsciously-across different areas of focus. Reflection, as you described, involves shifting this distribution pattern to explore possibilities or weigh options.
I love how you highlight reflection as a space of freedom where ideas and motivations can be explored without immediate compulsion to act. In my model, this aligns with expressive action-the conscious act of deciding where to allocate focal energy. Even when impressive actions (like subconscious drives or external pressures) are strong, expressive action ensures that the ability to act independently always exists.
Your mention of not always being able to “stop the car” is an important reminder of the limits of attention and timing. I interpret this as a cautionary note about the energy and preparation required for reflective action before reaching critical moments-a concept I aim to address in terms of attention’s vulnerability and the strategies needed to reinforce expressive control.
Let me know if you'd like to explore any of these concepts further!
@ Thank you. Yes I’d like to explore the topic more. It’s so interesting that you’ve made focus the heart of free will. I think that’s exactly right. I have a few questions and thoughts about statements you made.
“Our focal energy is driven by underlying motivations.”
Does this mean that our energy is equal to our motivations, but expressive action can take energy from X motivation and switch it to Y motivation? Or is it more that you can suppress X energy(store it for later) and allow energy from Y to become dominant?
“Expressive action is the ability to direct attention intentionally, even in the face of these impressive forces.”
I take it this is the ability to switch between various internal and external motivations. Is it based on focal energy, which is from already existing motivations? Can you explain more on how this process is free?
I think that we are so heavily influenced by the mechanistic world view that we’ve lost sight of agency. Everything is matter in motion according to this worldview. But we have a strange ability to think about almost endless possibilities without acting on a single one! I like the term reflection because it gets away from mechanistic language. Reflection is a self contained process because it considers self. I think it is separate from motivation because it is the farthest removed from action mode. You could say more precisely it’s a form of action (which resembles your expressive action concept), but it’s an action with a sense of freedom. Someone could accuse the act of reflection(or expressive action) of being mechanistically determined, since the successive focus of thoughts could be based on pre existing desires, but I don’t think it is based on several reasons.
One helpful idea is the field of attention. Having a field of vision and a periphery allows for such a freedom. If you have ten options you could pursue, reflection is the ability to stop and consider them all, as long as you choose to. The fact that you can consider them endlessly gives strong evidence for freedom, in my opinion.
The switching mechanism I think is based on reflecting on the field of attention as you’ve described it, with use of subjective reasoning. Let me know what you think of this idea.
The reason this it’s important, is that our conclusions could still come in a deterministic way even if we perceive ourselves reflecting/expressively acting. The conclusion we arrive at could simply be the result of mechanistic deterministic processes that impose themselves on the thought process. But why do we intuitively perceive independence, responsibility, and agency, in human life? What account can we give of this perception? If we subjectively determine things in independently, this would mean our perception of freedom isn’t an illusion.
Here is an account of subjective reasoning, coming to meaning through free thought. I believe this is a better account of thought than a deterministic process where self loses all meaning.
Meaning is arrived at by language metaphors. If you look at the development of human language, it’s completely full of metaphors. Humans are inventive and creative. They are able to play with metaphors. Children can do this too. The act of play points to freedom. In play, anything is possible. Constraints only apply at the moment you develop an actual plan of action. This allows humans to develop meaning subjectively, then match it up to the realities of the world. As they do this, they will take their subjective thoughts and correspond them to the world to get at the truth of the world.
By analogy, that is the moment they put the car into gear and test out the engine. They have to make sure they have the right gear to correspond to the realities of their tires touching the pavement. They have a thousand gears that can interlock between the engine and the road. The clutch allows them to change the gear. They can engage their engine(free thought) and build gears(metaphors, that may or may not correspondence to outside world) to their liking, then test them out on the road. It’s not a perfect analogy. It’s a work in progress. Hopefully it makes sense.
I’m curious on your thoughts about the subjective reasoning process.
Could the problem of free will simply be a product of a category error that's intrinsic to the way we construct thoughts about things?
As a meditator you discover that impulses to act arise. With a developing capacity for awareness we can notice the impulse arise before we react and then we can resist the impulse to act. We don't really have a choice about whether the impulse arises in the moment but the more we train the body/mind to remain inactive in meditation, the more we can become aware of impulses to act and so it becomes more possible to resist the impulse to act. Over time, the control impulses have to drive behaviour become less powerful.
This means that the choice we have is more to do with an intention to cultivate awareness of sensory input and impulses to act and carrying out that intention in our lives than it is a question of making a positive choice about doing one thing or another when the choice appears to arise. What's ironic is that trying to work out if we have free will doesn't much help us to do this.
Much of the time we post-rationalise reactions to impulses (that may be triggered by situations) and construct a narrative that explains why we made a decision to act. We need a concept of cause and effect to construct this narrative. In fact, trying to solve the problem of free will may even impair our capacity to cultivate our awareness by training the mind to engage in a fruitless problem solving exercise.
I very much enjoyed this exclamation
Totally a category error. And very much agree with your experience. So clear that thoughts, desires, impulses arise spontaneously in the conscious mind when you meditate. And a great reminder to myself not to spend so much time on the analysis, rationalising side of things (bloody youtube). Cheers and peace
The fact that O’Connor is ahead of Harris and Sapolsky in the thumbnail is…
…Beautiful
Love your content always
He's a parrot
@@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer Can you give an example. Obviously if an idea is good you will continue to use it. So what do mean O’Connor’s a parrot. Do you mean he tries to pass other’s ideas as his own? I’m not aware of any of that and don’t want to be fooled. So please help me understand.
@@AlexanderEllis-x7v Toddler
@@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer
He's very very young. Expect much from him. He will write books and certainly lecture and teach one day. He is intelligent enough to know that such endeavours require more age and wisdom than he yet has.
@@pseudonymousbeing987 He's baby I Guess
Ask yourself: do I produce my thoughts, or do they just arise by themselves? Answer: they arise by themselves. Ask: can I predict what my next thought will be? Answer: no. A 'decision' is a thought. Game over for free will, guys. Try observing your own actual experience, rather than getting lost in endless abstract theorising: it really is endless and pointless.
Thoughts arise from the subconscious and we also create our own. They can enter focus from both what I call impressive action and expressive action
@michaelferketic3540 False.
Create a thought and observe the process. You will have several random options that roughly match the "desired" result, and you will compare them with a "good" option which is baded on parameters and NOT an "ideal idea".
Disagree with all that but nice summary.
@@goodquestion7915 I disagree, but that's up for debate. My main thesis is that free will is the ability to control the focus of attention. Not necessarily what comes into focus, but the ability to point and direct focus.
This actually demonstrates that WE dont exist, we are espontaneous harmonious processes continuous with everything else, this is free will.
Your mistake is believing in the cartesian subject, as if somehow we were independent from anything else, and since we depend on everything, we wouldnt free, since there wouldnt be a simmetry.
Free will is also true because "we" feel we are, this cannot be neglected.
Just because you can’t predict someone’s behavior with absolute certainty, it doesn’t mean that their behavior was not determined.
And behaviour being predictable doesn’t mean it wasn’t free.
@@beherenowspace1863 no, yhat's exactly what it means. If you can predict behavior with great accuracy (and not just guess), it means that you know the laws by which this behavior works. It means that behavior is subject to laws and dependent on them, and therefore not free.
@@eugen5343 If you can predict behaviour with great accuracy (which we can't, not even close compared to the predictions we can make of nature with QM), it means that you can describe this in terms of laws by which these patterns of behaviour match. This does not necessarily mean that behaviour is subject to laws and dependent on them, and therefore not free.
@@eugen5343 Predictability is not determination. Determination is not predictability.
@@beherenowspace1863 Of course, I didn't say that these two concepts are the same. It's just that one implies the other, and they are interconnected. If an object is at least partially independent of the laws of nature (free will), its behavior cannot be accurately predicted, and vice versa.
Just try defining free will precisely and our expectations and perception of that word falls apart
Free will is an experience not a definition. The ‘you can’t define it’ argument is silly.
First you have to define freedom. Freedom is a power, opposite to slavery. It requires self reflection.
Free will:
1. When a person has preconditions for several desirable options, and a faculty of reflection that isn’t compelled, they have choice.
2. The person evaluates the options and reflects on different reasons to alter their desirability.
3. By altering desirability, they switch between options.
Reflection:
A self contained mental process that is not compelled in a certain direction.
Evidence:
People can sit in a place of mental reflection and endlessly explore ideas and possibilities without compulsion to act. They seem to have the ability to reflect on different parts of themselves. They can focus on one part or another, and on one feeling or another, on one possibility or another, by subjective reasons.
@@beherenowspace1863 free will is not an experience at all. It's the belief that we could do/could have done otherwise (in a special way) that in moral cases makes us morally responsible for the choice. The wrongdoer didn't have to do it, he had a choice.
Free will is the concept that we could have done otherwise without the need for variables we didn't choose to have been different to produce the different result.
Check cases of blame and you'll quickly see that is true.
@@StephenLawrence-re8ub If free will exists than it is experienced.
Great video! 🧠✨ Here are four distinct ways free will is often defined, each addressing different aspects without overlapping:
1. **Autonomy in Decision-Making:** This is the ability to make choices independently, free from external pressures or deterministic forces. However, some argue that subconscious biases and brain processes can limit true autonomy.
2. **Freedom from Determinism:** This concept suggests that our choices aren't entirely bound by prior causes or natural laws, allowing for genuine choice. Critics point out that randomness doesn’t necessarily equate to meaningful free will and that brain states often predict decisions.
3. **Moral Responsibility:** Free will here means being accountable for your actions because you can choose between right and wrong. The challenge is that if actions are predetermined, holding someone morally responsible becomes questionable.
4. **Self-Determination:** This is about shaping your own life path through deliberate choices and actions. Nonetheless, external factors like socioeconomic status and biological predispositions can restrict complete self-determination.
There are no perfect definition of self and "free will". They are high level, packaged ideas that we use to make sense of human experience.
Why is it that people seem so ready to just take a pass on determinism? I don't think that people realise just what it means to say that determinism doesn't always hold. Something is "determined" if there was a prior event that gave rise to it, and something is non-deterministic if there was _no_ prior event that gave rise to it. An elephant wearing a pink tutu suddenly appearing before you in your living room would be non-deterministic. The sun suddenly disappearing at 9:45 am and then suddenly reappearing at 1:13 pm later that afternoon would be non-deterministic. And (if you _haven't_ seen this type of completely inexplicable thing happen before) absolutely _everything_ else you've _ever_ seen, heard, experienced, or thought, has been deterministic.
Now, it _could,_ of course, be the case that determinism does not always hold at all times and places in the universe (and, in case anyone was wondering, quantum mechanics is a fully deterministic theory), but if it doesn't hold then it's at least the case that there's no good reason for thinking it doesn't. Yes, it's _possible_ that the Sun may simply disappear for a few hours tomorrow, and I guess it's _possible_ that an elephant wearing a pink tutu may suddenly appear in my living room, but why would I ever think those things would actually happen?
And yet this is _exactly_ what these guys are doing here. Despite there being no reason whatsoever not to believe in determinism, they just blithely assert that their brains are causally disconnected from the rest of the universe. Or, to be more specific, they believe that their minds are causally disconnected from their brains. Because, to believe that free will exists one must believe that things can occur without there being any antecedent cause for it. I don't get it. It's completely whack.
i can ask you the opposite question and you will be incapable of giving me a better answer. Why are you so ready to just take a pass on free will? do you even realize what it means, about the nature of reality, to deny freedom? what it means about morality? about justice? about suffering?
i bet you never thought about it, or else you would not defend this ludicrous idea of material determinism.
And there are ways to think about free will where determinism in the physical universe remains untouched, since the only thing that needs to be free is the human soul, not the brain.
No. An elephant in a tutu appearing out of nowhere can be deterministic. Ask a pantheist where the universe came from and they'll answer from their pantheistic terms. No tertiary entity needed, so it's just rationality directed to the subject of desire.
Regarding the final paragraph. What is even the point of believing in determinism? Will you suddenly speak nonsense if you don't believe in it? Are my explanations uncoherential because I'm a compatibilist?
Apparently, there's no actual consequence of ascribing oneself to the deterministic dogma. Really nothing is of interest. Neurological computionalistic explanations won't lose meaning. Quatum physics scientists can still do their work. It's like philosophical materialism. I see it as a necessary function in humanity, just as the function reductionism; but it doesn't works as a philosophy because, necessarily, it has to be turned into a dogma to work on a cause.
Quantum mechanics its fully deterministic? Of course not. The wavefunction evolution is deterministic but the collapse is clearly not.
You haven't watched the video, right?😂 again and again they upheld the view that determinism is true, so your whole rant has completely missed the point
“The free will that’s worth wanting” is, in the late Daniel Dennett’s view, compatible with physical determinism. Where, in an immovable objective world, does the concept of value (“worth”) come from? Where does any concept come from?
i keep asking myself this question. I don't know how it is possible that free will deniers can't see that their idea of the universe is a frozen block where nothing happens and everything has already happened. And yet, a madman like sapolsky, will talk about empathy and how we must reduce suffering. he does not realize that in his worldview, suffering does not even exist, consciousness is an illusion, the self is an illusion and there is no one suffering, and even if there was a way to talk about suffering in any meaningful sense, there is nothing that we could do about it, that was not already going to happen anyways lol.
They also fail to see that the pursuit of truth does not exist in a deterministic universe, since they don't actually have intelectual processes, its just the atoms in their neurons moving around according to the laws of physics, wich does not imply truth or a pursuit of truth in any sense whatsoever.
@@guilhermeogando5955Just because we don't have free Will It doesn't mean that we don't have feelings
I do not see how determinism at the microphysical level does not imply determinism at the agential level. From a review :
"Next up is the challenge from determinism, with which we are already familiar. The keystone aspect of the challenge is that determinism seems to imply that there are no alternative possibilities. Therefore, a person is incapable of making a choice. List replies by arguing that determinism in the fundamental physics does not necessitate ‘agent-level’ determinism, which is the level of a person’s choice. This stems from the central argument that free will is a high-level property. In this case, mental states like choices can be realised by multiple brain states. For example, all of our brains are slightly different, and yet we can each still form the intention to move a coffee cup. In this way, mental states are multiply realisable. List argues that this means there are multiple alternative possible intentions I could form, even if my brain state is predetermined by deterministic physics. Therefore, there can still be indeterminism at the agent level, even if there is determinism at the physical level."
How realistic is it to assume that we cannot reliable infer (and I claim with almost certainty) from bodily behaviour, in a specified environment that we understand (meaning, that we know what choices and decisions the person has to make), to thought processes?
Thought experiment:
Let a person p make a succession of very simple actions we can model as binary: Either p does a or not-a. If p does not-a, then that person gets incinerated. If p does a, then on to the next action: b or not-b. If p does not-b, then p gets incinerated, if p does b, the on to the next actionn and so on. To make things more pressing, let p know about this set-up, i.e. p knows what to do in order to get not incinerated. A microphysical description of such a scenario would tell us what happens to the person (incinerated or not) and given a suitably fine-grained actions we can know with certainty what the persons intentions and (to a lesser degree?) mental states are.
I would like to hear your thoughts! Does the above make at least some sense?
I don’t think that would prove determinism, because of the immediate pressure of the situation would reduce choice to a single option, if choice exists.
@@collin501 First, I do not think that there are proofs in philosophy. Second, I thought that the one point of List's reasoning is that determinism at the lower level does not imply determinism at a higher level. And that the possibility of various psychological explanations for behaviour leaves open enough wiggle room for freedom. But I think that an embodied person and the behavioural traces that his choices leave pretty much make only very few agential decisions plausible.
@@KripkeSaul why do people sit around and imagine a multitude of possibilities without following any of them? What kind of thought process is that? If you can pull the car out of gear and into neutral, and reflect in a “anything is possible” way, without any compulsion to act, then why would we think we’re just boiling over with compulsions and whichever wins out carries us off in a determined direction?
I think that is the realm where freedom exists. Studying people in action-required situations is not the place to find freedom. In action-required situations, the mind/brain is mostly programmed already. That’s why to change, we need freedom to grow.
To put it differently, I don’t think people have the freedom to stop their car or avoid the cliff unless they see the sign far in advance and start making the change well before it’s upon them.
I highly recommend inviting Michael Huemer for the free will series as well. By my lights he is one of the best contemporary philosophers and defenders of free will.
You can as well discuss other stuff like moral realism, intuitionism, veganism as he is well known for defending such positions.
@@anteodedi8937 thought is “special “experience ,because it’s experience which can speak about non-existent experience.
Thought says that there is a thinker of thoughts,but there is zero experience of that.
@robertjsmith You are special :p
When an atheist debates with a believer about the existence of God, each of them is talking about a different thing, the God as conceived by an atheist has nothing to do with the God in the experience the believer may have. They're simply not talking about the same thing. Before any debate, both sides need to agree on a common definition of the object of their discussion. Otherwise, they run the risk of discussing two parallel things that never meet, and in the way each understands it. In this particular case, can anyone define what free will is, or tell us what it actually consists of?
Very good content. Suggestion for improvement: Could you put the titles of the relevant readings in the description?
"hey I believe in free will"
"in free will, or in redefining the word until it fits determinism?"
"..."
That's not a problem, free being equated to doing whatever you want laws of physics be damned is silly
You are begging the question to say that you have the correct definition of free will, from which the compatibilist is redefining it. The compatibilist thesis for free well has been around as long as the debate has been around.
@@kaga13 silly, yet necessary for ethics or meaning to function. Tough spot, I know.
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn Let's not pretend it's me who is twisting himself into pretzels here.
Compatibilism goes very clearly against what anyone who didn't invest into constructing elaborate conceptual and rhetorical sand castles would understand as free will. The end result is not any kind of insight or advance in understanding, but a rhetorical game. Yes, there's still no foundation for ethics or value, but at least we beat the word into submission so we can carry on and pretend it's fine.
For what it's worth, I can understand this: It's a hell of a predator, who would want to make eye contact with it? Best just look away and hope for the best
Determinists just don't understand what free will is. Nothing he said is determinism anyways
Interesting.
One thing that puzzles me in many free will-discussions is the synonymous use of the concepts "free will" and "choice". Clearly, we have two quite different concepts here. In my mind, "free will" is more related to things like "the ability to have imaginations" than "choice." The latter describes the relationship between the mind and actual circumstances, while the former is restricted to the mind. For example, I can have the will to be Napoleon Bonaparte, but I can't choose to be it.
Anyone?
Another thing:
"Free will" necessitates a self. Where would this self be located, one might ask? It must be situated in the conscious mind since the notion of an unconscious self doesn't make sense. Consequently, "free will" must reside in the conscious part of the brain/mind. We know there is a constant interaction between the conscious and the unconscious parts of the mind. For the "free will" to be free it must be able to operate independently of our unconsciousness. We then have three parts; the consciousness, the unconsciousness, and an at least partly unrelated self. So where would this self, containing its independent "free will," be located?
I invite anyone to try and debate this version of free will.
1) an undetermined choice
2) a conscious and intentional agent that settles this choice.
1a) Gives us leeway freedom (the ability to do otherwise)
2a) Gives us sourcehood freedom. (The agent is the source of the event, he can make the event happen or prevent the event from happening)
One could even go farther and say reasons and goals are tools, enabling conditions that the agent can use to bring about or prevent the desired event.
Im telling you, if ones gives me 1) and 2), I have all I could want from free will.
But for 1) we only need indeterminism and for 2) we only need evolution and natural selection, as species that take advantage of alternative possibilities seems to be an obvious evolutionary advantage.
We only need either weak or strong emergence to have the ability in 2)
Libertarian free will is very much miss missunderstood and underestimated.
What do you specifically mean by 1. An undetermined choice? An option to do more than one thing? If so this doesn't say anything about free will. If it provides for a genuine, all things considered ability to have done otherwise then how does this argument not fall prey to the problem of luck? I don't see how we don't have two things in conflict with each other. I don't rule out entirely that they may not be but I'm hardly the only person that sees 1 and 2 these being mutually exclusive. At least, if you mean what I think you do. More elaboration is certainly required.
@RodrigoFernandez-k2i
This is a common misconception.
Indeterminism should be seen as the opposite of causal determinism. That is, Indeterminism just means, an event or state of the world can have multiple outcomes. That's it.
If the world is indeterministic, then we can have undetermined choices. That is to say, a choice has many live options. It can be settled in different ways because of indeterminism.
Because, if indeterminism obtains, then alternative possibilities exists. If they exist, it seems plausible to think that it would be a net evolutionary advantage for the species able to exploit APs.
It's very relevant as it gives us the ability to prevent or not do an event morally reprehensible. So we can really avoid doing something wrong. If we can avoid it, we should be considered morally responsible.
Notice, the indeterminism is in the choice itself. The agent simply determines (settles) the choice. There is no relevant randomness when it comes to the agent choices.
He is influenced, motivated and inspired by reasons and goals, not caused by any of them.
@RodrigoFernandez-k2i
This is a common misconception.
Indeterminism should be seen as the opposite of causal determinism. That is, Indeterminism just means, an event or state of the world can have multiple outcomes. That's it.
If the world is indeterministic, then we can have undetermined choices. That is to say, a choice has many live options. It can be settled in different ways because of indeterminism.
Because, if indeterminism obtains, then alternative possibilities exist. If they exist, it seems plausible to think that it would be a net evolutionary advantage for the species able to exploit alternative possibilities.
It's very relevant as it gives us the ability to prevent or not do an event morally reprehensible. So we can really avoid doing something wrong. If we can avoid it, we should be considered morally responsible.
At 38:00 min he discusses the idea that the strongest impulses don’t just win out (as a final decision) but that something in addition functions as “regulators”. This could be deterministic (probably is) … but it is still the key (imo) to understanding how decisions seem to be freely made. That internal regulative process is what needs to be scientifically investigated … it is value driven.
I’d like to hear more about the ability to self reflect, and to reflect on dozens if not hundreds or thousands of possibilities without being compelled to follow any. What is that mental ability? How might it relate to free will or the illusion of free will, whichever view you take?
12:48 really sounds like appealing to magic, how does being complicated change anything
both "Movies" and "Behind the scenes making of documentaries" both exist, and can compliment each other. We can have reductionist descriptions along side rich narrative interpretations. We need to stop being so binary.
"everything i disagree with is magic! I don't have to justify why my opponent is wrong I just have to say they believe in magic!!!"
🙄, i could find it believable that philosophical materialists do not have free will and everyone else does because their arguments are so incredibly unselfaware or critical.
I do not think you even know what you mean when you say the word "magic", could you provide a definition to "magic" that is beyond "thing i disagree with"?
@@FigmentHF when things are explainable in terms of their building blocks, an additional higher level explanation is going to be redundant. it's only going to have a pragmatic value, no fundamental existence
@@charlespate5639 my opponent is the one that has to justify the appeal to complexity. there's no obvious path in principle from complexity to an ontological shift
"I dont want anything spooky in my worldview" Also... "Things just emerge guys... they just emerge"
It seems you didn’t listen to what he actually said.
For example, if you have a single plank of wood, does that constitute being “ a house?” Does a single nail constitute being “ a house?” Does a wood beam or a nail have to be “ a house” in order to accept houses exist?
Why in the world are you casting doubt on the obvious fact that things, like houses, can have properties that their individual constituent parts do not have on their own?
@QuintEssential-sz2wn Ontologically, there is no such thing as "a property of a house" - thats magical bullshit
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn Ontologically, there is no such thing as "a property of a house", this is all made up magical spooky stuff. Show me where the property exists in objective reality. If you can't then maybe you are just making things up.
You sound like a physicalist trying to explain consciousness :)
You are super close to ditching the idea of free will! Yes, you are correct to take into account more than desires. An agent (a human, say) has beliefs, memories, some information in working memory, habits, temperament, various tendencies, preferences, proclivities, but also operates by means of mental processes, such as attention, perception, reasoning, pattern detection, unconscious inference & prediction, impulse inhibition, counterfactual representation of options, weighing of options, and decision making. All of these are important for making a choice and action.
And you can write down an example where all of these elements are at play. And the kick is: you won't need "free will" for anything here. You won't find "free will" anywhere. This entire process is explainable in naturalistic, non-metaphysical terms, where "free will" is not needed and where "free will" has no place.
What you describe is more in line with agency and decision making. Concepts important in cognitive science, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience.
I suggest less philosophizing and more learning about relevant sciences. It will be worth it!
I think you’ve missed the point: compatibilism IS the thesis that free will is compatible with our being fully determined. Many of the features you mention help form the basis of a “ free will worth wanting.”
The mistake is to think that free will was based on or required something extra, or required being accepted from the causal chain.
Women who were pregnant with second or third trimester fetuses during the invasion of Poland during WW2 experienced severe famine in winter. This would result in an epigenetic effect called the Dutch Hunger Winter, where because of the famine the next generation of Polish children would have significantly higher obesity rates. What part did free will play in whether or not these children would have obesity on not?
Watched half way and I can't see where he put up a convincing argument against hard determinism. I have to agree with a Sam Harris' and Sapolsky's take that most compatabilist come across and confused on the matter
1) If my actions depend crucially on something I do not control, then I do not control my actions.
2) My actions depend crucially on my beliefs.
3) I do not have control of my beliefs. I cannot choose to be convinced or not of the things I am or not am convinced of. You might say I can control whether and how I investigate or test my beliefs for their truth. But that only pushes the problem back a step; I do not have control over whether I believe I ought to test my beliefs or how I ought to go about doing so.
4) Therefore I do not control my actions.
Hmm... compatibilists would deny 1. It's already the case that your actions depend crucially on your being born, and you do not control your birth, and yet you do have control over your actions, says the compatibilist, according to a compatibilist notion of control.
Maybe we can compatibilist-proof the argument this way:
1) If my desires, second-order desires, sensitivity to reasons, standards of right and wrong, and whatever else compatibilist conditions of freedom depend crucially on something I do not control, then I do not control my actions.
2) My desires, second-order desires, sensitivity to reasons, standards of right and wrong, and whatever else compatibilist conditions of freedom depend crucially on my beliefs...
etc.
a manipulation argument via doxastic involuntarism
I was going to leave a comment but then I decided not to.. damn I wish I had control of my actions... wait...
@BenStowell Why do you think your being convinced of anything has anything to do with its truth? If you do not direct your belief forming activities towards truth, why think that is where you have arrived?
To be so situated with respect to a fact, that where it so, you would believe it so, and we're it not so, you would not believe it so (ie. to have knowledge) would be something one falls into by pure happenstance if not done intentionally.
In which case, there is no reason to believe one's beliefs (they are causally independent of truth).
Now, apply the above to what you posted.
@@jeffreyscott4997while your words are fine, they appear to ignore the fact that fitness describes one being a good fit within their environment. That is, that one correlates with ones environment in a real, a true, sense and this is why they are fit and why they and their progeny thrive. It is not by choice that evolution results in fit individuals, but due to mechanisms of nature. So it is not by happenstance that one comes to truth, but rather because they instinctually employ inherited methods (sight and smell and cognition, etc.). These are equally determined as well and so your suggestion does not defeat a deterministic account that is simultaneously rational and yet, not free.
For anyone who denies the proposition *someone could have done otherwise”*to be true in any real or robust sense, I would like to see how they could possibly justify… well, countless things… but for instance: the concept of judging anyone negligent, or criminally negligent.
Even if we shelve the idea of “ basic moral dessert”… we still have to make judgements about people, including the type of judgements that draw the law upon somebody.
The concept of negligence , and criminal negligence, relies on accepting the proposition “ someone could’ve done otherwise.”
So let’s take an example :
A trained and capable lifeguard , John, is sitting in a chair near the mouth of a hotel swimming pool, and which nobody is currently swimming. John is sitting on his lifeguard chair reading a magazine.
A toddler has wondered away from her family and falls into the deep end of the pool and immediately begins drowning, right in front of John . John is clearly aware of what happening, he pulled down his magazine for a moment watching the child drowning, and then simply pulls his magazine back up and continues reading, allowing the child to die in the pool.
No, we are going to have to be able to make judgements about John in this situation. At the very least, John would be fired and never be hired as a lifeguard again. But it all likelihood a charge would be product as John of criminal negligence as well.
But what is the logic of making judgements against John?
It can’t be against the action that he chose to do . What’s wrong with sitting in a chair reading a magazine? Nothing morally wrong with that. Nothing legally wrong with that. People sit in chairs and read magazines all the time and we don’t worry about their character.
It’s obvious ; John is condemned not by what he chose to do, but on the fact that he COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE and saved the child.
So John is condemned on what he did not do, but COULD HAVE DONE.
And if we do not have any true robust sense of “ someone could’ve done otherwise” then how could we possibly make such judgments?
Any takers? Anyone want to FULLY deny there is any true sense of “ somebody could’ve done otherwise?” And if so how would the logic of judging John’s behaviour work on your account?
Are you suggesting that John had typical cognitive and affective process in the brain and just decided by the power of free will and conscious intention to ignore all things that instinctively move 'normal' person with healthy imagination and mirror neurons?
@PeterIntrovert
No.
Rather I posted some specific questions about the logic of judging John’s behaviour.
Would you like to try actually answering those questions?
Would you agree that we can justify a negative assessment of John’s behaviour? That John should be fired and shouldn’t be a lifeguard ever again? And even that John could be held criminally negligent?
If so, on what basis ? What’s wrong with just sitting in a chair reading a magazine?
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn In that case your whole argument is sophistry. I will focus on the main point but there are problems with your framing too. And this is simple, John will face consequences not based on what he could do but what he did - ignored the situation. It's not about sitting and reading but when confronted with a situation he made the decision to not engage. Therefore we are talking about what he DID about what was in his social contract and not what he could do.
I will not even go further by saying that the situation you presented is unrealistic. And when we add conditions to make it realistic then all point to lack of FW and making the act of judgement very human but irrational.
@@PeterIntrovert
@PeterIntrovert
First, People are judged negligent all the time, including criminally negligent.
The logic is the same .
I have simply done what we often do in philosophy : provided a scenario in which the negligence is very clear so as to investigate the intuitions involved.
Your attempt to reframe the issue is simply dancing around the problems hidden in your response, that you simply aren’t making explicit.
*And this is simple, John will face consequences not based on what he could do but what he did - ignored the situation. It's not about sitting and reading but when confronted with a situation he made the decision to not engage.*
Which implies exactly what I said:
John made a decision: he COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE and saved the child, but he chose the other option of not saving the child, right?
Can you just be explicit about the fact that you are accepting that John could’ve done otherwise?
Here let’s make it even more explicit if you’re still having trouble with this.
Take an alternative scenario:
Instead of John, the healthy and trained lifeguard sitting near the pool, we have Fred sitting near the pool, overlooking the deep end.
However, unfortunately Fred is in a wheelchair and has ALS like Stephen Hawking did. Fred has been wheeled there by an assistant who has gone to get him something from his room, leaving Fred overlooking the pool, the only person there.
Then we have the scenario with the toddler straying away from her parents and falling into the deep end of the pool near Fred, who sees this all happen. And Fred, in his wheelchair, unable to get out or even shout to anybody to help, watches helplessly as the child drowns in front of him.
Here we have two different scenarios, and which a man is seated in front of the swimming pool, and who both apprehend a child is drowning in front of them.
In both scenarios, neither man helps the child.
But we would have significantly different judgements as to the culpability and character of each man right?
In John’s case, we would have a highly negative judgement of his character, and he would be held RESPONSIBLE in someway for the scenario of the child drowning - even criminally negligent.
Whereas, we would not make this judgement about Fred, would we ? if anything we would judge Fred with deep compassion; it’s not only a tragedy for the child drowning as a tragedy for Fred having had to witness such a terrible thing helplessly.
So what is the logical difference between how we are going to judge John and Fred in the scenario?
The difference is obvious, isn’t it?
We don’t hold Fred responsible because he “ just sat there in his chair, not helping.” It’s because Fred COULD NOT HAVE DONE OTHERWISE and saved the child.
Whereas in John’s case, we understand that John COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE and saved the kid, but chose not to.
Right?
If this analysis is incorrect please point out exactly how. If you were going to remove the proposition that John could have done otherwise than what he did, again exactly how would your logic work to hold John responsible in anyway for what happened to the child? (that we would make judgements about his character, fire him hold him, criminally, negligent, etc..)
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn
a meteor fell on the earth
a meteor could miss the earth
Those are not the same meteor. One is real with causal chain and other is hypothetical.
Why we don't have free will. Free will is the concept that we could have done otherwise without the need for variables we didn't choose to have been different to produce the different result. That is impossible. That is what people ordinarily mean by free will. That's why it appears like neither determinism nor indeterminism could give us free will.
You are choosing to beg the question.
The very question of whether or not there is "free will" [the ability of an agent to make appropriate decisions within the limits of its form] is an act of the very decision making called into question. This is a self evidencing principle - though, a tool. It must be exercised/practiced to greater advantages.
A universe containing no free will, no free agency, would have little to no use of the question.
My belief is that determinist are bringing to the introspective phenomena that people refer to as "freely willing" a conception of "free will" that comes to them from ouside of experience. In other words, they are being rationalists.
The question shouldn't be "Do we have free will?", but "What is free will?". To insist upon an apriori answer, rather than an aposteriori answer, seems like dogmatism to me.
The colloquial discussion of free will tries to convert a Christian concept based on some metaphysical nonsense (and a relationship between a monotheistic god and a believer) into something the sciences can understand. Even if one *had* a deterministic (rather than purely probabilistic ) system we know that such system can create mind-boggling complexity that renders predictability close to impossible. So the question is rather, what purpose is served in answering a fundamentally theological question in the only way appropriate, i.e. in a probabilistic fashion? Why do people feel the need to recover their 'agency' by telling themselves that they have free will? In what way do they behave differently if they knew that the do have it or don't have it? Do they become more responsible or less responsible in their actions? This is a question that can be answered by empirical enquiry. Human beings as populations of (social) brains behave in very predictable fashions and those behaviours can be represented by probability distributions. Trying to draw (arbitrary) lines of an ontologically categorical nature into such probability distributions is silly.
Coming from the top down, one does not come to the bottom. Everything opens up so let's get out of the box of determinism. Structure may be determined but we are not what we see.
free will phenomenology-the vibe of freedom;
+ i expect reality to continue & resemble the past in important aspects,
+ i experience, i am a POV,
+ i don't know what the future will be arbitrarily precisely,
+ i observe a variety of occurrences,
+ i infer indeterminacy from my thoroughgoing ignorance & lack of access to (un)known unknown information.
so i may feel that i can choose & acrualize one from several virtual options, because i can mentally simulate different scenarios happening, using past data.
Conjecture:
Determinism is merely Mereological nihilism applied to human psychology.
i think we need to radically reduce everything down to the behind the scenes, making of "vents" that produce a kind of stochastic and complex smoke, and then paint a rich mythopoetic story onto the smoke. We need both, meaning and understanding.
Block-Universe is a good concept to visualize determinism, but the future part of the block is obscured, calculating its state most often is computationally irreducible, kudos to Wolfram
In light of that, confusing complete causal constraint on one's will vs dealing with unforseenable future lying beyong him - is understandable
“Subatomic particles aren’t coloured.” That’s not great scientific awareness. Colour in science is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation. It is characteristic of particles changing energy levels, and is transmitted by photons - particles.
Yeah. A single atom can technically have a colour, we just won't be able to see it.
@@Raphael4722 Yes - and the colour of, say, gold is the colour of each atom added up. Exactly what was denied.
I was curious to see if there were some meaningful, compatible conception of free will that I was unaware of. So far, it seems there is not.
Our lifelong dreams made manifest. Or our lifelong dreams destroyed. The navigator guides us from A to B. Temporal rumination of collective free will. My navigator is my consciousness. Cybernetic feedback, rhyme in loops.
Guys.... I think we might need to solve the problem of identity first.... FML
I agree. If I am being blamed for my actions, then who am I, really?
Easy. I am the one who freely wills :)
@beherenowspace1863 AKA Free Willy
The question here is really whether the universe is deterministic. If it is, then free will literally cannot exist.
To me free will doesn't make sense because it would basically mean chaos. Like there must be extremely strong biases against doing certain things or against doing certain things or there would be complete chaos. Why would even such a thing be desirable?
Chaos is in fact deterministic
You do realize you just used your own free-will to 'voice' your own opinion...
But there is some level of chaos in human actions given what humans generally consider good vs the way they live…
I think there is an option that doesn't seem to be considered that could support a form of libertarian free will (could have done otherwise). However, many people probably won't like it because it invokes an intentional agent that is foundational to how reality gets constituted (occurs the way it does, moment by moment). Typically this agent is called God but it might also be thought of as a cosmic mind. My ontology is a divine idealism (a theistic form of idealism). In this model there are no laws per se (non-intentional and autonomic). Instead *every* event in the cosmos occurs intentionally in the mind of God. So every event is free and intentional. This includes both the regularities that science studies and the novelties that quantum mechanics implies. However, another key part of this ontology is what I call an aspect monism (or a priority monism). In this theistic framework, there is both a God-as-transcendent and a God-as-living. The God-as-living part represents each and every entity in the cosmos. This plurality in God occurs through kenosis (divine self-emptying or limiting). Where a could-have-done-otherwise comes in for humans is that as aspects of God, they inherit a limited, constrained freedom from the unconstrained, ultimate freedom of God-as-transcendent. So, reality gets constituted within the continual dialog and participation with God-as-transcendent and God-as-living (all aspects). So, in this approach, there is real freedom of choice without having to invoke magic or violation of laws (there are no laws). Look for the divine life communion for more on this.
Free-will, memories, and emotions are all integral and abstract faculties of the conscious mind which is also abstract: It is not a physical phenomena.
Because we exist in the deterministic universe of cause and effect in which the actions of one physical system is caused or affected by the previous actions of another physical system, neuroscientists, materialists, physicalists, and determinists believe that consciousness must therefore also be caused by the previous actions of another system, namely the neural activity of the physical brain.
Yet despite years of research, neuroscientists have thus far failed to find any signs of consciousness, memories, or emotions being generated by any part of the physical brain, let alone by the firing of the neurons; thus, the 'brain makes mind' theory still remains unproven to this day. Yet, despite this, they continue to quote the theory as if it is fact; so much so that they have managed to convince a large proportion of the scientific community and the public that it is: If you keep spouting the same mantra over and over again without critique, it soon becomes the accepted "truth".
Not only has this lessened the burden of proof on them to substantiate the theory, but it has also enabled them to effectively exclude consciousness as an independent variable from all of their experiments on free-will, focusing solely on the neural activity of the brains of test subjects: Why waste your time observing, testing, and measuring something you cannot find.
Not surprisingly, when test subjects with electrodes attached to their heads are given tasks in which they are asked to select one option from several and the neuroscientists detect and observe neural activity occurring in their brains at the moment they make their selections, they (the neuroscientists) attribute the responsibility for the choices to the neural activity of the brains of the test subjects and not to their conscious minds. So even before the experiments have begun, they have already been rigged to favor the 'brain makes mind' theory.
Fortunately, flawed and biased "scientific" experiments are not required to substantiate the reality of free-will. All that is required is a little bit of logic and commonsense. In erroneously claiming that it is the neural activity of our brains that are responsible for the decisions, choices, plans, and actions that we make and take in life and not our conscious minds, and that we humans therefore do not have free-will, neuroscientists, materialists, physicalists, and determinists have failed to take into account the glaring and obvious roles that our memories and emotions which are again, integral faculties of the conscious mind, play in most of the decisions, choices, plans, and actions that we make and take in everyday life.
It is the memories of our life experiences that we have accumulated and stored in our conscious minds overtime and the way that those experiences made us feel emotionally that influences most of the decisions, choices, plans, and actions that we make and take in everyday life. If an experience from the past was sad, painful, or traumatic, then we are unlikely to want to repeat it in the future. On the other hand, if a past experience was enjoyable, then we will want to repeat it in the future.
"When we mourn the death of a loved one, this is an emotional response influenced by the fond and loving memories that we have accumulated and stored in our conscious minds of that person overtime, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the physical brain.
*When we make plans to vacation on a favorite tropical island for the end of year holidays, this is an emotional decision influenced by the enjoyable memories that we have stored in our conscious minds of previous holidays on the island, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the physical brain.
*When we decide to buy tickets to see a favorite singer perform live in concert at the weekend, this is an emotional decision influenced by the love and admiration that we feel for the singer and his/her songs, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the physical brain.
*When a dog or cat suddenly and unexpectedly runs out in front of our car as we are driving along the road, our immediate reaction is to brake abruptly or try to swerve to avoid hitting it. This reaction is 'driven' by our emotional concern for the life and safety of the animal, and not by the non-conscious and non-emotional neurons of the physical brain.
The self is consciousness, not the 3-D avatar of the physical body. Consciousness resides at the higher 'Micro' dimension of the 'Universal Life Field' which permeates all dimensions and all levels of perception within each. The physical brain acts as a transducer of consciousness, enabling it to experience the 3-Dimensional universe through the five senses from the higher 'Micro' Dimension of the 'Universal Life Field', in the same way that a virtual headset and a virtual avatar enables a person to experience the world of virtual reality: The person does not reside in the world of virtual reality, just as consciousness does not reside in the 3-Dimensional universe of cause and effect.
In this sense, the 3-Dimensional universe can be seen as a 'simulation' which we experience through the 3-D headset of the physical brain and the 3-D avatar of the physical body from the higher 'Micro' Dimension of the 'Universal Life Field'.
Free-will is as self-evident and as real as daylight radiates from the sun. Unfortunately, too many people have chosen to abandon their sense of logic and have allowed themselves to be 'blinded and bamboozled by the science' instead; and as a result, they cannot see the wood for the trees, even when it is staring them right in the face...
Active and restless aetheists - are closer - to the miracle of mysticism - than dogma crushed religionists.
Free thinking - is dynamic and free and it dances - joyfully.
I'm not sure of the point here. I'm about half way through and it feels like I've heard no argument besides "vibes". Seems like he's saying, "from a first person perspective it appears that I have free will so I must have free will." Just end it there and save all of us 2 and a half hours.
If all that matters here is some first or secondhand account, then what's the point of philosophy? We could just ask each other how we feel about philosophical topics and just have the answers. Either I'm not following or nothing coherent is being said here.
Edit: Also, if he refuses to define it, then how do we even know what he's talking about besides some amorphous vibe?
The most grave error for Richard is to be guilty of allowing a role for "spooky stuff" in relation to free will and consciousness etc. Richard appears to be of the view that it is an axiom of proper understanding of philosophy to rule out non material aspects as a first step or perhaps as a necessary pre supposition. Once that move is made, determinism or his ill defined compatibilist version follows necessarily.
The real issue then is Richard's dedication to no spooky stuff.
Concerning freewill deniers , for example Sam Harris and Alex O'Connor. I have to wonder how they are able to live in accord with that belief... surely they have friends - "Hey Tom , would you like to come over for dinner tomorrow ?" What could that possibly mean ? are they just cruelly taunting Tom ? slapping him across the face with his impotence ? He has no agency , he might show up for dinner or he might not , but either way he couldn't have made that decision , for he has no free will.
I imagine it would mean "do you want to come over for dinner tomorrow?" Not sure why you find the idea confusing since Alex's O'Connor's entire argument against free will is that people only do what they desire.
What is the self that is exercising free will?
The debate of free will and determinism is based on a false premise of self that is isolated separate
Why is that false?
@beherenowspace1863 because nothing can exist in isolation
@Deepfake820 The self making free will decisions and freely willing actions, is not in isolation; it is interacting.
@beherenowspace1863 Interactions are back and forth deterministic processes that are not unidimensional. The sense of a seperate self is false because nothing in the universe can be separated from anything else. That is an impossibility. The self is a continuous series of infinite events that converge into a conscious moment that is expressed through the will. Whatever choice a person makes is the choice the universe has made.
Like a single ocean wave is the movement of the whole ocean, a single human action is the movement of the whole universe.
That is the true self.
The false self is a dualistic mental illusion, self and other, created by the brain as tool to function in the world.
@Deepfake820 the self is a part of the whole
In the universe we have a degree of hazard and chaos. This is what allows for freewill. Nevertheless, freewill
Exists in potential. It must Be developed. We have to see a free choice to be able to make a free choice and not an automatic reaction or predetermined action.
Anti-reductions = I don't want to give up my magical reasoning.
@12:00 because analysis did not work out you gave up analysis. lol. This is not a healthy attitude. If you _analyze_ Richard's defense it is analytical, the only difference with the ultra-nerds is that he uses soft concepts. That can _always_ be cached out in probabilistic terms, analytical terms, even if the conclusions are not numerical. In metaphysics you only need *_possibility_* and the rest is faith.
Also, note how vague he is about Naturalism. I am a naturalist too, and a Unique uncaused cause of all things is in my account of Nature. Physicalism is dumb, but as a working physicist I always pragmatically adopt physicalism in my science, it would be dumb not to. Thus I hold to the Principle of Sufficient Reason - pragmatically (for the science) but also spiritually/idealistically (for the honesty). I also write and lecture on macroeconomic justice, for which I discard totalizing physicalism and retain only the science I obtained from physicalism.
Hardline physicalists are basically philosophical fascists. lol. They seek a purity aesthetic, and it is laughable if not so tragic. I am certain most of them eschew political fascism and favour liberalism.
Use the right - to use your will - to work in the field of research and duty.
See that the individual will - obeys the Special Will - Nature and the Real Being.
Just so - and may all - be successful.
Interested to hear from people who believe in free will: it seems that some people have a perception or intuition of free will, and others don't. Do you think that people with no subjective experience of free will also have free will, or is it only those with the subjective experience?
Does anyone really not experience having free will? Even if they don’t, then they could choose to.
@@beherenowspace1863 No, I've never experienced anything that felt like free will. I have no idea what that would even feel like.
I can somewhat sympthise with your frustration, because it baffles me when someone like Daniel Dennett claims that "consciousness is an illusion", which is an absurd statement to anyone who has experienced consciousness. So maybe Daniel Dennett just doesn't experience qualia they way others do, and I don't experience free will the way others do.
@@SquishypuffDave Have you never felt like you have made a decision that you could have made differently? It only needs one person to have free will for it to exist :)
@@beherenowspace1863 No, I haven't. But yeah someone else could have free will, I'm not going to make assumptions.
@@SquishypuffDave So, after you read this sentence decide to lift your right arm or left arm.
I want to believe in free will, but compatibilism has never convinced me. you are just using the same word to refer to something different.
5:26 then use a different word, don't hijack the one that already exists, it really pisses me off, it feels disingenuous
That why compatibilists are laughable (harsh words, I know). They want to have a word and its positive connotations in their vocabulary without the metaphysical baggage.
This is your feeling on the matter. Although for someone like myself, I always had some sense of "I am free to do X" that didn't involve "I am a prime mover of my own actions." And when others revealed that's what they think free will means, it seemed absurd to me.
Then I am told unless we have the extremely unrealistic version of free will, we can't morally blame people. Which piles oddity upon oddity to me, because I'd say of course we can.
Now, who among us is more prominent in the population? I can't be too sure. Most people probably don't even think about this issue.
Yours is a very common misunderstanding, as if YOU happen to know the “ real” definition of free will, and from there, the combatabilist is redefining it. You’d actually have to show an argument forgot that because otherwise, you are begging the question, since compatibilism claims to account for real free will as well.
Compatabilist's can define free will so that it fits i a deterministic worldview, thats fine, but in doing so, they've arbitrarily carved out a certain deterministic process and labeled it, nothibg more. I don't think that this term is describing anything meaningful. "Everything is determined by impersonal physical processes, but THESE physical processes are special because they're complex, and I can't predict their outcome. Because this physical process is complex and I can't predict its outcome, I feel justified in calling it a causal agent, and it is deserving of praise and blame." Why call it "free" and why call it "will"? It seems to me that what we experience as "free will" is just a first person felt experience of a neural network playing out data processes. What's important is just deserts and whether or not blame and praise are justified, and the compatabilist definition of free will, even if we accept it, doesn't establish a clear explanation of why certain determined physical processes can be considered actions of a causal agent and the preceeding processes as determined without causal agency.
You say that compatibilists have “ arbitrarily” carved out a certain chain of causation? Far from it.
Has it ever occurred to you that literally every single one of our causal explanations - whether it is every day observations or scientific - is doing just that? If you take your car in because a headlight is not working and the mechanic upon taking a look explains “ The light isn’t working because a fuse burnt out” … do you reject that explanation because he is not giving you an account of every antecedent cause stretching back to the Big Bang? Of course not. We are always at all times looking to specific parts and a causal chain to understand a specific phenomenon.
And we can identify in human beings, a process of reasoning and deliberation that makes sense of our choices, and we can examine under what type of circumstances we are “ more free” or “ less free” of constraints on doing what we want for our own reasons.
i's don't think there's a performative contradiction between deciding on a way of action and having no idea if it was determined or not, or even being totally convinced that it was already determined since the beginning of time..
if it's gonna be about how i'm better cause i chose to make better decisions in life then i better decide to rid myself of free will while i still believe in it .. cause that's a childish distraction..
also.. when you in a state of "flow" you don't feel like you're making decisions although you're acting well enough so as to not be constantly disrupted by questioning your actions...
Modern physics doesn't support strict determinism and the universe's fundamental probabilistic nature allows for nondeterministic proceses at all scales. Quantum effects were experimentally proven at molecular scales, which is enough to affect biological and chemical systems, and can theoretically happen at larger scales as well. It is obvious that macroscopic determinism is the ilusion. As for the nature and the freedom of will I do not know, but I enjoy these videos. Keep up the good job!
Is the philosopher saying that it’s “ his choice “ to live in that pokey flat?
Any update on part 2 with BK?
It has appeared and is teasing them - brain sparks.
25:49 precluding "spooky" stuff is for children. It's spooky that serious empiricists let him get away with this kind of explanation.
No other debate is so silly and composed of people talking about different concepts under the same name, in different directions, with no intelligent thoughts anywhere to be found. On one side, there is experience of choice, on the other determism or stochastic determination of actions choice and will. It is nonsense to say the two sides are incompatible, and it is also equally nonsense to suggest anyone has any clear idea about what agency independent of the world as it is would even mean. To say the otger side is wrong is absolutely bollocks.
Are you trying to prove your point with your reply? :)
The very notion of libertarian free will is completely and utterly incoherent. It’s like saying you can think a thought before you think it. It’s just total nonsense.
It is based on the modern idea of the subject detached from the world, so for it to be free, it also has to be detached from its own choices.
@ Precisely. It’s simply an idea born from this notion that we are somehow subjects separated from the rest of the world.
@@chasetuttle2780 There is still free will, but it must be in a specific methaphysical framework.
Because determinism and compatibilism are also false.
since that's what most people mean with free will. and since it's incorrect, we can just say that free will doesn't exist. and compatibilists have to be honest enough to say they don't believe in free will either. they just use the word to refer to something else
@@moussaadem7933 Free will exists simply because we feel it, we just have to explain why do we feel, and it is not for the classical reasons.
Lmao why is this guys university prestige is highlighted, but not for Alex O'Connor when he literallywent Oxford which ranks higher for philosophy and theology
Atheist: I have no fairh based beliefs.
Also Atheist: all human action is based on one level of abstraction.
Can’t make this stuff up
I don’t think you were listening to what he said.
Either your actions are determined by previous desires, goals, or influences, or your actions are entirely random. Free Will is both logically impossible( Law of Excluded Middle) and incoherent. No, compatibilism isn't an alternative option and is just determinism masked by specific rhetorical and semantic pedantry and unneeded comprises. Also, the fact that 18.83%(18.20%) of philosophers believe in libertarian free will is a clear indication that analytical philosophy is deeply flawed from a metaphilsophical angle. The same issues arise with the "self", "qualia", and other incoherent apriori crap.
It makes sense that someone who thinks that NDE's are veridical and that idealism is reasonable would consult a random Cambridge philosopher and cherry pick what they said in spite of countless objections made by numerous other scientists and scholars( with both scientific and logical problems with the idea).
What do we mean by "free"? What do we mean by "will"? This is a job for the later Wittgenstein. Resolve it now !!!
“Free will” is a meaningless term. It can’t be defined. The will itself is a very complex thing, it’s contradictory. Only silly theologians still talk about it.
It's interesting you comment this on a video with two professional philosophers discussing free will.
Yeah. Look at it. How free it is that it escapes from our comprehension.
‘It can’t be defined’ is the worst kind of argument.
The previous three replies - are just excellent. Hee hee. And - thank you.
Someone never studied behavioral biology 💀
It's almost impressive how a person can keep talking without really saying anything. It's ironic, that nobody would even listen to you, if you didn't use the people like Harris or Sapolsky for publicity. But you don't actually address any of their arguments, you just say that according to you, they can't solve the problem of free will.
Dennett supported Compatibilism for fear of having "those people doing dastardly things in their low IQ way of thinking". But Tom, as far as I hear, has the "impression that his will is free", which I think is un-philosophical of him
Dennet is a stubborn idiot who literally is o ly capable of having ideas arise that he had no control of based on all he already knows, and is incapable of changing his mind. Test this and check… sorry Daniel RIP
look at this page of someone's writing, now look at this page...but whatever you do, don't look at your own lived experience, which is the only reality: then you'd miss all the fun of conceptual mind-games...
slow down a bit - this has been discussed for thousands of years and neuroscience has just turned up with evidence that it doesn't exist.
Neuroscientist/philosopher here: While he regurgitates the 'compatibilist' argument for a free will and states at 29.04 that not much has changed since Hume he fundamentally misunderstands the framework on which all neuroscience and all the sciences are built since the 19thC: a probabilistic framework! If he doesn't get that this is is fundamentally different in terms of how causality is seen, measured and tested, then he misses the plot altogether - which he does. The rest must needs be hot air.So he engages in a long defunct conversation between the early nominalists and Hobbs, not in the fact-driven and probability-based interpretations in all the sciences since Boltzmann.
@@k2024-b8n
What we mean by probability is still generally compatible with determinism
I think you’re going to have to be more clear as to your critique. I don’t see how what you’ve said undercuts anything he said.
@@StephenLawrence-re8ub No it is not. The whole way we think about traditional 'causality' and decomposing into complex probability distributions has fundamentally changed the way we think about this world. This revolution goes back to Boltzmann and apparently some philosophers have still not understood what this transformation means!
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn I clarified my points by the later post, at least I tried.
Determinism is only valid for closed systems - and humans are not closed systems so the argument does not even apply. Humans make decisions based on external stimulus and their internal states that is free enough for me.
39:47 If you don’t understand compulsive behavior you build this straw man about the addict
@13:00 You Professional Thinking People are missing an understanding of Top Down causation. Jaegwon Kim spent his entire life trying to solve the puzzle, and failed. He did not comprehend quantum mechanics in spacetime. Few do. To give you a hint: consider a spacetime cobordism, the future boundary of which is a future Cauchy hypersurface. If in the cobordism there are nearly closed timelike curves on the Planck scale (which almost every model for "quantum gravity' would admit) then _generically_ the future boundary has *_non-redundant_* boundary data. From a logical angle the same thing is said by noting QM has fundamental non-locality in a Minkowski frame but does not violate relativistic causality. (Though this angle is dumb, since it has no spacetime geometric content.)
What this means is that the future supplies non-redundant data for the cobordism. Clearly, without any metaphysics mumbo-jumbo, this means Top Down causality is a thing. The future or our present is not determined by the data on any past Cauchy boundary (our past lightcone). You do not need to twist any brain pretzels and emit word salads about "emergence".
By “metaphysical mumbo jumbo” you mean not assuming some type of materialism or naturalism then sure, but this is a philosophical dispute you need to explain why it’s mumbo jumbo. Now I am not a libertarian when it comes to free will but a lot of the objections from lay people are not good.
Either your thoughts are determined, or they are not. Neither is compatible with free will.
Well, I’m glad you just solved thousands of years of debate! I suppose you were unfamiliar with “ begging the question?”
@RichHarkness this has been a standard academic position for a long time, I just know how to corner people in a debate about it.
I didn't beg the question. Give me a version of free will that is compatible with non-deterministic decision making. Remember that non-deterministic means it happens for no cause, aka no reason whatsoever. There is no other option. Determined (caused) or not determined (not caused.) No other option. Give a compatible definition of free will, and I will show you it's an entirely deterministic process that already has a different label in English.
In the context of the free will debate, you are very obviously begging the question , and don’t seem familiar with compatibilism. You are simply stating that free will is incompatible with determinism - “ if it’s determined, it’s not free will” which is very much begging the question against compatibilism.
Do you understand compatibilism?
@@QuintEssential-sz2wn No, I am very obviously NOT begging the question, as my conclusion is not assumed in any of the premises. You know, the definition of question begging. So, point out where that happened and/or let's just talk about the definition of free will and why it's not coherent or compatible with determinism or non determinism.
My short statement does* assume compatibilism doesn't work, yes.
That is in NO way even close to an alternate universe that's even slightly parallel to a reality where that's even remotely akin to begging the question. Assuming is not begging the question. Yes, my statement assumes compatibilism is wrong. So what? I'll give my reasons why I came to that conclusion, and we can talk about whether they're reasonable or not. Pretty simple stuff.
Compatibilism is the idea that an act is considered free will if the cause is determined internally. My problem with compatibilism is that it re-defines free will, so, it's not even the same concept. It's the same thing as saying God is the globe and the globe exists, therefore God exists.
This makes it utterly pointless, as it takes the label that has a ton of other baggage and changes the definition to something that already has a different and common label. The free will compatibilism talks about is simply freedom. It is indistinguishable from the plain concept of JUST freedom. Lack of coercion. That's it. It's the same concept. So, it just obscures language for absolutely no reason except an emotional attachment to the SOUND of the certain syllables that are contained in the phrase "free will."
The other reason compatibilism is a nonsense philosophy is that in fact the "internal" decision is ultimately ALWAYS caused by outside factors. Your genetic and developmental outcomes are ALL determined externally, and every single one of your perceptions and decisions after that point will be determined environmentally. The dichotomy between external and internal causes is blatantly, factually, empirically, and ontologically false.
So, compatibilism is as incoherent as any other formulation of free will.
@@SnakeWasRight
*Assuming is not begging the question.*
It is if what you are assuming is under debate !
And it seems like you’ve done it again, for instance assuming a certain definition of free will that is incompatible with determinism.
That certainly does beg the question in the context of discussing this with a compatibilist (like myself).
*Compatibilism is the idea that an act is considered free will if the cause is determined internally*
That’s a version of source compatibilism. I myself prefer leeway compatibilism. Are you familiar with how they differ?
*My problem with compatibilism is that it re-defines free will, so, it's not even the same concept*
So here I’m apparently supposed to simply accept YOUR definition of free will, that just happens to be incompatible with free Will. Where of course the compatible definition would be compatible. so you are implicitly begging the question and need to actually show why I asked to accept YOURs as “the” definition of free will from which the compatibilist is redefining it.
You can’t just assume and assert this stuff.
Because compatibilists generally argue that we are providing an account for free will that captures the essential features usually associated with every day decision-making, responsibility, moral, and otherwise, the phenomenology of decision-making in which people believe “ I could’ve done otherwise” etc.
So you can’t just assert the compatibles are redefining things.
As long as people have been thinking about free, will there has been a compatible account of free will. This is not like compatible has simply shown up late in the game to redefine things.
Not to mention that empirical research into everyday free will intuition uncovers quite a bit of compatibilist intuitions.
*The free will compatibilism talks about is simply freedom. It is indistinguishable from the plain concept of JUST freedom. Lack of coercion. That's it.*
Incorrect. “ Freedom” is far too broad a term to substitute for free will. There are very specific philosophical issues that any account for “ free will” speaks to.
For instance: If I make a decision between two different actions, and I choose an over B, is it true to say “ I could have done otherwise, and chosen be instead?” And if so, what does that mean? Am I the relevant cause and author of my actions and decisions? Do I have the type of relevant control and freedom to make that author, and to be held morally responsible for my actions? Etc..
Merely intoning the word “ freedom” doesn’t actually answer all those questions that any free will thesis has to answer.
And once you start answering those questions… yes most people and most philosophers will take you to be addressing the issue of free will.
The important thing is to not beg the question to begin with - like starting with free will definitions that rule out compatibilism from the start.
how do i GET this ''free willy thingy'' ??? what IS it and where does it come from , where does it FIT IN ???
EITHER you do something for previous reasons , in which case the action is DETERMINED
OR you do something ... for NO reasons , which makes the action RANDOM ,
where EVEN IS THIS OTHER SLOT TO PUT SOMETHING IN ??? where IS IT ? how do you SLIP IN free willy ?? in which slot ? BOTH SLOTS ARE OCCUPIED ...
WHAT EVEN ... IS IT ... ?? you can't even explain this concept ... to yourself , let alone to someone else , ... but it's '' a real thing in reality '' , is it ???
FUCK MAN , ... HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ????
the ONLY ''free will'' people have ... is to pick between the choices ... they WOULD ALREADY HAVE PICKED FROM , that's NOT a free willy , that DETERMINED BY THE CHOICES YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU , WHICH ... OF THE CHOICES , you would have picked the same thing ... every god damn time , OR YOU WOULD HAVE PICKED ... AT RANDOM ... WHERE IS free willy ?
and BWT , ''randomness'' ... is an ACTUAL FORCE IN THE UIVERSE , so we know THAT's REAL ,
MOST things in the universe are DETERMINED ... and RANDOMNESS ... IS A FORM OF DETERMINISM ,
so basically , all we have ... IS a determined world , FULL STOP !!!
where IS FREE WILLY ???
I don’t think you have thought this through very well. You mean you never experienced choosing something for yourself for the reasons you personally have to choose it based on your own goals and deliberations?
Ask yourself, can I choose where to direct the field of my attention? If yes, boom free will.
Maybe have a think about freewill after you've had something to eat... Brain doesn't work too good if ya don't feed it.
P.S why is this guy reading a script? actual NPC alert
Positive/Negative: Choose.
Empathy+/Narcissism-
Choose.
You are destined to make the choices you are going to make, so make them good ones.
You can prove it to yourself by always choosing +ve. No matter how hard the test, in any moment, you can choose +/-.
The exercise of Free Will to +ve is the meaning of life; Choose to Love God, and know you are Loved.
Do your job, soldier
Rev 13;18
The fact that everyone clicked on this video without even thinking "Should I watch this or not!!" says something about freewill.
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
After unintentionally clicking on it, the fact that they still chose to continued to watch the video instead of stopping or changing the video still demonstrates that they have free will.
@sabhishek9289 , But did they actually think and use their freewill to do whatever they did?? Did you use your freewill to post a reply to my comment!!??
I just clicked to see the comments. I heard on one of the previous videos the kind of arguments this channel uses for free will, can't be bothered listening to them again.
@@achyuthcn2555 Yeah, they used their free will and so did I.
A philosopher chatting about neurology is like a veterinarian discussing astronomy... useless.
Actually, that’s not true. Especially if we are talking about issues like free will, intelligence, consciousness, and even artificial intelligence, etc.
Daniel Dennett for since used to collaborate with cognitive scientists. There’s other philosophy, such as Patricia Churchland and Andy Clark, who for instance, work with cognitive scientist to explore how the brain interacts with the body and environment to generate perception and action. Philosophers can help clarify ideas, concepts, and arguments, which can be helpful.
Go on. Describe every action of mine with a scientific terminology. May it be good for something. Or good for nothing.
Free will existing or not wouldn't change the fact that all of our explications (to be considered as such) have to be coherential and, therefore, give the impression that all of our actions are predetermined.
ITs an empirical matter, philosophy doesent have anything of value to say in the matter.
As a bunch of people explained to you in other videos about this theme and they are doing it again in the comments the problem with you is that you have no idea of what "free will" is, or what "will" is for that matter. You try to come up with a definition of will that you seem to believe compatible with science (and fail even in that) but again and again you just show how you are incapable of understanding what "will" is. Instead of trying to prove to everyone how stupid you and professors from Cambridge are, try to understand what "will" means first. But since you lack the most basic understanding of anything at all, don't do it alone, learn from people what "will" means. After you can agree with "free will deniers" what "will" is, you can then disagree with them. But if you can't agree on what "will" is, then what is hapening is not a dialogue, or confrontation, it is just you making something up and proving to people who enjoy your fantasy that what you made up is a valid argument. Like playing RPG or arguing fantasy in general, the discussions you proposed about "will" are no different from arguing about Thor's Hammer, the Mjolnir, or asking a Dungeon Master if your Rogue can climb a 15 feet wall. A certain level of consensus is necessary to call something a discussion, what you are doing is simply ignoring what "will" means, seriously, how many people need to tell you that in how many different ways until you understand? There is no amount of arguments that will validate a wrong definition, everything built upon a wrong definition will be wrong. At last but not least, you come from a lineage of philosophical stupidy like mind and matter duality, mind over matter and so on, I don't know if you know you do that, sometimes you seem too oblivious to even notice your difficulty with the subject come from it, but sometimes you seem to lack the most obvious knowledges like the fact that your experience with the world and with your own mind are not data, they are not valid arguments, they do not prove anything at all, on the contrary, they are the basics to disprove lots of things. Anyway... just listen to the quadrillion people telling you that you are working with an absurd definition that do not describe "will" at all. Please, stop embarassing yourself (and people you drag into this mess).
Goodness that was quite a rant. Not sure what brought that on. But were you going to explain to us at some point what the “ will” is? (it’s a notoriously tricky concept to pin down to everybody’s satisfaction… but give it a whirl)