I think Steven Pinker hits the nail here- the existence of free will depends on it's definition. People argue a lot about it, but don't agree about definition first, and that leads to misunderstandings.
+robert bryant Absolutely. It seems pretty obvious to me that this whole debate is about the definition of free will and not if we actually have it or not.
+aldukss The problems is it can't be defined, because there's no such thing as free will to define in the first place. It's impossible to define 'the meaning of life' in some cosmic sense, because there is no such thing. Just think about the next thought that comes to your mind. Do you know where it came from? Did you know that it was gonna pop up in your consciousness before it popped up? How can anyone claim to have free will when they are only aware of what's within conscious space?
@@PorterNetwork well i have one question...why is it a problem if person knows stuff and says like it...i have seen that if a person is sure about that there not knowing something that is always seen as humility...and if they are sure or atleast have a strong idea of knowing something the are arrogant...so i can be sure about my not knowing something and not about my knowing something...because i have to wear a facade of humility so others dont get jealous...or dont call me arrogant...people are always there to put someone down for there arrogance...but not pick them up if they are doubtful...and i think the other side might make you defensive...and if he says he does not something he still knows that he doesnt know something...so isnt that arrogant...?
@@arpitthakur45 Humility or more preferably not being smug when you speak let your message be delivered, absorbed, and adapted without presumptuously thinking you've figured it all out, and without your listener growing contempt for you/the concepts you teach thus not being efficiently taught.
Pinker is arguing, I think, in favor of what might be described as "practical free will," something vastly different from the classic "ghost in the machine" version popularized during the Middle Ages. Practical free will looks and subjectively feels so much like free will that the difference is of no real importance, except to those academics whose careers depend on making such fine grain distinctions. There's no OZ behind the curtain pulling our strings. Being a closed physical system, the brain conforms to the same immutable laws that govern the universe, which itself is a large closed physical system. Our behavior is driven by a long chain of antecedent causes. (Like that 80's song says, "One thing leads to another." ) But In the six million years or so since our direct ancestors climbed down from the trees, the human brain has grown into an ever more complex organ capable of weighing and analyzing vast quantities of information. Because of our unique capacity to model the universe -- largely through language -- we are capable of seeing possibilities that other less intelligent species can't, hence we have more apparent choices when "deciding" how to act. While we are conscious of the fact that we have choices, the exact reasons why we "choose" one action over another are often great unknown. (Why did I choose to use the phrase "great unknown instead of opting for "a mystery" in that last sentence.) Regardless, physical processes over which we have no real control drive brain function. What this means is "free will," is not absolute, but constrained by factors, including our innate intelligence, the culture we're born into, the manner in which our parents raised us, our level of education and so on. As I watched the video, I wondered about the role of neuroplasticity on decision making. In one example, Pinker talks about the choices one makes playing a game of chess. Learning and practice effectively change the physical composition of the brain. A person interested enough to learn more about the subtleties of playing chess will see possibilities that other less skilled players won't -- and his brain will be thus equipped to make better "choices" about what move to make in a given situation. In this sense, it seems to me that some people are more "free" to choose that others.
The universe is a "...large closed physical system." ? That assertion makes so many assumptions as to be impertinent. The free will can exist then, in an open system? That is the implication isnt it?
No one is more free to choose cause no one is free. The better word usage is more possible options to go through in the brain. We can’t control those options & even what we end up doing. If we could control this, our world wouldn’t be nearly as corrupt & would be able to provide scientific evidence for free will existing. It’s just an abstract idea that’s barren of evidence just like religion.
@@hobnob666 Everyone is equally as determined, like you said. We can't directly control the options that are available in our brain, but having more options does make us feel more free because it causes us to have less regret. The more information we have, the better the choices are that we make, leading to less regret. In a sense, being aware of more possibilities makes you freer from regret and suffering in the future. Freedom in the way they are using the word means the feeling of having all relevant information so they can make the best possible choices
We have free will in the same sense that we experience love. Love is after all basically a nuero-cocktail dumped out in our brains. When you see your little daughter being super cute, that's just chemicals and brain processes directing you in a feeling triggered by evolution to ensure you'll care for the kid so your genes will survive. So, do you not love you're daughter? Of course you do. Love is a description of the EXPERIENCE of all those things. I think you have free will in exactly the same way. We experience the ability to choose, and this experience is real, insomuch as it IS something we experience. Yes, it's true we have various processes, etc etc. Like love etc. So, I think it's perfectly valid to talk about free will without the perpetual qualifying of it as non-existent. I think it's equally as valid to ignore the personal experience and sturdy it scientifically.
the common definition of free will (which differs from your definition as an experience) is non-existent, so it is perfectly fine to do such statements. I think a reason to not define free will as an experience is that it wouldn't have any moral implications, while the denial of a free will in the usual definition does have a lot of implications.
@@MelFinehout your comment is very similar to my understanding of the free will. I don't say that "decision making is an illusion". Because decision is not the matter itself! Decision making is an EVENT that arise from physical reactions inside the material brain. Decision is a physical event. But a real event.
hm, that's quite an interesting way of thinking about it. Never had crossed my mind and explains quite some things and some attitudes coming from empirical neuroscientists or those rationally advocating the existence of free will.
I don't think of free will as an emotional experience. It is the product of positive feedback loops and the resultant chaos that makes us unpredictable. Neuroscientists have shown how many factors influence our decisions in statistically significant ways, but free will is about individuals, not statistics.
To anyone ignorant enough to assume that one uses free will to decide not to believe in free will, I will tell you why you are wrong. I don't choose to disregard the idea of free will. The idea simply is not compatible with what I have observed in the real world. The idea of deciding something independent of influence, is, to me, not even remotely possible. I did not choose to be born, did not choose to be male, did not choose to be white, did not choose to be north american, did not choose any aspect of my genetic coding, did not choose my parents, did not choose the time period of my birth, and did not choose to be even remotely conscious of the first 4 or so years of my life. I did not choose my favorite foods, my sexual preferences, my aesthetic tastes, or my interests. All of my internal functions happen without my consent. My mood changes based on factors I cannot predict. I become bored based on factors I can't even begin to understand. This pattern continues indefinitely, and, in case you haven't noticed, there is virtually no room for one to inject the idea of free will. All the above mentioned factors collectively make up my view of the world and dictate how I will react to new experiences. If you have not experienced something, you cannot assimilate it into your world view, thus your world view is limited entirely to what you have involuntarily experienced. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong, occasional naysayer.
***** Do you actually believe you are capable of choosing something without an influence or series of influences? How do you define choosing? And are you capable of choosing to believe something that is entirely inconsistent with your empirical observations?
***** the evidence is right in front of your eyes... and yet you ignore it... where is this free will that you have? where is this power ? if you say that its in your brain - you immediately realize that the brain being a physical object governed by physical laws is either deterministic or indeterministic (random) - there is no room for free will at all
You have free will. You are a spirit animating a body. The life force in every living cell is not being created by matter. Your ideas feelings and decisions aren't matter, they are mind. Mind is energy, brain is matter. The Sun and the brain are lit from the outside. Physical reality is an electric hologram playing out within our energetic minds. Electrons and photons are electric. It's an Electric Universe. Space is infinite and so is energy. That's the secret we're not supposed to realize.
***** not one thing of what you said you truly believe - because you can't confirm it - and in the end cognitive dissonance will take care of that irrational belief of yours
BlackPaw I know that only intelligence is a creative force. You cannot name another. Atheists believe that life was created by chance, that intelligence is being created by matter, and that matter is being spontaneously materialized from energy by chance. Where is your evidence that chance can cause the formation of electrons, atoms, and molecules? Chance is not causative. Evidence?
Steven doesn't say that Free Will doesn't exist, he says that there is no such thing as Free Will in the sense of a mysterious soul pushing some levers. He then makes the distinction between reactions determined by stimuli (true determinism in the classical mechanics sense) and behavior that has a probabilistic chance to occur (similar to quantum mechanics). This where the real distinction between the notion of Determinism and the notion of Free Will is.
I see 2 problems with Piker's point: 1: if our mind is purely a machine operating by itself (i.e., something that can be represented by a Turing Machine), that doesn't rule out the fact that it can be nondeterministic in the sense that, at any point, decisions can be made randomly (could be the ghost, which is separated from all the material conditions, or an unpredictable physical process, I'd choose the second one btw). One could call these random decisions as a manifestation of free will (and won't be necessary a ghost, as nondeterminism exists on physics). 2: as far as I know, no scientist gave a definitive proof that our mind can be represented by a Turing Machine, so it's not possible to claim that it is deterministic in any sense.
Terrell Stormembrace That's false. The poster raised an excellent point. As Pinker clearly notes behavioralism does rely, heavily in fact, upon probabilistic outcomes. Stating, as you did, that you don't get to choose from the options is irrelevant: the options available, and the option selected are both probabilistic. Behavioralism has never been able to deal with randomness.
If by free will people mean that despite your genes, experience/knowledge you can make any choices then no, free will does not exist. If people mean free will is just to choose a or b or anything else then yes, free will exists.
TheShermanTanker you make a choice based off a chemical reaction taking place in your head, and it is carried out by electrical signals. You think i can choose a or b freely, but its determined by the amounts of chemicals working in the brain. Free will is an illusion
@@FreightmareFTW you sound like a hyper modernist, positivist, reductionist new atheist who denies moral and epistemological subjectivity, interntionality, positionality, spatiality, temporality and struggles of marginalized communities. Denial of free will just feed the white male status-quo by preventing social justice.
@@freandwhickquest No it doesn’t do that, just because we don’t have free will, that doesn’t mean people support social injustice or even social justice. It just means we don’t freely choose to do anything. It’s influenced. That’s all he’s saying. Whether or not you believe social justice or injustice is right isn’t your free choice but is influenced by a ton of different variables. People like to think I can freely choose whatever I want when they don’t realize influences influence more influences which influence choices & the dominoes just keep falling as time progresses. Humans do things they feel will benefit their survival & escape pain if possible. And it happens to be social justice allows for a more secure system & promote an easier life which means we’ll support it. Unlike social injustice that does the opposite so we want to avoid it or change it. We know many unhappy people makes our lives a lot harder & could cause anarchy which threatens our life.
I already knew what Steven Pinker would have to say about free will because he can only say what Steven Pinker WOULD say. The notion of free will is nonsense no matter how you try to frame it.
P1) We have a will (wants/desires). P2) Our wants and desires are formed by external stimuli (prior causes). C) Causality is required for a will (of any kind) to exist. Therein lies the problem with applying acausality as a prerequisite for the existence of _free_ will; it entails the commision of the logical fallacy of asking too much, as doing so necessarily negates the possibility of the existence of _any_ will.
Wow. It's amazing how many people here think they can just say some dumb shit and think they do better than the philosophers. It's the BIG THINK channel people, try harder!
Alba Dona That's the point. So many people post their definitive view on the subject as though they have THE answer, worked out in five minutes without reference to any research, thus proving the philosophers who spend their careers on this wrong. It's typical. Internet = dumping ground for everyone's worthless opinion, but in some cases it's so obvious that their opinions aren't grounded in any knowledge that it becomes odious.
Carlos Pérez Ironically, what you just said is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Just because they have a degree in philosophy, doesn't make them any less wrong.
Why do people think that the input of a soul into our choices of actions would be an argument for free will? Can't we see the soul as an other determinist element? For example, does someone with a bad soul have the free will to make a good choice? And if he does, did he really have a bad soul in the first place?
The notion of soul is from religious doctrine. It is imagined a soul is the entity sitting at a control panel behind our eyes, pulling levers and pushing buttons that control us. There’s no evidence any suck thing exists. The person talking inside our heads is just us imagining we are talking to someone else.
I had never heard anyone else who came to the conclusion I had at a fairly young age. It was only later that some well-educated people told me the resemblance to Hinduism/Buddhism. I was raised a Methodist, so I agree, I was lied to terribly, but I didn't believe a word of it much past age 7.
The problem with the scientific deterministic account is it is asking me to appeal to empirical notions of cause and effect which we are supposed to then overrule our direct experience of feeling like we have free will. I don't understand why an appeal to experience as causation is supposed to be more compelling than an appeal to our direct experience in feeling free.
Even if my decision of what to have for dinner tonight is based on trillions of factors, isn't it just still a result of those factors and therefore determined? Unless true randomness is built in it seems there can't exist free will in a purely physical system. But even then, the decision would just be random rather than free. My (admittedly novice) take is that free will is an illusion.
Ryan Stutzman what do you mean by free? If free means free from causality then I would argue we do have free will based on Quantum indeterminacy. If free means free to choose then we have to recognize that choosing is a causal practice under scientific inquiry, therefore under this definition we do not have it. There is a third possibility that we have a soul (nonphysical consciousness) which selects actions in a manner which is both free from causality and free to choose but is outside of physical or natural explanation, I think this only makes sense rationally if "consciousness choosing" is THE fundamental process (first cause) and is a very deep topic but not for science.
The universe is causal. Randomness is ignorance, eg, watching car repair without understanding why the mechanic does what he does. When you know what he does, you know cause.
People have a will; and to call it "free will" should simply mean that they are able to exercise their will without too much interference from people or other causes that would be insurmountable obstacles to their doing so. "Free will" is completely deterministic; to define it as "undetermined will" is irrational; it's tantamount to saying that our will and our choices have no cause - that they are either random or the product of magic. Genetics and environment cannot hinder that which they make possible - they are the prerequisite of will; and will is the motor that drives action. A "free will" refers to how a person will act in circumstances where he's able to act; or otherwise would act if he were able to do so. There is no such thing as will that's divorced from who someone is - it would be very disturbing to see evidence of such a thing - it implies actions for which we cannot give account and for which we cannot be held responsible, driven by some supernatural entity that has usurped our own will; or, otherwise, random decisions - not a very uplifting concept for explaining behavior. Anyway, "random" is a pseudo-concept; it doesn't exist; and is used as a euphemism for "unpredictable".
+vomittie Your will doesn't "dictate" your will - it already is your will; people and their circumstances evolve, and so their wills evolve too; you cannot choose to change your behavior without cause - there must be some thought process or unconscious change of mental state, possibly stimulated by external circumstances and/or accumulated experience that we integrate into our perceptions, influencing our judgment.
+vomittie Everything that you choose has a cause - nothing is random. To call that slavery is to say that you are a slave to your own free will. If there were really such a thing as random chance, in what way would you find this random control of your will to be freedom? It would be the opposite of free will. The only way you could have acted differently than you chose to act would be to change something in the past: either circumstances or your mental state at the time of your choice, no matter how light of a consideration you gave to that choice; but time travel is nothing but a popular human fantasy/delusion that violates the law of causality; and such an ability to influence your past self is a very poor idea of free will.
+Mark Uzick I find the "Free Will" question extremely important in this day and age. Yet, many people seem to be confused as to what is really meant by "Free Will." Indeed, to talk about humans having "Free Will" is to deceive ourselves. I believe that the only way we can talk about "Free Will" is to drop the term 'free' and just keep the 'Will'. And I define 'Will' in the following way: A PARTICULAR STATE OF MIND THAT IS CONSCIOUS OF VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES OF ACTION. In other words, if someone asks me to choose any city in North America, my 'Will' is the state of mind that recognizes the various options that are arising in my brain (I.e New York, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Ottawa etc.) Then, I am compelled - through no FREE WILL of my own - to choose a particular city. The recognition of the action to choose Ottawa, let's say, can also be part of my "Will." Therefore, there is no use using the term "FREE" when talking about the state of mind that is observing the thoughts arising in the brain and the subsequent actions that are carried out because of these thoughts. This is how I define "WILL." Human beings have WILL and only WILL.
There is a huge difference between behaviour and acting. Behaving not need the free will to itself, but acting is the act of choice: to do something or refuse to done it.
He called our complex neural sctructure free will, i dont know if it was meant to be ironic or sarcastic, but that is not free will, that is the brain machine.
That is a great explanation of free will. You may also learn from the consequences from past behaviors that may subconsciously effect you're future behavior in a split second decision, without you even being aware of it. This is interesting I would love to read a good book on this because there are probably tons of examples that could go either way. I think it's like the nature nurture debate. It's usually a little of both. I think it's free will strongly influenced by genetics & other factors.
You don't need a "ghost in the machine" to have free will. You just need a conscious mind and a couple choices to pick from. Of course choosing which car to buy is a more sophisticated decision than whether or not to jerk your knee when it's hit with a small hammer. Derp! The difference is not just that it requires more of the physical brain, but that it takes place within consciousness! When we use reason and language to make decisions, they are neither the unavoidable consequence of causal events, nor do they well up from the unconscious unbidden. This should be obvious to sensible people who don't get so caught up in their rhetoric that they lose sight of the big picture.
I think the jerk the knee thing is basically just a reflex just like the sensation to throw away any ant that walks on your skin, but free will has to be free even though if it's calculated & studied properly, the example of choosing a car , which is your free will only, is determined by hundreds of thoughts each relating to one another - just like roots, & intentional & unintentional learning (big part) + past experiences/trauma Sorry but I'm not so good with explaining my thoughts
I think which car you choose is completely determined by how your genetics interacted with your environment to form your nervous system as it is at the time of the choice. I don’t see any freedom in it because your body and experiences were not under your control.
They don't cease, they just think we're someone else. The ones that think we're this person hang together merely because they DO think we're this person. They aren't really separate from other persons. The only barrier between persons is this barrier of personal knowledge. You can only think you're one person at a time, at least we do. Space is a representational fiction, a model, as it solidity and substance, and time. Our conversation just occurs, we don't know why, and we don't control it.
Steven Pinker is illustrating the self-referanceproblem: "The next sentence is true. The last sentence is lying." If we are in fact determined, either by the brain or stimuli from the outside world, every thought or idea wil also be determined. Even if we research the determined system, research itself and the results, will come from the same determined system. In other words: We can never know wheter something is true or not. The word "truth" looses its meaning. Everything you are, know or think is really just given to you from a determined system. So how can you know that we are determined? If we are determined, we would be cut off from any truth about the world. Including the truth that we are determined.
Your wants does not define your choosing. You still have the option to confront and go against your wants. But your example is correct: Choosing between a red or yellow car will not be done by free will. But bigger choices, within the realm of morality, truth and responsebility, can be done in the light of free will. And no. It isnt random, just because it arises without a cause. It means that there is a free space where completely new movements in the world can be created intentionally - something very incomprihensible. Many people, like yourself, see the abysses if free will were to exist. And because it is so incomprihensible, it cannot be! But that just makes free will to another of the worlds mysterious things. Just like beauty, truth, responsibility, formlessness and so on.
I believe in determinism. My genetics and background including the home in which I grew up determined who I am today . My father lived his life through me in some ways. He purchased a microscope and various science kits for me. He fondly related to me how the lab in which he worked developed so and so. It is not a great surprise to anyone who knew my family that I ended up in science. I was programmed to want to study science. I could say that I wanted to be a physicist . I suspect that my aptitude would not allow that to happen. Certain factors trump our will . Some ex-cons really really don't want to return to prison, but guess what? My examples may seem trite but it is as clear as day to me that free will doesn't exist. I see members of the clergy . We see scandal after scandal . Believers interpret this as the ,"evil doers ," not being truly converted. Could it be that these individuals are simply doing what they are motivated to do.
Cruzan You would then have to admit that your recognition of this fact (determinism) changes the game in some sense. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the idea of determinism once incorporated into the mental structure has a massive effect on the decisions one makes. I guess I could liken it to ascending to a higher plane. So that once one recognizes determinism, they are more in control of their lives than they have ever been before.
YouthInEyesAsian Of course your beliefs and worldview affects your life. But accepting determinism doesn't mean you know what will happen. Just that you believe that what will happen, will happen. How much of a blow that is to anyone's life and decision making is a personal matter.
Cruzan Haha! Another pretty funny case. Free will doesn't exist because you've never made a decision for yourself? Lots of people are encouraged by their parents to pursue a route that they completely eschew. Even people who deny free will rarely oversimplify to this extent.
The vast complexity of the brain, and human inability to weigh all variables to predict behavior, does not dismiss that these are still very physical processes that rely on the fundamental principles of the laws of physics. Free will does not exist.
It depends on what you define as "free will". In a similar way that there are no processes that are truly random, you could also say that because everything happening in peoples' brains is going to happen in one specific way, dictated by the laws of physics, there is no such thing as free will. But just like how you can say that a dice roll is random because there are too many variables to consider in such a short amount of time, making an accurate prediction borderline impossible, you can also say that because the brain is such a complex organ, you have "free will", because you can't predict what it's going to do, therefore you can say that it's making decisions on its own. Of course, what most people would call "free will" doesn't exisit, but this version is close enough that it can be defined as free will.
+Penguinvader good points of view from both. your comment in particular, reminds me of the way seth lloyd goes around advocating for "free will" on the basis that "behaviour cannot be predicted", which annoys me very much. in first place, as you say, the concept is so vast and encompassing and differs so much on cultural views that it cannot be pinned down and proved. nonetheless it's common sense, if you have basic scientific knowledge, that a finite system cannot be "sufficient" by itself, also we are clearly not free when it comes to the most important thing of all: "our identity". i didn't get to choose my character; and how could i? and if you ask me now how i want myself to be... it's 100 times more funny, brave, to have greater memory recall, greater working memory capacity, etc. but i don't decide who's making these wishes in the first place. maybe i should have wished for greater compassion, power of contemplating nature, acceptance for bad situations. so i'm like a toy who finds itself already made, with all inner workings put in place. and if there are a few ways i can change myself, the decision is made by the environment (i see a guru that says we should be in so and so manner; i see movie heroes; magazine covers); and all i can do is use those preexistent mechanical pathways to make the change with.
Even if we had a soul, that soul would be at the whims of cause and effect, and therefore would not have free will either - so that's kinda irrelevant. Same applies to a god.
+Think Vegan I would agree with you, all decisions are made at the mercy of material options you have and informed by your own mental tendencies (which are, at the neuro-chemical level, in themselves material). The soul to me is not an active agent. The soul is just that perceiving thing -- not the senses or the brain, but your the experience of life itself.
Tara: Why would you assume that the soul would be at the whims of cause and effect? It has been my experience that the astral body, which is similar to the soul, is outside of space and time and the Laws of this Universe do not apply.
Amount of Something: There billions of people who believe the exact opposite of what you just wrote. If you believe in reincarnation, as I and billions of others, even Jesus, believe, then we of course get to choose what sex, race, IQ, disabilities, parents, country, etc. that we are born to, for the purpose of the potential opportunities for growth of the soul and the ability to experience what others have experienced who we may have harmed in a previous life, thereby burning off a karmic debt. If you believe that life has a purpose, there can be no other reason. And free will would exist even if that were not the case. I guess some people just don't have the ability to think deeply enough to break it down to the finer point of where true responsibility lies.
Amount: The "belief" system I was referring to is called Buddhism. THAT particular "religion" more accurately a spiritual system, involves people who spend 1000's of hours in meditation which can take them to points of awareness that YOU have never come close to. There are people who have had out-of-body experiences,1000's of people, from different religious backgrounds, who have had near death experiences that report much of the same information, there is documented "scientific" information on this. This spiritual system has nothing to do with breeding. Who are you? Where did you come up with this crap? You are a fool and it sounds like you are working for the Globalists who have done everything they can think of to depopulate the planet and specifically America and to prevent "breeding" by causing the sterilization of women and men. The average sperm count in the US is down to 45%. Why do you think there are so many fertility clinics making a fortune here? With vaccines laced with AIDS, Cancer, and Hepatitis, etc, and then you have so many other ways in which they are slow killing the population from cradle to grave, that you don't have to worry about over population. Overpopulation is now a MYTH created by the Globalists because it suits their purposes. Of course, the ONE person who should not "breed" is you, because we don't need you populating our world with such ridiculous rhetoric. Of course, people like you always find a way to sell our their fellow man. And it is spelled fairytales not "tails."
Amount: The very fact that yours is a "highlighted" reply shows exactly who is behind this Big Think and this video. The Left and the Globalists are desperate to destroy America and bring it to its knees so they can usher in the NWO and people like you are sell outs betraying your own kind, either knowingly or not, you are still a fool.
Also what i mean about thoughts and the universe is that,imagine this,nothing is around you in the entire universe. you're surrounded by nothing since the begining of time. Essentially you would have no thought what so ever. my point being you need the universe around you to have thoughts, ergo you need subjects and objects to ponder on,which is why thoughts aren't free will, michio was saying it's impossible to accurately predict what you're going to do next even given your entire past.
This debate is pointless. Why? Because even if we don't have free will, the illusion of free will is so powerful that for all intents and purposes, we do. It's like asking if other people are conscious and can think and feel the same way I do. Even if everybody else is a thoughtless, emotionless zombie or robot or we're living in the matrix, the illusion is so powerful and pervasive that from my perspective, for all intents and purposes, they do. Therefore the only sane way to live is to believe that other people are conscious and that we do have free will. Which everybody basically does anyway by default. It's only the mentally deranged or philosophers with way too much time on their hands that get worked up over existential problems like this.
+bonzihunter But if we all accepted free will doesn't exist wouldn't it be easier to forgive people? Would that not be an irrefutable argument against the death penalty? The absence of free will strips away pride from people, and when pride is gone, what is there for people to get angry about?
Bobby Bobbinson no because to truly believe we don't have free will u have to be something of a solipsist. Like I said, the illusion (if that's what it is) of free will is so powerful we have to behave as if it's real in order to live as sane and socially functional human beings.
+bonzihunter Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not thinking about the absence of free will every second of the day, I still buy into the illusion. It just changes the way I treat people - I guess I'd compare it to like characters in a book, I can still dislike a character, but I can't blame them for how they were written - if that makes sense?
Bobby Bobbinson that could potentially even be a good thing if it helps you forgive people. I mean how can blame anyone or hold them at fault if u think everything is predetermined?
+bonzihunter exactly! It saves a lot of time for me that I would have wasted on being angry or annoyed at trivial things. The book analogy is the best for me - the pages are already filled, and I keep turning to see what's written.
CARROTS! You now briefly thought about carrots for a second. You didn't choose to think about carrots, or atleast you didn't know that you were going to read the word "carrot" before shifting your focus to this comment, but yes, you thought about carrots. Did you choose that thought? Nope. I have now just simply planted a thought in your mind. Now, if you accept that thoughts spontaneously arise into consciousness without your consent, then how can you claim to have free will?
+Carl-Richard Løberg That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life. And everyone in the world who was exposed to it is far worse off for having read it.
+Carl-Richard Løberg wrote "Why not debunk my claim instead of looking like an idiot yourself?" Beautiful display of the logical fallacy "Switching the Burden of Proof." It's not my duty to debunk your pseudoscientific bullshit. It is your duty to support your claims. If you have evidence, now would be a good time for you to present it. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (Sports Fans: wake me when he returns)
+kmm wrote "It's pretty obvious" Another fantastic argument! Boy, you Determinists sure are tough with all your assertions and common sense and everything. Too bad not one of you ever produces any evidence.
neo theskepticarena "Another fantastic argument!" Not really. I'm just saying to pay attention. Every thought and feeling merely pops into consciousness. Every reaction merely arises. You did not get to inspect and author what made those thoughts and reactions came into being. You can't be aware of a thought before you think it, it simply arises. Also, have you heard of the Libet experiments?
If someone tells me they lack free will I believe them. They are the best expert on their own experiences in their mind . An atheist once told me " I'd believe in God but my mind won't let me". How true it was, he was being honest but failing to see it was only "something" in his mind that was blocking him. I lacked free will when I was atheist for 40 yrs . It takes a while to make some decisions. Ego don't go down easy.
Pinker isn't saying free will doesn't exist, he saying free will doesn't require a supernatural explanation; however, here's a thought to consider. If you are not a determinist; in other words you believe free will exists; whether you think God granted the human race free will, or you are an atheist and believe free will is just a natural consequence of evolution, you didn't choose it. In simpler terms, you have free will, you have no choice. :-)
God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free
God + free will don't go together, truely sorry, just look at the people following the Bible, if they actually had morals and thought for themselves, they would criticize what they read instead of following it blindly... God and his books are the biggest irony of free will to this date.
You are absolutely right in your observation That religious people blindly follow the bible & don't think for themselves. They mouth the same rhetoric and cliches that the pastors teach them to believe. You're wrong when it comes to free will though, truly sorry.
Johanon Zimmerman ....THE REASON FOR "EVIL" IS GOD WANTED US TO HAVE FREE WILL...... It's easy to say,"you're wrong." Suppose for a moment that your god does exist. Why would he create a world in which evil were possible? You have this god that can supposedly do whatever the fuck it wants and it can't let us choose whether we want coffee or tea without the inclination to rape, steal and murder? If this god didn't want "evil" immoral actions or sickness and death to take place, it shouldn't have made that a possibility. Therefore, God's desire for rape and murder and child cancer is quite evident. God would either be the kid on an anthill with a magnifying glass or the tied up parent who simply watches as their children get raped and murdered, incapable of stopping it. Clearly, this supposed god either *wants* wickedness or is *powerless* to prevent it. So, you can't imagine a creature which was free but has no possibility of going wrong. So what? This omniscient god couldn't figure it out? This omnipotent god couldn't make it happen? That's only assuming that your god exists of course. There is no justification for believing it does.
Of course, your view of God is that way, but the fact that your view can differ from my view suggests that we are exercising our free will. does it not? You can't hold onto the view that God doesn't exist & also tell everyone what He is doing & what attributes He has. If your child grows up in your home & you teach him to stay away from guns, is it your fault that he steals a gun & kills someone? The really good news is that God has made it possible to know Him. The other good news is that He isn't the monster that you make Him out to be (if He really does exist, of course) There is another player in all of this. His name is Satan.
Johanon Zimmerman "the fact that your view can differ from my view suggests that we are exercising our free will. does it not?" *It does not. Just because our views differ, doesn't mean it was free will that that led us to come to those conclusions. It's a fact that you are having thoughts before you are even aware of them. I just washed my hands three times in a row... i don't know why. It wasn't my free will to do so, but i did. There are many factors to consider.* "You can't hold onto the view that God doesn't exist & also tell everyone what He is doing & what attributes He has." *Yes I can. Some say it's a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain a belief or idea without necessarily accepting it as true. I merely pointed out the flaws in your argument if one were to accept it as true. Yes i had to assume you are referring to the christian god. Free will is tied in with the bible and since you mention satan i know i was right in my assumption. You aren't arguing for any old random deity.* " If your child grows up in your home & you teach him to stay away from guns, is it your fault that he steals a gun & kills someone?" *That's not enough information to make n accurate assessment. It's a bad analogy as well. That parent isn't going to say, "don't play with guns" and then toss the kid an ak47. If the parent made guns easily accessible, scattered all throughout the house, he/she would be somewhat responsible.* "The really good news is that God has made it possible to know Him. The other good news is that He isn't the monster that you make Him out to be (if He really does exist, of course) There is another player in all of this. His name is Satan" *So you know god? Tell me about this god since you know "him" so well. I'm not making anyone out to be a monster. I am simply expressing what is clearly indicated by your own doctrines. Also, according to your doctrines an omniscient god that created the universe in a specific way had to know what the outcome would be. Otherwise it wouldn't be omniscient. Not all knowing if it didn't know. If it can't abolish "evil" then it's not omnipotent. If it can prevent it or stop it and doesn't, it must actually desire for it to be.*
He said," I don't believe in such a thing as free will " but belief itself rides along the stream of free will. We are free to doubt anything somebody tells us as being the truth, we are also free to accept anything somebody tells us as being the truth. Having this freedom to accept and reject which is something willfully done is what makes you possess free will.
Belief and lack of belief have nothing to do with choice. Our choices, wants and beliefs are determined by our individual contexts, which we cant control. We cant decide on a whim to believe or not believe X We are either convinced or we are not, and we cant control being convinced or not I cant decide on a whim to start believing just as you cant decide on a whim to stop believing I have to get convinced, you have to get unconvinced, we dont control being unconvinced or not because we dont control the reasons or lack of reasons that convince or unconvince us.
@@andralfoo The Prosecutor tries to convince the jury to convict, the defense attorney tries to convince you to acquit but they both try to convince you to see things their way because they know you are a person who has free will who can accept or reject their arguments.
We will for what we want, but we don't chose what we want. If I truly have free will, then why do I have no idea which book I'll want to read tomorrow until a specific temptation hits me?
supercoolio120 Don't worry it is not like you decided not to respond to this thread, it was determined for you. You didn't have any choice in the matter as you have no free will.
I love how the scientists always shut the door so tightly as if "end of discussion, you are nothing more that a bunch of neurons, a chemical process, nothing more to question". Really ? Then we should have stopped at the atom as the absolute building block of matter and not bothered to look any deeper, cos after all, the problem was solved., - yet we continued and have have discovered much much more since then. Quite Frankly, Descartes dualism is a more (still incomplete) answer to the problem than the scientists boring slam the door shut chemical process guess.
Pinker specifically rejects 'greedy reductionism' (that we should have 'stopped at the atom', as you say) in his work, if you'd bothered to read any of it before commenting and assuming what he thinks. Further, no credible scientist accepts greedy reductionism, either. There are multiple layers of analysis, but in the end they are all tied and rely on the level below (biology on chemistry, chemistry on physics, etc.) and NONE of them generate any evidence that dualism is a plausible explanation for mind. You simply can't magically insert a 'ghost in the machine' at some random point after atoms, molecules or whatever pre-cognizent level you deem fit. It's downright juvenile to think that you can damage a part of the brain and lose some faculty, damage another part and lose a different one, but destroy the whole thing at death and have your consciousness remain intact. Consciousness is obviously a product of the brain, case closed. How is it generated? There is more to find out on this matter. But we won't learn anything about the mind by looking outside the brain.
ianman6 I enjoy this particular view. Although i see a few flaws in your logic. For instance, we know that there could well be multiple levels of existence. If there are being in the dimensions of space that are outside our experience, could they not be made up of something altogether foreign to our atoms and molecules? If so, how would they interact with our level of existence? It would be in a way that we could not explain with our current understanding of the universe, it does not mean that it doesn't exist.
ianman6 "It's downright juvenile to think that you can damage a part of the brain and lose some faculty, damage another part and lose a different one, but destroy the whole thing at death and have your consciousness remain intact. Consciousness is obviously a product of the brain, case closed." Why? Because you say so? Explain how you are so convinced that consciousness just stops at death. The truth is, it's downright juvenile to think that you know for sure what happens after death. Stop thinking 2-dimensionally.
I can't believe some people think they have no freewill. You can go out or stay in. It's really up to you. Nothing is forcing your decision. You're not a robot. Although you are certainly free to believe you are.
+1971SuperLead You have a free will in the sense that is depends on you whether you go out or stay in, and another person might have chosen differently in the same situation. But you don't have a free will in the sense that you could have chosen otherwise when you make a choice. (Given that everything else was exactly the same.)
ivankaramasov You seem to think a human mind is nothing but a series of switches that operates on constant laws of physics. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mind does not operate on the laws of physics. The minds created the laws of physics. You can even see this in how the mind operates on laws that oppose the laws of physics.
+1971SuperLead I believe the mind is the product of physical processes in the brain. I guess you believe something else, but I am not sure what. Please, elaborate.
ivankaramasov The mind is spiritual. Physicality is a product of consciousness, just as many a quantum physicist has suspected. What's interesting about matter is that it opposes the mind in so many ways. To the point that it ridiculous to imagine that a mind could ever come from matter. How could the illusion of freewill ever come from matter? It simply makes no sense. But it doesn't stop there. The laws that the mind operates on are most often in reverse to the laws of physics. Why could the laws of physics be responsible for something that operates on oppositional laws??? And then we learn why spirit sought to make a world that opposes the laws it has been abiding to for an eternity. And we see a world that does nothing but chase this carrot, and it all makes perfect sense. A spiritual mind has perfect free will, however, when driven to believe it is made of matter, it also believes it has no free will. By it's own free will it accomplishes the removal of it's free will. The evidence is endless, and if you want to research this theory, I would point you to the same thing that made it all so clear for me. A book called A Course In Miracles. But let me warn you, A Course In Miracles (ACIM) is like the red pill. Once you understand that you are merely dreaming you are a mind trapped in a body and walking to your own oblivion, it's hard to go back to sleep. There is a reason you chose to dream. And the illusion found in dreams is a carrot you chase all the time. There really is only one illusion you desire. And once you see the folly of that illusion you'll not know what to live for anymore, yet, you'll not have a choice, because life is not a choice. The mind is eternal, as many a quantum physicist is discovering today. So now you have nothing left to do but wake up from this matrix of matter. It's a long process, but it's also insanely beautiful. It's called spiritual enlightenment. But all it really is is an awakening from self induced delusions.
Peter Tse's recent book on the neural basis of free will makes the same point as Pinker here. He locates free will in imagination, where many possible courses of action can be played out and then selected among, based on internal criteria. It is interesting to see some neuroscientists like Pinker and Tse embrace both physicalism and this modest notion of free will. What religious people want is contracausal free will driven by a soul. Good to see that some neuroscientists reject that view as nonsense, without falling into the 'free will is an illusion' trap.
Why Stevens argument is logically inconsistent ... A: Did Steven freely come to the conclusion that free will doesn't exist based on a conscious evaluation of the data..? B. Was Stevens brain determined to believe free will doesn't exist..? In other words: If determinism/compatibilism is true, rational evaluation is an illusion and has no causal powers. Why? On determinism the brain is forced by chemistry and physics (universal causation) to hold a belief whether it is true or not. Hence on determinism we have no rational justification for our beliefs. 1. A brain is like a rock bouncing down a hill. 2. The rock: Hmmm... should I go left or right (illusion of evaluation)... 3. Universal causation makes the rock go left. 4. The rock: I choose to go left (illusion of conclusion/choice). In other words: As a determinist/compatibilist Steven cannot logically argue against the existence of free will using rationality --- but this is what he does. Right..? If he would like to be logically consistent he would have to say: "Perhaps free will does not exist. I don't know."
Agreed. But what I like best is that, as a human being, Dr. Pinker may espouse his theory, but it is physically impossible for him to believe it. He may try to choose to believe that he can't choose, but that is one choice that he definitely can't make!
@@joeyasro8785 True. "I am determined to believe that free will does not exist." Its extremely funny and ironic that he doesn't realize the lack of logical consistency ;)
'The ability to change between choice and action'. This doesn't make sense. Computers will never be conscious. Computers are nothing more than electronically stored information. Is a toaster intelligent because it knows when the toast is ready? Is a burglar alarm intelligent because it knows when a burglar enters your house? Is a calculator intelligent because it knows that 2+2=4? Does your computer know that you are using it? A more accurate description for ‘Artificial Intelligence’ would be ‘Programmable Automation’. We are, in effect, mistaking our own intelligence with that of an unconscious object of our own making.
Ok, but listen to how he starts his video..."I don't believe in free will in the sense that there is a ghost in the machine...some kind of spirit..." All he is saying is that he isn't a dualist. Free will has nothing to do with mind-body dualism. Will may very well be a product of the physical brain. So what? "Pushes buttons and pulls levers...." What the hell is he talking about? Who said anything about buttons and levers? If his intent was to construct a straw man to knock down, then I'll leave him to it. "Physical processes in the brain..." Yes, no doubt. But somehow, those physical processes create conscioussness and free will. Look, I'm not formulating a theory of gravity here, I'm just observing the obvious fact that when I release a rock, it falls. I'm not proposing a neurophysiological theory of consciousness either (and he hasn't come up with one either) but I think therefore I am. The existence of consciousness is the one thing that's logically impossible to deny. And when you watched my video, did this start a mechanical process which resulted in your fingers typing on your keyboard against your will....or was there a mental state of intention (will)? I'm only stating the obvious when I say that humans are conscious beings who act with free will. "Human choices will not be predictable..." Sure, but this isn't a discussion about determinism versus randomness. No one is saying that "will" is "random". Acting intentionally is the exact opposite of acting randomly. Pinker is a smart guy....and you have to be really smart to say something so idiotic. But wait..."the brain is set up.."? By who? Who set up the brain? God? I've never heard someone use such inconsistent language in such a short video. And ok, "the iris contracts....the knee jerks". So what? If I push him down a staircase he falls. The human body can still be acted upon by outside forces. But there was no outside force that compelled me to push this idiot down the stairs....I did that of my own free will. And even he admits that making a chess move is very different from the automatic responses. "Predict the consequenses of behavior....and select them based on those consequences..."...Yes, he's saying that people are conscious and that they act with intention (will) in a particular way when they were confronted with a choice (freedom). (freedom + will = free will) So he even closes by admitting free will. He only denies that free will is the result of "some mysterious soul". Great, I don't believe in "some mysterious soul" either. So where's the argument against free will? I have a degree in psychology and I'm familiar with some of the brain research related to volition. No experiement I've heard of disproves free will. Sometimes our actions seem to be directed by unconscious "will". Sometimes it appears that a decision is made a split second before the conscious part of our mind is aware of the decision. But even in these cases, the unconscious mind is still as much a part of our mind as the conscious part. Even these "pre-conscious" actions are clearly intentional. Their cause is to be found in mental processes and an intention (will) to act in one way rather than in another way. It isn't the result of one pool ball hitting another in a mechanistic deterministic way. So these determinism apologists always try to re-define "free will" so as to make it something completely absurd. They construct strawmen involving "some mysterious soul" that is "pushing buttons and pulling levers"....no philosopher has ever suggested such a ridiculous scheme of things. Here's a link to my video response to another blow-hard determinist on the subject of free will. ua-cam.com/video/-qEFwCr7L9M/v-deo.html
Illuminatus Pythagoras This guy and people like him are just trying to push Skinner behaviorism on everyone again. Just a new flavor of it. As though they've done something insightful. Every belief they develop is forced through a materialistic filter. They need determinism to uphold their materialism. Without it, they have to confront the free will defense argument and they know that they will lose. They will do anything to protect their belief system.
Free will makes no sense without consciousness...and consciousness doesn't make sense within a materialistic framework...therefore, determinism. Yes, I think you're exactly right.
I wish he coud have continued on for a moment to explain why that second higher-level thinking still doesn;t constitute free will. I've read his work. His argument is that even those higher functions are still an emergent function of many smaller processes that are just like the automatic reflexes. He makes a damn good case for it, too.
"I also believe that choice is in fact free will" We don't make a "choice" about anything, it only feels like we do. Choice and free will are illusions based on what it "feels" like to be momentarily aware of the processes in our brain. Does a clam close it's shell when it's rudimentary nervous system senses either food or danger? No, it only reacts to it's environment. We are essentially the same, our brains are primed, through genetics, to react to all the antecedent events of our life.
When you were a newborn, you came to find that you could move these thing-ideas around you with your mind, clumsily at first, but after a while you figured out that you had five contactors and they were on mental stalks that you had to manipulate around things without knocking them over, and as the experience with it grew you learned to "see" where the "stalks" were that extended your contactors in "space", and now you've leaned and think nothing of them, but you call them arms and hands!!!
I think they assume way too much knowledge to start deciding that we don't have free will. I get the idea behind why it is limited, due to things like circumstances outside of our control, and outside forces. And I also understand that our bodies are incredibly complex and our brains do respond automatically to stimuli. But they assume to much knowledge to say free will doesn't exist. We don't know close to enough about how the brain works to start presuming an absence of free will. I have two family members who have serious mental health issues, and I have heard psychologists, psychiatrists, and neurologists, who are experts in there fields with years and years of experience explain how little they actually know about the brain. They can't even explain how schizophrenia is caused or cured. And they openly admit it because scientific study is so limited because of the sheer complexity of the brain. So when I hear people claiming that our brain works this way and that way, therefore you don't have freewill. I say, show me the evidence. Sam harris brought to light some of the latest studies to prove we don't have freewill. And maybe it was a lack of ability to explain the study, but it seemed to be a simplistic study with exaggerated conclusions on Sam Harris's part. Show me the real scientific evidence on why we have no free will. It's got to be concrete evidence too, not the garbage they are currently promoting.
" the ability to fabricate our own thoughts" We don't fabricate our own thoughts, we don't choose what we'll be thinking about in the next 5 minuets, our thought just happen. Our thoughts arise seemingly spontaneously but they're a result of our brain chemistry; that's all.
collins mugodo wrote "Is there any chance I could ever get you back on topic?" ----- I didn't know we were on a topic. I simply thanked you for your unsolicited advice, advised you regarding your semi-literate grammar skills, and then thanked you for providing entertainment for rational people.
That last statement is an argument from desire. Just because you don't like that there may not be an objective code of ethics, or purpose to life, or whatever else, does not mean there is one. The universe cares not for our petty wants or understanding.
If you can say "no", you have free will. A consciousness that transcends blind material causality. You can predict the future in a variety of ways and act according to your own perceived best interest. The act changes the future. We are co-creators.
a) it cannot be fully ignored as quantum indeterminacy influences outcomes up to the macroscopic level. That said we're talking tiny variances not large effects. b) If you've studied science you should well know one biologist may be working with baynesian causal networks, another might be following probability theory, another counterfactual causation. Science doesn't presume to be able to answer metaphysical questions about the nature of reality like questions about casuation.
But doesn't determinism allow for change, it's just that you can't be blamed or credited for that change? All of our decisions could be determined but we could still change - though that would be determined too.
In my humble opinion, and please forgive my errors in grammar and layman reasoning but I believe that what Steven was trying to communicate here is that we don't have pure free will in the truest sense of the term but we aren't puppets on strings either. Rather we have something that I would like to call " Conditional free will " or free will but based on certain conditions. For instance do people with down syndrome or intelligence quotients less than 80 have "free will"? Or what about when we are 2 years old or 7 years old? And what about people who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol and do stupid things that are out of their character and what about psychopaths who begin displaying psychopathic traits before they turn 5? Do some of our closest relatives like chimpazees have free will even though our dna differs by like less than 1 percent only? All of these examples in my opinion demonstrate that the human brain is an amazing yet still complicated and fragile thing, alot of people may say well we either have unconditional free will or we don't have free will at all but the truth is that our free will is clearly conditional and is at times based on things that are completely out of our control, the short and sweet answer is that we have free will or some version of it but only to a point, only to a certain extent because we are neither God nor robots.
I'm not talking about the quantum mind hypothesis, that is more to do with wave collapse functions creating consciousness or something. I'm talking about the interactions neurotransmitters have on synapses and on memory formation, both which are molecular. And Christof Koch isn't a physicist, he's one of the leading researchers into consciousness.
Maxim Calixte wrote "I agree with you. There's quantum entanglement, where particles can simultaneously exist at two separate locations at once, etc." ----- If a particle can exist at two separate locations at once, how do you know it is the same particle?
There are many other corrective measures other than punishment-teaching the person with rational emotive therapy, about God, virtues and how to gain self-esteem through non-violent ways, love transforms, alternatives, keeping someone busy, etc Since we are not robbots free will is always put into play no matter the forces that may seem hard to control once we are not compelled by sickness in the mind we always freely choose.
but remember I did say all three ice cream were the same flavor. so I wouldn't care whether I chose either, nothing in my past would prompt me to chose which of the three since the outcome will be me getting the desired ice cream in the firs place. I mean you would never be able to 100% know which one im choosing because it could be either one. even on another day given the same three ice cream I could choose differently.
"Free to choose the right or wrong action. That is free will" Why do we "choose" one action over the other? What causes us to think the thoughts that we think? Do we "choose" our thoughts? I don't think we choose anything, though it "feels" like we do. We are not the authors of our thoughts, feelings, intentions or actions, we only react to all the antecedent events in our lives from the moment our father's sperm entered our mother's egg, the moment of conception.
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. I think it's reasonable to conceptualize our thoughts in this way, your nervous system can't react to a non-stimulous eg empty space. I disagree with Kaku on his point that the random nature of quantum mechanics leave some measure of free will, it only means we don't have all the information with which to make an accurate prediction. And remember, this is at the quantum level anyway. Read what Hume said, either way there's no free will.
What is your definition of "free will" for the purpose of determining whether or not it truly exists? In making the left or right turn decision, how would it be done in a "free will" fashion? Even the concept of "consciousness" isn't well understood, so how can you define "free will" in those terms and hope to arrive at its nature?
David Hume saw a dilemma in equating the problem of moral responsibility with the problem of whether behavior has a physical cause: either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the result of random events, in which case we are not responsible for them.
Free will is voluntorily choosing to say act or do something with full knowledge, intention, and willingness of expressing our desire in thought word or action which can no longer be blamed on neorons at all. When we include neorons as the sole cause we miss the point that we can think, analyse, synthesize issues as a result of premeditation. We are always to be responsible for pre-meditated actions, words and thought that produces even speech.
One can say that one has free will to save a cat from harm....but even before you seemingly choose to do that, " something" in you causes you to do that.....
I believe that there are 3 types of choices and actions that we take: 1) Autonomous: without involving any form of thought, consciousness, choice, or desire. These are strictly neural actions that are made by our central nervous system and not "YOU", or however you choose to define what the conscious and sentient "YOU" is, or who you are. You don't need to think or choose, or decide, or even WANT to know how or when to breathe, command your heartbeat, other nervous/electrical/chemical reactions, reflexes, when you feel pain, expand/contract pupils, and so on. 2) Subconscious actions/reactions: These are choices that YOU, or your consciousness makes without needing to choose them, or why you choose them. You subconsciously just do it, without thinking about it, or choosing to think about it. But this doesn't mean YOU aren't in control, because it is YOU, just a less aware and more instinctive you. Your subconscious influences all conscious thoughts, desires, decisions, actions, concentration, focus, but is not the determinant factors. You have no control of your subconscious, as it is determined to be what it is by a culmination of factors, such as biological physiology, structures, hormones, synaptic connects, and is shaped by life, environment, experiences, memories, teaching, and morality. This is the desirous infant in you that comes up with your thoughts, desires, and fears... some are instinct, some are inherent, and some are not. It's mysterious, but very important, and Freud knew this. That's why he was obsessed with understanding it. This subconscious/unconscious mind is only half of who YOU are. This is where your sudden thoughts and feelings comes from, be them rational or not. This is where your dreams are formed, hypothetical and fantasy or fictional scenarios PLAYED with by this childish or animalistic part of your mind. It can be conditioned, trained, programmed, and indoctrinated not only for evolutionary survival reasons by your experiences, needs, fears, desires, environment, habits, and even your conscious mind. You don't have full discretion over this part of your mind, and have little to do with choosing how it works. I don't think we're that intelligent yet, but some day, may evolve to be. It has a lot to do with WHY you do what you do, and why you are who you are, and INFLUENCES the choices you make, but doesn't ultimately control them as the master. YOU DO, your conscious mind. HOWEVER, it does make decisions for you when you are not actively or consciously in controlled, or inhibited by certain agents, such as alcohol, truth serum, sleepiness, etc. You have many memories here that you cannot, and will never be able to access or re-experience, sometimes for your own protection, or not. Some reasons known, others not. Some reasons are that you were not fully aware, awake, sober, or influenced, and thus the synapses weren't strong enough between the conscious mind and unconscious, so they are isolated and confined to the unconscious. The subconscious mind is where your habits exist, and why you do things without always realize you were doing them, or actively choose to do them (even though you initially felt as though you were before you thought about it.) Many of the little, petty, trivial, decisions that you always make like when to scratch, adjust your balls, tap your pencil, habits, and perform many external bodily functions is also controlled here. It's especially active when your consciousness multitasks, wherever your focus is more on, is where the subconscious kicks in. You would be overwhelmed if you had to think about EVERYTHING you're doing. I believe everything a baby does before the age of two is formed here, and no baby has any free will, at all. This part, i think, may not entirely be completely free. But don't freak out, it's YOU, just not ENTIRELY the actively conscious you. You're still under your own control, and all decisions you make are made with the consent of your conscious mind, confined by your personal beliefs, morals, limitations, reasonable desires, intentions, and so on. So you wouldn't find yourself doing something that you didn't want to do, or plan to do, or allowed yourself to do, or is against your morals, even if part of you may have wanted to do it. It's complicated and may require thinking about, but it'll make sense with deep thought. 3) Conscious mind: This is where your general will exists, your conscious and intentional thoughts formulate, your immediate awareness of your thoughts, actions, and environment, as well as other external factors are here. This is where YOU learn, and discover yourself, as well as actively and intentional choose to do things. It is separate from the unconscious. Here, you can focus on particular things, physical or abstract, make careful decisions, etc. It is under the ILLUSION that EVERYTHING you do is controlled here, when SOME of it is not. HOWEVER everything you do can be influenced here. So, does free will exist? The short answer is yes. But not in the unconscious or subconscious mind. Your free will and ability to think for yourself and make conscious decisions is here. It is NOT determinate. This is where you decide what you are going to do today, what rules you wish to follow, how to execute a math problem, and when you are actively engaged in an activity that you are actively THINKING about, where your religious, philosophical political ideals are, where you can immediately access memories, who you want to marry, if you want to marry, what college you wish to apply for, and many crucial decisions that require attention and focus. The unconscious has no discretion here, while it's influence is present. But the same goes for the unconscious mind, it is influenced by the conscious mind. But subconscious thoughts/actions require the consent of the conscious mind, unless there are chemical inhibitors, like drugs. So yes, we have free will over our daily choices, but not FULLY over our petty choices, and now how philosophers and religious teachings always dictate. YES, you ARE YOU, and not simply chemicals and electrical signals do things for you, but you can decide how these electrical signals and chemicals work, even though your brain is material matter. And yes, criminals should be punished and are to blame, even though some can be rehabilitated. Some psychopaths cannot. But others just choose to be evil, not because they're sick, but because they simply want to be, and there is no overthinking it. There's still much to learn as much is unknown, but it's very deep and complicated.
I have read most of your comments, when I say leave out religion it's because the're too many contradictions. but I here alot of this about "we can't control our thoughts" which is true but we do choose which ones to act on.for example ,three ice creams i've never had in my entire life, each are exactly the same ice cream but I choose the middle one.my past experiences don't prompt me to always choose the middle one since I don't care which one I choose,ergo example of free will.
It doesn't logically follow that if decisions are singularities then that somehow means nobody can choose from multiple choices. The choice, once made, is a singular event but that doesn't mean that a person had no will to decide which to choose in the first place.
9 Imagine you’re a fan of a national sports team, you work as an engineer, you vote republican and you’re getting married in a few weeks. Yesterday you took a phone call from your identical twin whom you never knew you had. He’s also an engineer, likes the same sports team you do and just got married. How much discretion did the “you” have in making your free will choices, given that geneticist could have predicted them based on events that took place in your mothers uterus decades earlier?
If determinism is in line with all laws of science and "logics" then it should be no more difficult to explain than it would be to explain the laws themselves. Your statement raises three questions: 1. Can you explain the origin of non-material things like logic in a purely materialistic universe? 2. If we're all brain and no mind, then why do people come to different conclusions? (if it's due to "input" then how do you find fault?) 3. Can you explain how free will violates science and logic?
When Pinker is describing the second kind of brain behavior, he does in fact describe a sort of 'ghost in the machine', viewing and evaluating options, making selections - in fact 'pushing buttons'. Of course, he doesn't think that that 'ghost' is immaterial; he assumes it to be part of the brain - probably mainly located in the pre-frontal cortex, but intimately interconnected with other parts of the brain. All sorts of interesting implications for our choices result from such a view.
At that point, the only question is whether one wants to declare that one's actions are random(that such deterministic choices in fact are not the cause of behavior), or determined. Either way, that libertarian free will is an impossibility. The random option is also useless, which means that people should choose the "determined" option. And then you're left with a decision of whether to abandon the expression "free will" or adopt compatibilism.
I don't know if he actually settles on a position. He says there is no ghost in the machine to give us free will, that our brains are too complex for us to be able to predict what our brains will choose, and that decision-making is more complex than reflexive physical reactions such as an iris to light. I agree with most of this (though I do think we can often predict what we or other people will do next) and yet I think free will is an illusion. He states: "All of those things carve out the realm of behavior that we call free will, which is useful to distinguish from brute involuntary reflexes, but which doesn't necessarily have to involve some mysterious soul." He says we CALL it free will, but is it free will? I frankly cannot decipher his position from this interview. And if he does think we have free will, he doesn't explain in this interview how it is possible - only that we could have difficulty predicting what our brains would choose due to their complexity - a truth that does negate the illusion of free will at all.
My sense of this is that he doesn't believe in true free will, and I agree with him. Maybe I'm missing something, but I find no inconsistency nor ambiguity in his statement.
And of course, people can name their dog free will and call it free will, but it sort of misses what it's all about. I think he is mistaking unpredictability for free will but it's still very unclear.
the question of free will is related to understanding of consciousness. We don't yet know the true nature of consciousness, and we can only speculate this and many other metaphysics questions
The problem is, the human mind doesn't act based on reason. If we are robots, then the choices we make should be to maximize utility and if that's the case, then why do we feel guilt? Why is it that we always find potential people that do absolutely nothing with their lives and completely ruin it?
There's a kind of approach to the free will question that for me is still a bit unresolved. An intelligent unselfconscious animal could respond to stimuli and act strategically in its own interests without reflecting on whatever qualia arise in its interior world. A human is not only aware of stimuli; he is also aware that he is aware of them. This doesn't mean that his actions are outside of cause-effect, but it may make him a radically different kind of being.
"i'm just saying that there may be things we don't directly study that are just as true and they're worth thinking about" Only in the sense that they might be worth thinking about for the purpose of formulating scientific hypotheses for later tests. If you go beyond that, the answer is that they're not worth thinking about, because the lack of evidence means that you're almost guaranteed to be wrong because there are an infinity of ways reality could work and only evidence lets you restrict it.
At the same time, determinism is saying that YOU are something being controlled by the universe, when in fact this requires a distinction between yourself and the universe to begin with.. we grow from the universe like apples from a tree.. we are symptoms of the universe and thus expressions of it.. both free will and determinism neglect the fact that there is nothing being controlled or making a decision in the first place.
But not being able to do or something, or not having the opportunities to do something (like being born into a bad environment), does not mean you lack the ability to choose to do it. Whether you become an astronaut or not has absolutely nothing to do with being able to choose to be an astronaut, which is what the notion free will is actually addressing.
That is not what he said. He mentioned nothing about a computer. He said, "human choices will not be predictable in any simple way from the stimuli that I've hinged on beforehand." There is nothing about technology here.
For example speech or expression of ideas is not just a product of neorons only but must be orderly with free will to make any sense. That is why we can sometime determine or predict what someone may do next because of the person's free will utterances attributable to that person. People also complain when their free will choices are hampered by whatever means.
1.I'm 13; trying to stretch my mind beyond my age is something I do to separate me from other people.Honestly, I thought you could assume that I was young(Yes, I know its idiotic, but you have no idea how much of my school curriculum is 'cut up') 2.Thank you for correcting me on my mistakes, even though it was laced with indirect insults 3.Hilariously, in my school 'noise factor' represents a random variable in science (this is why I test them online) 4.Could you explain randomness existing plz?
So what are "thoughts" then? Are you asserting that we're all just a collection of thoughts that play out and then at one point, they cease? I look, feel, act the way i am/do because I subconsciously "think" that way? Our conversation right now is merely our thoughts interacting with one-another? Are thoughts substantive or are they just impulses within space? Is there space or do we just think it?
I can't prove that I have free will. I feel like I have free will. And the arguments against free will have failed to convince me. There is a delay between my decision and my awareness of my decision. So what? There is a delay between burning my hand and awareness of burning my hand. My decisions are influenced by outside forces. So what? If there were no influences, my decisions would never be made, because all options would be equally attractive. I don't have all-power to determine my birth, my genes, my parents, my nationality, etc. So what? Here I am right now, and I choose which way to go from here.
(pt3) It can also be demonstrated by time dilation. Find an analog clock with a second hand and look at it quickly. You will realize that the very first second seems to hang before the second hand moves. It takes an extra bit of time. Try it. That's because your brain is combining together the moment of "now" and you're actually seeing about .1 seconds in the past. Notice when you blink you don't see it usually, or when you move your head your vision seems to skip immediately to it's new view?
Antony Latham wrote "To have free will (as we do) there must be an autonomous non physical self that is not tied to the laws of physics. The fact that we do have free will is superb evidence for the immaterial soul. Descartes got it right." Descartes lived when they were still jailing people like Galileo for proving that Venus was not orbiting the Earth. Descartes can be forgiven for his ignorance ... you on the other hand
Even if there was a "ghost in the machine," nothing about the argument would change. One cannot take responsibility for having one soul rather than another.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I apologize if it sounded that way. Neuroscience is an incredible vast field and our understanding of the mind is immense and simply does not require a soul. We look to the metaphysical to explain that which we cannot. We have physical explanations for most of what you probably consider the functions of the soul. There is no need to bring in a metaphysical explanation for things we already understand do not operate by such means.
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
I think Steven Pinker hits the nail here- the existence of free will depends on it's definition. People argue a lot about it, but don't agree about definition first, and that leads to misunderstandings.
+aldukss Thumb up!
Wish I could love this comment. Idk why people aren't realizing this
+robert bryant Absolutely. It seems pretty obvious to me that this whole debate is about the definition of free will and not if we actually have it or not.
+aldukss The problems is it can't be defined, because there's no such thing as free will to define in the first place. It's impossible to define 'the meaning of life' in some cosmic sense, because there is no such thing.
Just think about the next thought that comes to your mind. Do you know where it came from? Did you know that it was gonna pop up in your consciousness before it popped up? How can anyone claim to have free will when they are only aware of what's within conscious space?
David Sebastian It seems like you equate free will with psychic ability.
I appreciate how non-smug he is. He does 'know it all' when it comes to the brain, but hes not arrogant about it.
Humility like this is something that if everyone had, it would be the first step to a greater society
@@PorterNetwork well i have one question...why is it a problem if person knows stuff and says like it...i have seen that if a person is sure about that there not knowing something that is always seen as humility...and if they are sure or atleast have a strong idea of knowing something the are arrogant...so i can be sure about my not knowing something and not about my knowing something...because i have to wear a facade of humility so others dont get jealous...or dont call me arrogant...people are always there to put someone down for there arrogance...but not pick them up if they are doubtful...and i think the other side might make you defensive...and if he says he does not something he still knows that he doesnt know something...so isnt that arrogant...?
@@arpitthakur45 Humility or more preferably not being smug when you speak let your message be delivered, absorbed, and adapted without presumptuously thinking you've figured it all out, and without your listener growing contempt for you/the concepts you teach thus not being efficiently taught.
@@arpitthakur45 It's pure psychology. People don't like it, that's all.
Pinker is arguing, I think, in favor of what might be described as "practical free will," something vastly different from the classic "ghost in the machine" version popularized during the Middle Ages. Practical free will looks and subjectively feels so much like free will that the difference is of no real importance, except to those academics whose careers depend on making such fine grain distinctions.
There's no OZ behind the curtain pulling our strings. Being a closed physical system, the brain conforms to the same immutable laws that govern the universe, which itself is a large closed physical system. Our behavior is driven by a long chain of antecedent causes. (Like that 80's song says, "One thing leads to another." )
But In the six million years or so since our direct ancestors climbed down from the trees, the human brain has grown into an ever more complex organ capable of weighing and analyzing vast quantities of information. Because of our unique capacity to model the universe -- largely through language -- we are capable of seeing possibilities that other less intelligent species can't, hence we have more apparent choices when "deciding" how to act. While we are conscious of the fact that we have choices, the exact reasons why we "choose" one action over another are often great unknown. (Why did I choose to use the phrase "great unknown instead of opting for "a mystery" in that last sentence.)
Regardless, physical processes over which we have no real control drive brain function. What this means is "free will," is not absolute, but constrained by factors, including our innate intelligence, the culture we're born into, the manner in which our parents raised us, our level of education and so on.
As I watched the video, I wondered about the role of neuroplasticity on decision making. In one example, Pinker talks about the choices one makes playing a game of chess. Learning and practice effectively change the physical composition of the brain. A person interested enough to learn more about the subtleties of playing chess will see possibilities that other less skilled players won't -- and his brain will be thus equipped to make better "choices" about what move to make in a given situation. In this sense, it seems to me that some people are more "free" to choose that others.
Adding onto the last sentence, I would rather say more "freedom" in possibility, though we don't control that what that possibility ends up being.
The universe is a "...large closed physical system." ? That assertion makes so many assumptions as to be impertinent. The free will can exist then, in an open system? That is the implication isnt it?
No one is more free to choose cause no one is free. The better word usage is more possible options to go through in the brain. We can’t control those options & even what we end up doing. If we could control this, our world wouldn’t be nearly as corrupt & would be able to provide scientific evidence for free will existing. It’s just an abstract idea that’s barren of evidence just like religion.
@@hobnob666 Everyone is equally as determined, like you said. We can't directly control the options that are available in our brain, but having more options does make us feel more free because it causes us to have less regret. The more information we have, the better the choices are that we make, leading to less regret. In a sense, being aware of more possibilities makes you freer from regret and suffering in the future. Freedom in the way they are using the word means the feeling of having all relevant information so they can make the best possible choices
@@justinbowen678 Yeah but that’s not freedom. That’s the illusion of freedom. But you’re still being pushed by something.
This man's voice is so hypnotic.
C. Venom Sounds a bit like Willem Dafoe.
@@Y2JLionHeart True.
@@Y2JLionHeart EXACTLY!
We have free will in the same sense that we experience love. Love is after all basically a nuero-cocktail dumped out in our brains. When you see your little daughter being super cute, that's just chemicals and brain processes directing you in a feeling triggered by evolution to ensure you'll care for the kid so your genes will survive.
So, do you not love you're daughter? Of course you do. Love is a description of the EXPERIENCE of all those things.
I think you have free will in exactly the same way. We experience the ability to choose, and this experience is real, insomuch as it IS something we experience. Yes, it's true we have various processes, etc etc. Like love etc.
So, I think it's perfectly valid to talk about free will without the perpetual qualifying of it as non-existent. I think it's equally as valid to ignore the personal experience and sturdy it scientifically.
the common definition of free will (which differs from your definition as an experience) is non-existent, so it is perfectly fine to do such statements.
I think a reason to not define free will as an experience is that it wouldn't have any moral implications, while the denial of a free will in the usual definition does have a lot of implications.
@@s1nnl0s I can't agree that it lack moral implications. But, otherwise poi t taken.
@@MelFinehout your comment is very similar to my understanding of the free will. I don't say that "decision making is an illusion". Because decision is not the matter itself! Decision making is an EVENT that arise from physical reactions inside the material brain. Decision is a physical event. But a real event.
hm, that's quite an interesting way of thinking about it. Never had crossed my mind and explains quite some things and some attitudes coming from empirical neuroscientists or those rationally advocating the existence of free will.
I don't think of free will as an emotional experience. It is the product of positive feedback loops and the resultant chaos that makes us unpredictable. Neuroscientists have shown how many factors influence our decisions in statistically significant ways, but free will is about individuals, not statistics.
To anyone ignorant enough to assume that one uses free will to decide not to believe in free will, I will tell you why you are wrong. I don't choose to disregard the idea of free will. The idea simply is not compatible with what I have observed in the real world.
The idea of deciding something independent of influence, is, to me, not even remotely possible. I did not choose to be born, did not choose to be male, did not choose to be white, did not choose to be north american, did not choose any aspect of my genetic coding, did not choose my parents, did not choose the time period of my birth, and did not choose to be even remotely conscious of the first 4 or so years of my life. I did not choose my favorite foods, my sexual preferences, my aesthetic tastes, or my interests. All of my internal functions happen without my consent. My mood changes based on factors I cannot predict. I become bored based on factors I can't even begin to understand.
This pattern continues indefinitely, and, in case you haven't noticed, there is virtually no room for one to inject the idea of free will. All the above mentioned factors collectively make up my view of the world and dictate how I will react to new experiences. If you have not experienced something, you cannot assimilate it into your world view, thus your world view is limited entirely to what you have involuntarily experienced.
You are more than welcome to prove me wrong, occasional naysayer.
***** Do you actually believe you are capable of choosing something without an influence or series of influences?
How do you define choosing? And are you capable of choosing to believe something that is entirely inconsistent with your empirical observations?
***** the evidence is right in front of your eyes... and yet you ignore it... where is this free will that you have? where is this power ? if you say that its in your brain - you immediately realize that the brain being a physical object governed by physical laws is either deterministic or indeterministic (random) - there is no room for free will at all
You have free will. You are a spirit animating a body. The life force in every living cell is not being created by matter. Your ideas feelings and decisions aren't matter, they are mind. Mind is energy, brain is matter. The Sun and the brain are lit from the outside. Physical reality is an electric hologram playing out within our energetic minds. Electrons and photons are electric. It's an Electric Universe. Space is infinite and so is energy. That's the secret we're not supposed to realize.
***** not one thing of what you said you truly believe - because you can't confirm it - and in the end cognitive dissonance will take care of that irrational belief of yours
BlackPaw I know that only intelligence is a creative force. You cannot name another. Atheists believe that life was created by chance, that intelligence is being created by matter, and that matter is being spontaneously materialized from energy by chance. Where is your evidence that chance can cause the formation of electrons, atoms, and molecules? Chance is not causative. Evidence?
Really excellent explanation of the question of free will, in just over 2 minutes, couldn't be done better!
Steven doesn't say that Free Will doesn't exist, he says that there is no such thing as Free Will in the sense of a mysterious soul pushing some levers.
He then makes the distinction between reactions determined by stimuli (true determinism in the classical mechanics sense) and behavior that has a probabilistic chance to occur (similar to quantum mechanics). This where the real distinction between the notion of Determinism and the notion of Free Will is.
I see 2 problems with Piker's point:
1: if our mind is purely a machine operating by itself (i.e., something that can be represented by a Turing Machine), that doesn't rule out the fact that it can be nondeterministic in the sense that, at any point, decisions can be made randomly (could be the ghost, which is separated from all the material conditions, or an unpredictable physical process, I'd choose the second one btw). One could call these random decisions as a manifestation of free will (and won't be necessary a ghost, as nondeterminism exists on physics).
2: as far as I know, no scientist gave a definitive proof that our mind can be represented by a Turing Machine, so it's not possible to claim that it is deterministic in any sense.
Terrell Stormembrace That's false. The poster raised an excellent point.
As Pinker clearly notes behavioralism does rely, heavily in fact, upon probabilistic outcomes. Stating, as you did, that you don't get to choose from the options is irrelevant: the options available, and the option selected are both probabilistic. Behavioralism has never been able to deal with randomness.
this reminds me of the answers I get, when I ask; imagine that everything was free.
One of my favorite authors.
If by free will people mean that despite your genes, experience/knowledge you can make any choices then no, free will does not exist.
If people mean free will is just to choose a or b or anything else then yes, free will exists.
I can make a choice where genetics and experience have little influence- What do you mean by influence from genetics and knowledge?
TheShermanTanker you make a choice based off a chemical reaction taking place in your head, and it is carried out by electrical signals. You think i can choose a or b freely, but its determined by the amounts of chemicals working in the brain. Free will is an illusion
@@FreightmareFTW you sound like a hyper modernist, positivist, reductionist new atheist who denies moral and epistemological subjectivity, interntionality, positionality, spatiality, temporality and struggles of marginalized communities. Denial of free will just feed the white male status-quo by preventing social justice.
@@freandwhickquest No it doesn’t do that, just because we don’t have free will, that doesn’t mean people support social injustice or even social justice. It just means we don’t freely choose to do anything. It’s influenced. That’s all he’s saying. Whether or not you believe social justice or injustice is right isn’t your free choice but is influenced by a ton of different variables. People like to think I can freely choose whatever I want when they don’t realize influences influence more influences which influence choices & the dominoes just keep falling as time progresses. Humans do things they feel will benefit their survival & escape pain if possible. And it happens to be social justice allows for a more secure system & promote an easier life which means we’ll support it. Unlike social injustice that does the opposite so we want to avoid it or change it. We know many unhappy people makes our lives a lot harder & could cause anarchy which threatens our life.
@@hobnob666 thanks for your well informed response. I may think about this.
I already knew what Steven Pinker would have to say about free will because he can only say what Steven Pinker WOULD say. The notion of free will is nonsense no matter how you try to frame it.
P1) We have a will (wants/desires).
P2) Our wants and desires are formed by external stimuli (prior causes).
C) Causality is required for a will (of any kind) to exist.
Therein lies the problem with applying acausality as a prerequisite for the existence of _free_ will; it entails the commision of the logical fallacy of asking too much, as doing so necessarily negates the possibility of the existence of _any_ will.
I love these videos. They give you a lot to think about, don't they?
Wow. It's amazing how many people here think they can just say some dumb shit and think they do better than the philosophers. It's the BIG THINK channel people, try harder!
I guess you can find them everywhere. You can thank the vile armies of pseudoscience, superstition and a general lack of critical thinking.
Carlos Pérez Pal, even great philosophers can't agree on this issue.
Alba Dona who said they did? That's the point.
Alba Dona That's the point. So many people post their definitive view on the subject as though they have THE answer, worked out in five minutes without reference to any research, thus proving the philosophers who spend their careers on this wrong. It's typical. Internet = dumping ground for everyone's worthless opinion, but in some cases it's so obvious that their opinions aren't grounded in any knowledge that it becomes odious.
Carlos Pérez Ironically, what you just said is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Just because they have a degree in philosophy, doesn't make them any less wrong.
Why do people think that the input of a soul into our choices of actions would be an argument for free will? Can't we see the soul as an other determinist element?
For example, does someone with a bad soul have the free will to make a good choice? And if he does, did he really have a bad soul in the first place?
What makes you assume there is such a thing as a "bad" soul?
The notion of soul is from religious doctrine. It is imagined a soul is the entity sitting at a control panel behind our eyes, pulling levers and pushing buttons that control us. There’s no evidence any suck thing exists. The person talking inside our heads is just us imagining we are talking to someone else.
Why does consciousness exist? In a determinist system and in physics there should be no consciousness possible, but here we are
I had never heard anyone else who came to the conclusion I had at a fairly young age. It was only later that some well-educated people told me the resemblance to Hinduism/Buddhism. I was raised a Methodist, so I agree,
I was lied to terribly, but I didn't believe a word of it much past age 7.
The problem with the scientific deterministic account is it is asking me to appeal to empirical notions of cause and effect which we are supposed to then overrule our direct experience of feeling like we have free will. I don't understand why an appeal to experience as causation is supposed to be more compelling than an appeal to our direct experience in feeling free.
Even if my decision of what to have for dinner tonight is based on trillions of factors, isn't it just still a result of those factors and therefore determined? Unless true randomness is built in it seems there can't exist free will in a purely physical system. But even then, the decision would just be random rather than free. My (admittedly novice) take is that free will is an illusion.
Ryan Stutzman what do you mean by free? If free means free from causality then I would argue we do have free will based on Quantum indeterminacy. If free means free to choose then we have to recognize that choosing is a causal practice under scientific inquiry, therefore under this definition we do not have it. There is a third possibility that we have a soul (nonphysical consciousness) which selects actions in a manner which is both free from causality and free to choose but is outside of physical or natural explanation, I think this only makes sense rationally if "consciousness choosing" is THE fundamental process (first cause) and is a very deep topic but not for science.
The universe is causal. Randomness is ignorance, eg, watching car repair without understanding why the mechanic does what he does. When you know what he does, you know cause.
i love steven pinker, such a clear thinker and speaker. thanks for this interesting video
People have a will; and to call it "free will" should simply mean that they are able to exercise their will without too much interference from people or other causes that would be insurmountable obstacles to their doing so.
"Free will" is completely deterministic; to define it as "undetermined will" is irrational; it's tantamount to saying that our will and our choices have no cause - that they are either random or the product of magic.
Genetics and environment cannot hinder that which they make possible - they are the prerequisite of will; and will is the motor that drives action. A "free will" refers to how a person will act in circumstances where he's able to act; or otherwise would act if he were able to do so.
There is no such thing as will that's divorced from who someone is - it would be very disturbing to see evidence of such a thing - it implies actions for which we cannot give account and for which we cannot be held responsible, driven by some supernatural entity that has usurped our own will; or, otherwise, random decisions - not a very uplifting concept for explaining behavior. Anyway, "random" is a pseudo-concept; it doesn't exist; and is used as a euphemism for "unpredictable".
+vomittie Your will doesn't "dictate" your will - it already is your will; people and their circumstances evolve, and so their wills evolve too; you cannot choose to change your behavior without cause - there must be some thought process or unconscious change of mental state, possibly stimulated by external circumstances and/or accumulated experience that we integrate into our perceptions, influencing our judgment.
+vomittie Everything that you choose has a cause - nothing is random. To call that slavery is to say that you are a slave to your own free will. If there were really such a thing as random chance, in what way would you find this random control of your will to be freedom? It would be the opposite of free will.
The only way you could have acted differently than you chose to act would be to change something in the past: either circumstances or your mental state at the time of your choice, no matter how light of a consideration you gave to that choice; but time travel is nothing but a popular human fantasy/delusion that violates the law of causality; and such an ability to influence your past self is a very poor idea of free will.
+Mark Uzick You're right about the randomness as a false concept.
+Mark Uzick I find the "Free Will" question extremely important in this day and age. Yet, many people seem to be confused as to what is really meant by "Free Will." Indeed, to talk about humans having "Free Will" is to deceive ourselves. I believe that the only way we can talk about "Free Will" is to drop the term 'free' and just keep the 'Will'. And I define 'Will' in the following way: A PARTICULAR STATE OF MIND THAT IS CONSCIOUS OF VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES OF ACTION. In other words, if someone asks me to choose any city in North America, my 'Will' is the state of mind that recognizes the various options that are arising in my brain (I.e New York, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Ottawa etc.) Then, I am compelled - through no FREE WILL of my own - to choose a particular city. The recognition of the action to choose Ottawa, let's say, can also be part of my "Will." Therefore, there is no use using the term "FREE" when talking about the state of mind that is observing the thoughts arising in the brain and the subsequent actions that are carried out because of these thoughts. This is how I define "WILL." Human beings have WILL and only WILL.
Joel Jakob
Exactly right. The "free" part is the problematic part but no one can doubt the will.
There is a huge difference between behaviour and acting. Behaving not need the free will to itself, but acting is the act of choice: to do something or refuse to done it.
He called our complex neural sctructure free will, i dont know if it was meant to be ironic or sarcastic, but that is not free will, that is the brain machine.
That is a great explanation of free will. You may also learn from the consequences from past behaviors that may subconsciously effect you're future behavior in a split second decision, without you even being aware of it. This is interesting I would love to read a good book on this because there are probably tons of examples that could go either way. I think it's like the nature nurture debate. It's usually a little of both. I think it's free will strongly influenced by genetics & other factors.
A very gentle, tactful way of explaining to people that they don't have free will.
I was under the impression that Pinker was arguing against the existence of a soul?
@@joemahony4198 Not having free will would imply that there isn't a soul. In this case at least
Dumbest explanation I have heard!
You don't need a "ghost in the machine" to have free will. You just need a conscious mind and a couple choices to pick from. Of course choosing which car to buy is a more sophisticated decision than whether or not to jerk your knee when it's hit with a small hammer. Derp! The difference is not just that it requires more of the physical brain, but that it takes place within consciousness! When we use reason and language to make decisions, they are neither the unavoidable consequence of causal events, nor do they well up from the unconscious unbidden. This should be obvious to sensible people who don't get so caught up in their rhetoric that they lose sight of the big picture.
I think the jerk the knee thing is basically just a reflex just like the sensation to throw away any ant that walks on your skin, but free will has to be free even though if it's calculated & studied properly, the example of choosing a car , which is your free will only, is determined by hundreds of thoughts each relating to one another - just like roots, & intentional & unintentional learning (big part) + past experiences/trauma
Sorry but I'm not so good with explaining my thoughts
I think which car you choose is completely determined by how your genetics interacted with your environment to form your nervous system as it is at the time of the choice. I don’t see any freedom in it because your body and experiences were not under your control.
They don't cease, they just think we're someone else.
The ones that think we're this person hang together merely
because they DO think we're this person. They aren't really
separate from other persons. The only barrier between persons
is this barrier of personal knowledge. You can only think you're
one person at a time, at least we do. Space is a representational
fiction, a model, as it solidity and substance, and time. Our
conversation just occurs, we don't know why, and we don't control it.
Steven Pinker is illustrating the self-referanceproblem: "The next sentence is true. The last sentence is lying."
If we are in fact determined, either by the brain or stimuli from the outside world, every thought or idea wil also be determined. Even if we research the determined system, research itself and the results, will come from the same determined system.
In other words: We can never know wheter something is true or not. The word "truth" looses its meaning. Everything you are, know or think is really just given to you from a determined system. So how can you know that we are determined?
If we are determined, we would be cut off from any truth about the world. Including the truth that we are determined.
No, the oposite to determinism is free will, that an act or thought can arise without a cause.
Your wants does not define your choosing. You still have the option to confront and go against your wants. But your example is correct: Choosing between a red or yellow car will not be done by free will. But bigger choices, within the realm of morality, truth and responsebility, can be done in the light of free will.
And no. It isnt random, just because it arises without a cause. It means that there is a free space where completely new movements in the world can be created intentionally - something very incomprihensible. Many people, like yourself, see the abysses if free will were to exist. And because it is so incomprihensible, it cannot be! But that just makes free will to another of the worlds mysterious things. Just like beauty, truth, responsibility, formlessness and so on.
I believe in determinism. My genetics and background including the home in which I grew up determined who I am today . My father lived his life through me in some ways. He purchased a microscope and various science kits for me. He fondly related to me how the lab in which he worked developed so and so.
It is not a great surprise to anyone who knew my family that I ended up in science. I was programmed to want to study science.
I could say that I wanted to be a physicist . I suspect that my aptitude would not allow that to happen. Certain factors trump our will . Some ex-cons really really don't want to return to prison, but guess what?
My examples may seem trite but it is as clear as day to me that free will doesn't exist.
I see members of the clergy . We see scandal after scandal . Believers interpret this as the ,"evil doers ," not being truly converted. Could it be that these individuals are simply doing what they are motivated to do.
Cruzan You would then have to admit that your recognition of this fact (determinism) changes the game in some sense.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the idea of determinism once incorporated into the mental structure has a massive effect on the decisions one makes.
I guess I could liken it to ascending to a higher plane. So that once one recognizes determinism, they are more in control of their lives than they have ever been before.
YouthInEyesAsian Of course your beliefs and worldview affects your life. But accepting determinism doesn't mean you know what will happen. Just that you believe that what will happen, will happen. How much of a blow that is to anyone's life and decision making is a personal matter.
Cruzan Haha! Another pretty funny case. Free will doesn't exist because you've never made a decision for yourself? Lots of people are encouraged by their parents to pursue a route that they completely eschew. Even people who deny free will rarely oversimplify to this extent.
> My genetics and background including the home in which I grew up determined who I am today .
Your cowardly evasion of your choices is noted.
What utter bs
The vast complexity of the brain, and human inability to weigh all variables to predict behavior, does not dismiss that these are still very physical processes that rely on the fundamental principles of the laws of physics.
Free will does not exist.
It depends on what you define as "free will". In a similar way that there are no processes that are truly random, you could also say that because everything happening in peoples' brains is going to happen in one specific way, dictated by the laws of physics, there is no such thing as free will. But just like how you can say that a dice roll is random because there are too many variables to consider in such a short amount of time, making an accurate prediction borderline impossible, you can also say that because the brain is such a complex organ, you have "free will", because you can't predict what it's going to do, therefore you can say that it's making decisions on its own. Of course, what most people would call "free will" doesn't exisit, but this version is close enough that it can be defined as free will.
Penguinvader
Interesting. Thank you for the perspective.
+Penguinvader good points of view from both. your comment in particular, reminds me of the way seth lloyd goes around advocating for "free will" on the basis that "behaviour cannot be predicted", which annoys me very much. in first place, as you say, the concept is so vast and encompassing and differs so much on cultural views that it cannot be pinned down and proved. nonetheless it's common sense, if you have basic scientific knowledge, that a finite system cannot be "sufficient" by itself, also we are clearly not free when it comes to the most important thing of all: "our identity". i didn't get to choose my character; and how could i? and if you ask me now how i want myself to be... it's 100 times more funny, brave, to have greater memory recall, greater working memory capacity, etc. but i don't decide who's making these wishes in the first place. maybe i should have wished for greater compassion, power of contemplating nature, acceptance for bad situations. so i'm like a toy who finds itself already made, with all inner workings put in place. and if there are a few ways i can change myself, the decision is made by the environment (i see a guru that says we should be in so and so manner; i see movie heroes; magazine covers); and all i can do is use those preexistent mechanical pathways to make the change with.
+flerper derper
click newest comments
+flerper derper Please explain to me that you had no choice in clicking on this video.
Even if we had a soul, that soul would be at the whims of cause and effect, and therefore would not have free will either - so that's kinda irrelevant. Same applies to a god.
+Think Vegan I would agree with you, all decisions are made at the mercy of material options you have and informed by your own mental tendencies (which are, at the neuro-chemical level, in themselves material). The soul to me is not an active agent. The soul is just that perceiving thing -- not the senses or the brain, but your the experience of life itself.
Tara: Why would you assume that the soul would be at the whims of cause and effect? It has been my experience that the astral body, which is similar to the soul, is outside of space and time and the Laws of this Universe do not apply.
Amount of Something: There billions of people who believe the exact opposite of what you just wrote. If you believe in reincarnation, as I and billions of others, even Jesus, believe, then we of course get to choose what sex, race, IQ, disabilities, parents, country, etc. that we are born to, for the purpose of the potential opportunities for growth of the soul and the ability to experience what others have experienced who we may have harmed in a previous life, thereby burning off a karmic debt.
If you believe that life has a purpose, there can be no other reason. And free will would exist even if that were not the case. I guess some people just don't have the ability to think deeply enough to break it down to the finer point of where true responsibility lies.
Amount: The "belief" system I was referring to is called Buddhism. THAT particular "religion" more accurately a spiritual system, involves people who spend 1000's of hours in meditation which can take them to points of awareness that YOU have never come close to. There are people who have had out-of-body experiences,1000's of people, from different religious backgrounds, who have had near death experiences that report much of the same information, there is documented "scientific" information on this. This spiritual system has nothing to do with breeding. Who are you? Where did you come up with this crap?
You are a fool and it sounds like you are working for the Globalists who have done everything they can think of to depopulate the planet and specifically America and to prevent "breeding" by causing the sterilization of women and men. The average sperm count in the US is down to 45%. Why do you think there are so many fertility clinics making a fortune here? With vaccines laced with AIDS, Cancer, and Hepatitis, etc, and then you have so many other ways in which they are slow killing the population from cradle to grave, that you don't have to worry about over population. Overpopulation is now a MYTH created by the Globalists because it suits their purposes.
Of course, the ONE person who should not "breed" is you, because we don't need you populating our world with such ridiculous rhetoric.
Of course, people like you always find a way to sell our their fellow man.
And it is spelled fairytales not "tails."
Amount: The very fact that yours is a "highlighted" reply shows exactly who is behind this Big Think and this video. The Left and the Globalists are desperate to destroy America and bring it to its knees so they can usher in the NWO and people like you are sell outs betraying your own kind, either knowingly or not, you are still a fool.
Perhaps the most lucid and accurate description I've heard about the illusion of freewill.
Also what i mean about thoughts and the universe is that,imagine this,nothing is around you in the entire universe. you're surrounded by nothing since the begining of time. Essentially you would have no thought what so ever. my point being you need the universe around you to have thoughts, ergo you need subjects and objects to ponder on,which is why thoughts aren't free will, michio was saying it's impossible to accurately predict what you're going to do next even given your entire past.
This debate is pointless. Why? Because even if we don't have free will, the illusion of free will is so powerful that for all intents and purposes, we do. It's like asking if other people are conscious and can think and feel the same way I do. Even if everybody else is a thoughtless, emotionless zombie or robot or we're living in the matrix, the illusion is so powerful and pervasive that from my perspective, for all intents and purposes, they do.
Therefore the only sane way to live is to believe that other people are conscious and that we do have free will. Which everybody basically does anyway by default. It's only the mentally deranged or philosophers with way too much time on their hands that get worked up over existential problems like this.
+bonzihunter But if we all accepted free will doesn't exist wouldn't it be easier to forgive people? Would that not be an irrefutable argument against the death penalty? The absence of free will strips away pride from people, and when pride is gone, what is there for people to get angry about?
Bobby Bobbinson no because to truly believe we don't have free will u have to be something of a solipsist. Like I said, the illusion (if that's what it is) of free will is so powerful we have to behave as if it's real in order to live as sane and socially functional human beings.
+bonzihunter Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not thinking about the absence of free will every second of the day, I still buy into the illusion. It just changes the way I treat people - I guess I'd compare it to like characters in a book, I can still dislike a character, but I can't blame them for how they were written - if that makes sense?
Bobby Bobbinson that could potentially even be a good thing if it helps you forgive people. I mean how can blame anyone or hold them at fault if u think everything is predetermined?
+bonzihunter exactly! It saves a lot of time for me that I would have wasted on being angry or annoyed at trivial things. The book analogy is the best for me - the pages are already filled, and I keep turning to see what's written.
CARROTS! You now briefly thought about carrots for a second. You didn't choose to think about carrots, or atleast you didn't know that you were going to read the word "carrot" before shifting your focus to this comment, but yes, you thought about carrots. Did you choose that thought? Nope. I have now just simply planted a thought in your mind. Now, if you accept that thoughts spontaneously arise into consciousness without your consent, then how can you claim to have free will?
+Carl-Richard Løberg
That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life.
And everyone in the world who was exposed to it is far worse off for having read it.
neo theskepticarena Why not debunk my claim instead of looking like an idiot yourself?
+Carl-Richard Løberg wrote "Why not debunk my claim instead of looking like an idiot yourself?"
Beautiful display of the logical fallacy "Switching the Burden of Proof."
It's not my duty to debunk your pseudoscientific bullshit.
It is your duty to support your claims. If you have evidence, now would be a good time for you to present it.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
(Sports Fans: wake me when he returns)
neo theskepticarena But if you so adamantly refuse to debunk such a ridiculus claim, then why engage in the conversation at all?
+Carl-Richard Løberg
click newest comments
flerper derper wrote "Free will does not exist."
Gee, thanks for the assertion. I guess we can all just go home now.
+neo theskepticarena It's pretty obvious if you pay attention to your mind..
+kmm wrote "It's pretty obvious"
Another fantastic argument!
Boy, you Determinists sure are tough with all your assertions and common sense and everything.
Too bad not one of you ever produces any evidence.
neo theskepticarena "Another fantastic argument!"
Not really. I'm just saying to pay attention. Every thought and feeling merely pops into consciousness. Every reaction merely arises. You did not get to inspect and author what made those thoughts and reactions came into being. You can't be aware of a thought before you think it, it simply arises.
Also, have you heard of the Libet experiments?
+kmm
click newest comments
If someone tells me they lack free will I believe them.
They are the best expert on their own experiences in their mind .
An atheist once told me " I'd believe in God but my mind won't let me".
How true it was, he was being honest but failing to see it was only "something" in his mind that was blocking him.
I lacked free will when I was atheist for 40 yrs .
It takes a while to make some decisions. Ego don't go down easy.
Pinker isn't saying free will doesn't exist, he saying free will doesn't require a supernatural explanation; however, here's a thought to consider. If you are not a determinist; in other words you believe free will exists; whether you think God granted the human race free will, or you are an atheist and believe free will is just a natural consequence of evolution, you didn't choose it. In simpler terms, you have free will, you have no choice. :-)
Free will is self-determinism. Physical determinism is merely one type of determinism.
Pinker is awesome
In other words, he doesn't know
God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free
God + free will don't go together, truely sorry, just look at the people following the Bible, if they actually had morals and thought for themselves, they would criticize what they read instead of following it blindly...
God and his books are the biggest irony of free will to this date.
You are absolutely right in your observation That religious people blindly follow the bible & don't think for themselves. They mouth the same rhetoric and cliches that the pastors teach them to believe. You're wrong when it comes to free will though, truly sorry.
Johanon Zimmerman ....THE REASON FOR "EVIL" IS GOD WANTED US TO HAVE FREE WILL...... It's easy to say,"you're wrong." Suppose for a moment that your god does exist. Why would he create a world in which evil were possible? You have this god that can supposedly do whatever the fuck it wants and it can't let us choose whether we want coffee or tea without the inclination to rape, steal and murder? If this god didn't want "evil" immoral actions or sickness and death to take place, it shouldn't have made that a possibility. Therefore, God's desire for rape and murder and child cancer is quite evident. God would either be the kid on an anthill with a magnifying glass or the tied up parent who simply watches as their children get raped and murdered, incapable of stopping it. Clearly, this supposed god either *wants* wickedness or is *powerless* to prevent it. So, you can't imagine a creature which was free but has no possibility of going wrong. So what? This omniscient god couldn't figure it out? This omnipotent god couldn't make it happen? That's only assuming that your god exists of course. There is no justification for believing it does.
Of course, your view of God is that way, but the fact that your view can differ from my view suggests that we are exercising our free will. does it not? You can't hold onto the view that God doesn't exist & also tell everyone what He is doing & what attributes He has. If your child grows up in your home & you teach him to stay away from guns, is it your fault that he steals a gun & kills someone? The really good news is that God has made it possible to know Him. The other good news is that He isn't the monster that you make Him out to be (if He really does exist, of course) There is another player in all of this. His name is Satan.
Johanon Zimmerman "the fact that your view can differ from my view suggests that we are exercising our free will. does it not?"
*It does not. Just because our views differ, doesn't mean it was free will that that led us to come to those conclusions. It's a fact that you are having thoughts before you are even aware of them. I just washed my hands three times in a row... i don't know why. It wasn't my free will to do so, but i did. There are many factors to consider.*
"You can't hold onto the view that God doesn't exist & also tell everyone what He is doing & what attributes He has."
*Yes I can. Some say it's a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain a belief or idea without necessarily accepting it as true. I merely pointed out the flaws in your argument if one were to accept it as true. Yes i had to assume you are referring to the christian god. Free will is tied in with the bible and since you mention satan i know i was right in my assumption. You aren't arguing for any old random deity.*
" If your child grows up in your home & you teach him to stay away from guns, is it your fault that he steals a gun & kills someone?"
*That's not enough information to make n accurate assessment. It's a bad analogy as well. That parent isn't going to say, "don't play with guns" and then toss the kid an ak47. If the parent made guns easily accessible, scattered all throughout the house, he/she would be somewhat responsible.*
"The really good news is that God has made it possible to know Him. The other good news is that He isn't the monster that you make Him out to be (if He really does exist, of course) There is another player in all of this. His name is Satan"
*So you know god? Tell me about this god since you know "him" so well. I'm not making anyone out to be a monster. I am simply expressing what is clearly indicated by your own doctrines. Also, according to your doctrines an omniscient god that created the universe in a specific way had to know what the outcome would be. Otherwise it wouldn't be omniscient. Not all knowing if it didn't know. If it can't abolish "evil" then it's not omnipotent. If it can prevent it or stop it and doesn't, it must actually desire for it to be.*
He said," I don't believe in such a thing as free will " but belief itself rides along the stream of free will. We are free to doubt anything somebody tells us as being the truth, we are also free to accept anything somebody tells us as being the truth. Having this freedom to accept and reject which is something willfully done is what makes you possess free will.
Belief and lack of belief have nothing to do with choice.
Our choices, wants and beliefs are determined by our individual contexts, which we cant control.
We cant decide on a whim to believe or not believe X
We are either convinced or we are not, and we cant control being convinced or not
I cant decide on a whim to start believing just as you cant decide on a whim to stop believing
I have to get convinced, you have to get unconvinced, we dont control being unconvinced or not because we dont control the reasons or lack of reasons that convince or unconvince us.
@@andralfoo The Prosecutor tries to convince the jury to convict, the defense attorney tries to convince you to acquit but they both try to convince you to see things their way because they know you are a person who has free will who can accept or reject their arguments.
We will for what we want, but we don't chose what we want.
If I truly have free will, then why do I have no idea which book I'll want to read tomorrow until a specific temptation hits me?
I think it is impossible to believe there is no such thing as free will on a practical level.
+Luke B I think you're ignorant.
.
supercoolio120 We are just as free as a rock, so how can you say that there is free will?
.
supercoolio120
Don't worry it is not like you decided not to respond to this thread, it was determined for you. You didn't have any choice in the matter as you have no free will.
I love how the scientists always shut the door so tightly as if "end of discussion, you are nothing more that a bunch of neurons, a chemical process, nothing more to question". Really ? Then we should have stopped at the atom as the absolute building block of matter and not bothered to look any deeper, cos after all, the problem was solved., - yet we continued and have have discovered much much more since then. Quite Frankly, Descartes dualism is a more (still incomplete) answer to the problem than the scientists boring slam the door shut chemical process guess.
Pinker specifically rejects 'greedy reductionism' (that we should have 'stopped at the atom', as you say) in his work, if you'd bothered to read any of it before commenting and assuming what he thinks. Further, no credible scientist accepts greedy reductionism, either. There are multiple layers of analysis, but in the end they are all tied and rely on the level below (biology on chemistry, chemistry on physics, etc.) and NONE of them generate any evidence that dualism is a plausible explanation for mind. You simply can't magically insert a 'ghost in the machine' at some random point after atoms, molecules or whatever pre-cognizent level you deem fit. It's downright juvenile to think that you can damage a part of the brain and lose some faculty, damage another part and lose a different one, but destroy the whole thing at death and have your consciousness remain intact. Consciousness is obviously a product of the brain, case closed. How is it generated? There is more to find out on this matter. But we won't learn anything about the mind by looking outside the brain.
ianman6
I enjoy this particular view. Although i see a few flaws in your logic. For instance, we know that there could well be multiple levels of existence. If there are being in the dimensions of space that are outside our experience, could they not be made up of something altogether foreign to our atoms and molecules? If so, how would they interact with our level of existence? It would be in a way that we could not explain with our current understanding of the universe, it does not mean that it doesn't exist.
well you're mind is made of energy.(what type of energy im not sure. probably electrons) you can't destroy energy. even when you die
ianman6 "It's downright juvenile to think that you can damage a part of the brain and lose some faculty, damage another part and lose a different one, but destroy the whole thing at death and have your consciousness remain intact. Consciousness is obviously a product of the brain, case closed." Why? Because you say so? Explain how you are so convinced that consciousness just stops at death. The truth is, it's downright juvenile to think that you know for sure what happens after death. Stop thinking 2-dimensionally.
You can always adjust the scope of scientific inquiry, ignoramus.
I can't believe some people think they have no freewill. You can go out or stay in. It's really up to you. Nothing is forcing your decision. You're not a robot. Although you are certainly free to believe you are.
+1971SuperLead You have a free will in the sense that is depends on you whether you go out or stay in, and another person might have chosen differently in the same situation. But you don't have a free will in the sense that you could have chosen otherwise when you make a choice. (Given that everything else was exactly the same.)
ivankaramasov You seem to think a human mind is nothing but a series of switches that operates on constant laws of physics. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mind does not operate on the laws of physics. The minds created the laws of physics. You can even see this in how the mind operates on laws that oppose the laws of physics.
+1971SuperLead I believe the mind is the product of physical processes in the brain. I guess you believe something else, but I am not sure what. Please, elaborate.
ivankaramasov The mind is spiritual. Physicality is a product of consciousness, just as many a quantum physicist has suspected.
What's interesting about matter is that it opposes the mind in so many ways. To the point that it ridiculous to imagine that a mind could ever come from matter. How could the illusion of freewill ever come from matter? It simply makes no sense.
But it doesn't stop there. The laws that the mind operates on are most often in reverse to the laws of physics. Why could the laws of physics be responsible for something that operates on oppositional laws???
And then we learn why spirit sought to make a world that opposes the laws it has been abiding to for an eternity. And we see a world that does nothing but chase this carrot, and it all makes perfect sense.
A spiritual mind has perfect free will, however, when driven to believe it is made of matter, it also believes it has no free will. By it's own free will it accomplishes the removal of it's free will.
The evidence is endless, and if you want to research this theory, I would point you to the same thing that made it all so clear for me. A book called A Course In Miracles.
But let me warn you, A Course In Miracles (ACIM) is like the red pill. Once you understand that you are merely dreaming you are a mind trapped in a body and walking to your own oblivion, it's hard to go back to sleep. There is a reason you chose to dream. And the illusion found in dreams is a carrot you chase all the time. There really is only one illusion you desire. And once you see the folly of that illusion you'll not know what to live for anymore, yet, you'll not have a choice, because life is not a choice. The mind is eternal, as many a quantum physicist is discovering today. So now you have nothing left to do but wake up from this matrix of matter. It's a long process, but it's also insanely beautiful. It's called spiritual enlightenment. But all it really is is an awakening from self induced delusions.
+1971SuperLead By free will do you mean that when you make a choice you could just as well have made the opposite choice?
Peter Tse's recent book on the neural basis of free will makes the same point as Pinker here. He locates free will in imagination, where many possible courses of action can be played out and then selected among, based on internal criteria. It is interesting to see some neuroscientists like Pinker and Tse embrace both physicalism and this modest notion of free will. What religious people want is contracausal free will driven by a soul. Good to see that some neuroscientists reject that view as nonsense, without falling into the 'free will is an illusion' trap.
Why Stevens argument is logically inconsistent ...
A: Did Steven freely come to the conclusion that free will doesn't exist based on a conscious evaluation of the data..?
B. Was Stevens brain determined to believe free will doesn't exist..?
In other words: If determinism/compatibilism is true, rational evaluation is an illusion and has no causal powers. Why? On determinism the brain is forced by chemistry and physics (universal causation) to hold a belief whether it is true or not. Hence on determinism we have no rational justification for our beliefs.
1. A brain is like a rock bouncing down a hill.
2. The rock: Hmmm... should I go left or right (illusion of evaluation)...
3. Universal causation makes the rock go left.
4. The rock: I choose to go left (illusion of conclusion/choice).
In other words: As a determinist/compatibilist Steven cannot logically argue against the existence of free will using rationality --- but this is what he does. Right..? If he would like to be logically consistent he would have to say: "Perhaps free will does not exist. I don't know."
Agreed. But what I like best is that, as a human being, Dr. Pinker may espouse his theory, but it is physically impossible for him to believe it.
He may try to choose to believe that he can't choose, but that is one choice that he definitely can't make!
@@joeyasro8785 True. "I am determined to believe that free will does not exist." Its extremely funny and ironic that he doesn't realize the lack of logical consistency ;)
The question 'What is free will?' demonstrates free will.
+Daniel Woodward were you not just determined to wonder "what is free will" due to a variety of biological and psychological factors?
No. Because that would not give us the ability to know what free will is.
Computers do not have free will because they are not conscious.
'The ability to change between choice and action'. This doesn't make sense.
Computers will never be conscious. Computers are nothing more than electronically stored information.
Is a toaster intelligent because it knows when the toast is ready?
Is a burglar alarm intelligent because it knows when a burglar enters your house?
Is a calculator intelligent because it knows that 2+2=4?
Does your computer know that you are using it?
A more accurate description for ‘Artificial Intelligence’ would be ‘Programmable Automation’.
We are, in effect, mistaking our own intelligence with that of an unconscious object of our own making.
I'll check it out.
Ok, but listen to how he starts his video..."I don't believe in free will in the sense that there is a ghost in the machine...some kind of spirit..." All he is saying is that he isn't a dualist. Free will has nothing to do with mind-body dualism. Will may very well be a product of the physical brain. So what? "Pushes buttons and pulls levers...." What the hell is he talking about? Who said anything about buttons and levers? If his intent was to construct a straw man to knock down, then I'll leave him to it. "Physical processes in the brain..." Yes, no doubt. But somehow, those physical processes create conscioussness and free will. Look, I'm not formulating a theory of gravity here, I'm just observing the obvious fact that when I release a rock, it falls. I'm not proposing a neurophysiological theory of consciousness either (and he hasn't come up with one either) but I think therefore I am. The existence of consciousness is the one thing that's logically impossible to deny. And when you watched my video, did this start a mechanical process which resulted in your fingers typing on your keyboard against your will....or was there a mental state of intention (will)? I'm only stating the obvious when I say that humans are conscious beings who act with free will. "Human choices will not be predictable..." Sure, but this isn't a discussion about determinism versus randomness. No one is saying that "will" is "random". Acting intentionally is the exact opposite of acting randomly. Pinker is a smart guy....and you have to be really smart to say something so idiotic. But wait..."the brain is set up.."? By who? Who set up the brain? God? I've never heard someone use such inconsistent language in such a short video. And ok, "the iris contracts....the knee jerks". So what? If I push him down a staircase he falls. The human body can still be acted upon by outside forces. But there was no outside force that compelled me to push this idiot down the stairs....I did that of my own free will. And even he admits that making a chess move is very different from the automatic responses. "Predict the consequenses of behavior....and select them based on those consequences..."...Yes, he's saying that people are conscious and that they act with intention (will) in a particular way when they were confronted with a choice (freedom). (freedom + will = free will) So he even closes by admitting free will. He only denies that free will is the result of "some mysterious soul". Great, I don't believe in "some mysterious soul" either. So where's the argument against free will? I have a degree in psychology and I'm familiar with some of the brain research related to volition. No experiement I've heard of disproves free will. Sometimes our actions seem to be directed by unconscious "will". Sometimes it appears that a decision is made a split second before the conscious part of our mind is aware of the decision. But even in these cases, the unconscious mind is still as much a part of our mind as the conscious part. Even these "pre-conscious" actions are clearly intentional. Their cause is to be found in mental processes and an intention (will) to act in one way rather than in another way. It isn't the result of one pool ball hitting another in a mechanistic deterministic way. So these determinism apologists always try to re-define "free will" so as to make it something completely absurd. They construct strawmen involving "some mysterious soul" that is "pushing buttons and pulling levers"....no philosopher has ever suggested such a ridiculous scheme of things. Here's a link to my video response to another blow-hard determinist on the subject of free will. ua-cam.com/video/-qEFwCr7L9M/v-deo.html
Illuminatus Pythagoras This guy and people like him are just trying to push Skinner behaviorism on everyone again. Just a new flavor of it. As though they've done something insightful. Every belief they develop is forced through a materialistic filter. They need determinism to uphold their materialism. Without it, they have to confront the free will defense argument and they know that they will lose. They will do anything to protect their belief system.
Free will makes no sense without consciousness...and consciousness doesn't make sense within a materialistic framework...therefore, determinism. Yes, I think you're exactly right.
I wish he coud have continued on for a moment to explain why that second higher-level thinking still doesn;t constitute free will.
I've read his work. His argument is that even those higher functions are still an emergent function of many smaller processes that are just like the automatic reflexes.
He makes a damn good case for it, too.
"I also believe that choice is in fact free will"
We don't make a "choice" about anything, it only feels like we do. Choice and free will are illusions based on what it "feels" like to be momentarily aware of the processes in our brain.
Does a clam close it's shell when it's rudimentary nervous system senses either food or danger? No, it only reacts to it's environment. We are essentially the same, our brains are primed, through genetics, to react to all the antecedent events of our life.
When you were a newborn, you came to find that you could move these thing-ideas around you with your mind, clumsily at first, but after a while you figured out that you had five contactors and they were on mental stalks that
you had to manipulate around things without knocking them over, and as the
experience with it grew you learned to "see" where the "stalks" were that extended your contactors in "space", and now you've leaned and think nothing of them, but you call them arms and hands!!!
I think they assume way too much knowledge to start deciding that we don't have free will. I get the idea behind why it is limited, due to things like circumstances outside of our control, and outside forces. And I also understand that our bodies are incredibly complex and our brains do respond automatically to stimuli. But they assume to much knowledge to say free will doesn't exist. We don't know close to enough about how the brain works to start presuming an absence of free will. I have two family members who have serious mental health issues, and I have heard psychologists, psychiatrists, and neurologists, who are experts in there fields with years and years of experience explain how little they actually know about the brain. They can't even explain how schizophrenia is caused or cured. And they openly admit it because scientific study is so limited because of the sheer complexity of the brain. So when I hear people claiming that our brain works this way and that way, therefore you don't have freewill. I say, show me the evidence. Sam harris brought to light some of the latest studies to prove we don't have freewill. And maybe it was a lack of ability to explain the study, but it seemed to be a simplistic study with exaggerated conclusions on Sam Harris's part. Show me the real scientific evidence on why we have no free will. It's got to be concrete evidence too, not the garbage they are currently promoting.
" the ability to fabricate our own thoughts"
We don't fabricate our own thoughts, we don't choose what we'll be thinking about in the next 5 minuets, our thought just happen. Our thoughts arise seemingly spontaneously but they're a result of our brain chemistry; that's all.
collins mugodo wrote "Is there any
chance I could ever get you back on topic?"
-----
I didn't know we were on a topic. I simply thanked you for your unsolicited advice, advised you regarding your semi-literate grammar skills, and then thanked you for providing entertainment for rational people.
That last statement is an argument from desire. Just because you don't like that there may not be an objective code of ethics, or purpose to life, or whatever else, does not mean there is one. The universe cares not for our petty wants or understanding.
If you can say "no", you have free will. A consciousness that transcends blind material causality. You can predict the future in a variety of ways and act according to your own perceived best interest. The act changes the future. We are co-creators.
a) it cannot be fully ignored as quantum indeterminacy influences outcomes up to the macroscopic level. That said we're talking tiny variances not large effects. b) If you've studied science you should well know one biologist may be working with baynesian causal networks, another might be following probability theory, another counterfactual causation. Science doesn't presume to be able to answer metaphysical questions about the nature of reality like questions about casuation.
But doesn't determinism allow for change, it's just that you can't be blamed or credited for that change? All of our decisions could be determined but we could still change - though that would be determined too.
In my humble opinion, and please forgive my errors in grammar and layman reasoning but I believe that what Steven was trying to communicate here is that we don't have pure free will in the truest sense of the term but we aren't puppets on strings either. Rather we have something that I would like to call " Conditional free will " or free will but based on certain conditions. For instance do people with down syndrome or intelligence quotients less than 80 have "free will"? Or what about when we are 2 years old or 7 years old? And what about people who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol and do stupid things that are out of their character and what about psychopaths who begin displaying psychopathic traits before they turn 5? Do some of our closest relatives like chimpazees have free will even though our dna differs by like less than 1 percent only? All of these examples in my opinion demonstrate that the human brain is an amazing yet still complicated and fragile thing, alot of people may say well we either have unconditional free will or we don't have free will at all but the truth is that our free will is clearly conditional and is at times based on things that are completely out of our control, the short and sweet answer is that we have free will or some version of it but only to a point, only to a certain extent because we are neither God nor robots.
I'm not talking about the quantum mind hypothesis, that is more to do with wave collapse functions creating consciousness or something. I'm talking about the interactions neurotransmitters have on synapses and on memory formation, both which are molecular. And Christof Koch isn't a physicist, he's one of the leading researchers into consciousness.
Maxim Calixte wrote "I agree with you. There's quantum entanglement, where particles can simultaneously exist at two separate locations at once, etc."
-----
If a particle can exist at two separate locations at once, how do you know it is the same particle?
There are many other corrective measures other than punishment-teaching the person with rational emotive therapy, about God, virtues and how to gain self-esteem through non-violent ways, love transforms, alternatives, keeping someone busy, etc
Since we are not robbots free will is always put into play no matter the forces that may seem hard to control once we are not compelled by sickness in the mind we always freely choose.
but remember I did say all three ice cream were the same flavor. so I wouldn't care whether I chose either, nothing in my past would prompt me to chose which of the three since the outcome will be me getting the desired ice cream in the firs place. I mean you would never be able to 100% know which one im choosing because it could be either one. even on another day given the same three ice cream I could choose differently.
"Free to choose the right or wrong action. That is free will"
Why do we "choose" one action over the other? What causes us to think the thoughts that we think? Do we "choose" our thoughts?
I don't think we choose anything, though it "feels" like we do. We are not the authors of our thoughts, feelings, intentions or actions, we only react to all the antecedent events in our lives from the moment our father's sperm entered our mother's egg, the moment of conception.
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. I think it's reasonable to conceptualize our thoughts in this way, your nervous system can't react to a non-stimulous eg empty space.
I disagree with Kaku on his point that the random nature of quantum mechanics leave some measure of free will, it only means we don't have all the information with which to make an accurate prediction. And remember, this is at the quantum level anyway. Read what Hume said, either way there's no free will.
What is your definition of "free will" for the purpose of determining whether or not it truly exists? In making the left or right turn decision, how would it be done in a "free will" fashion? Even the concept of "consciousness" isn't well understood, so how can you define "free will" in those terms and hope to arrive at its nature?
David Hume saw a dilemma in equating the problem of moral responsibility with the problem of whether behavior has a physical cause: either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the result of random events, in which case we are not responsible for them.
Free will is voluntorily choosing to say act or do something with full knowledge, intention, and willingness of expressing our desire in thought word or action which can no longer be blamed on neorons at all. When we include neorons as the sole cause we miss the point that we can think, analyse, synthesize issues as a result of premeditation. We are always to be responsible for pre-meditated actions, words and thought that produces even speech.
One can say that one has free will to save a cat from harm....but even before you seemingly choose to do that, " something" in you causes you to do that.....
I believe that there are 3 types of choices and actions that we take:
1) Autonomous: without involving any form of thought, consciousness, choice, or desire. These are strictly neural actions that are made by our central nervous system and not "YOU", or however you choose to define what the conscious and sentient "YOU" is, or who you are. You don't need to think or choose, or decide, or even WANT to know how or when to breathe, command your heartbeat, other nervous/electrical/chemical reactions, reflexes, when you feel pain, expand/contract pupils, and so on.
2) Subconscious actions/reactions: These are choices that YOU, or your consciousness makes without needing to choose them, or why you choose them. You subconsciously just do it, without thinking about it, or choosing to think about it. But this doesn't mean YOU aren't in control, because it is YOU, just a less aware and more instinctive you. Your subconscious influences all conscious thoughts, desires, decisions, actions, concentration, focus, but is not the determinant factors. You have no control of your subconscious, as it is determined to be what it is by a culmination of factors, such as biological physiology, structures, hormones, synaptic connects, and is shaped by life, environment, experiences, memories, teaching, and morality. This is the desirous infant in you that comes up with your thoughts, desires, and fears... some are instinct, some are inherent, and some are not. It's mysterious, but very important, and Freud knew this. That's why he was obsessed with understanding it. This subconscious/unconscious mind is only half of who YOU are. This is where your sudden thoughts and feelings comes from, be them rational or not. This is where your dreams are formed, hypothetical and fantasy or fictional scenarios PLAYED with by this childish or animalistic part of your mind. It can be conditioned, trained, programmed, and indoctrinated not only for evolutionary survival reasons by your experiences, needs, fears, desires, environment, habits, and even your conscious mind. You don't have full discretion over this part of your mind, and have little to do with choosing how it works. I don't think we're that intelligent yet, but some day, may evolve to be. It has a lot to do with WHY you do what you do, and why you are who you are, and INFLUENCES the choices you make, but doesn't ultimately control them as the master. YOU DO, your conscious mind.
HOWEVER, it does make decisions for you when you are not actively or consciously in controlled, or inhibited by certain agents, such as alcohol, truth serum, sleepiness, etc. You have many memories here that you cannot, and will never be able to access or re-experience, sometimes for your own protection, or not. Some reasons known, others not. Some reasons are that you were not fully aware, awake, sober, or influenced, and thus the synapses weren't strong enough between the conscious mind and unconscious, so they are isolated and confined to the unconscious. The subconscious mind is where your habits exist, and why you do things without always realize you were doing them, or actively choose to do them (even though you initially felt as though you were before you thought about it.) Many of the little, petty, trivial, decisions that you always make like when to scratch, adjust your balls, tap your pencil, habits, and perform many external bodily functions is also controlled here. It's especially active when your consciousness multitasks, wherever your focus is more on, is where the subconscious kicks in. You would be overwhelmed if you had to think about EVERYTHING you're doing. I believe everything a baby does before the age of two is formed here, and no baby has any free will, at all. This part, i think, may not entirely be completely free. But don't freak out, it's YOU, just not ENTIRELY the actively conscious you. You're still under your own control, and all decisions you make are made with the consent of your conscious mind, confined by your personal beliefs, morals, limitations, reasonable desires, intentions, and so on. So you wouldn't find yourself doing something that you didn't want to do, or plan to do, or allowed yourself to do, or is against your morals, even if part of you may have wanted to do it. It's complicated and may require thinking about, but it'll make sense with deep thought.
3) Conscious mind: This is where your general will exists, your conscious and intentional thoughts formulate, your immediate awareness of your thoughts, actions, and environment, as well as other external factors are here. This is where YOU learn, and discover yourself, as well as actively and intentional choose to do things. It is separate from the unconscious. Here, you can focus on particular things, physical or abstract, make careful decisions, etc. It is under the ILLUSION that EVERYTHING you do is controlled here, when SOME of it is not. HOWEVER everything you do can be influenced here.
So, does free will exist? The short answer is yes. But not in the unconscious or subconscious mind. Your free will and ability to think for yourself and make conscious decisions is here. It is NOT determinate.
This is where you decide what you are going to do today, what rules you wish to follow, how to execute a math problem, and when you are actively engaged in an activity that you are actively THINKING about, where your religious, philosophical political ideals are, where you can immediately access memories, who you want to marry, if you want to marry, what college you wish to apply for, and many crucial decisions that require attention and focus. The unconscious has no discretion here, while it's influence is present. But the same goes for the unconscious mind, it is influenced by the conscious mind. But subconscious thoughts/actions require the consent of the conscious mind, unless there are chemical inhibitors, like drugs.
So yes, we have free will over our daily choices, but not FULLY over our petty choices, and now how philosophers and religious teachings always dictate. YES, you ARE YOU, and not simply chemicals and electrical signals do things for you, but you can decide how these electrical signals and chemicals work, even though your brain is material matter. And yes, criminals should be punished and are to blame, even though some can be rehabilitated. Some psychopaths cannot. But others just choose to be evil, not because they're sick, but because they simply want to be, and there is no overthinking it. There's still much to learn as much is unknown, but it's very deep and complicated.
I have read most of your comments, when I say leave out religion it's because the're too many contradictions. but I here alot of this about "we can't control our thoughts" which is true but we do choose which ones to act on.for example ,three ice creams i've never had in my entire life, each are exactly the same ice cream but I choose the middle one.my past experiences don't prompt me to always choose the middle one since I don't care which one I choose,ergo example of free will.
It doesn't logically follow that if decisions are singularities then that somehow means nobody can choose from multiple choices. The choice, once made, is a singular event but that doesn't mean that a person had no will to decide which to choose in the first place.
9
Imagine you’re a fan of a national sports team, you work as an engineer, you vote republican and you’re getting married in a few weeks. Yesterday you took a phone call from your identical twin whom you never knew you had. He’s also an engineer, likes the same sports team you do and just got married. How much discretion did the “you” have in making your free will choices, given that geneticist could have predicted them based on events that took place in your mothers uterus decades earlier?
If determinism is in line with all laws of science and "logics" then it should be no more difficult to explain than it would be to explain the laws themselves.
Your statement raises three questions:
1. Can you explain the origin of non-material things like logic in a purely materialistic
universe?
2. If we're all brain and no mind, then why do people come to different conclusions? (if it's due to "input" then how do you find fault?)
3. Can you explain how free will violates science and logic?
It;s not mysterious when you know what feeds your soul.
When Pinker is describing the second kind of brain behavior, he does in fact describe a sort of 'ghost in the machine', viewing and evaluating options, making selections - in fact 'pushing buttons'. Of course, he doesn't think that that 'ghost' is immaterial; he assumes it to be part of the brain - probably mainly located in the pre-frontal cortex, but intimately interconnected with other parts of the brain. All sorts of interesting implications for our choices result from such a view.
At that point, the only question is whether one wants to declare that one's actions are random(that such deterministic choices in fact are not the cause of behavior), or determined. Either way, that libertarian free will is an impossibility. The random option is also useless, which means that people should choose the "determined" option. And then you're left with a decision of whether to abandon the expression "free will" or adopt compatibilism.
I don't know if he actually settles on a position. He says there is no ghost in the machine to give us free will, that our brains are too complex for us to be able to predict what our brains will choose, and that decision-making is more complex than reflexive physical reactions such as an iris to light. I agree with most of this (though I do think we can often predict what we or other people will do next) and yet I think free will is an illusion.
He states: "All of those things carve out the realm of behavior that we call free will, which is useful to distinguish from brute involuntary reflexes, but which doesn't necessarily have to involve some mysterious soul."
He says we CALL it free will, but is it free will? I frankly cannot decipher his position from this interview. And if he does think we have free will, he doesn't explain in this interview how it is possible - only that we could have difficulty predicting what our brains would choose due to their complexity - a truth that does negate the illusion of free will at all.
My sense of this is that he doesn't believe in true free will, and I agree with him. Maybe I'm missing something, but I find no inconsistency nor ambiguity in his statement.
And of course, people can name their dog free will and call it free will, but it sort of misses what it's all about. I think he is mistaking unpredictability for free will but it's still very unclear.
the question of free will is related to understanding of consciousness. We don't yet know the true nature of consciousness, and we can only speculate this and many other metaphysics questions
The problem is, the human mind doesn't act based on reason. If we are robots, then the choices we make should be to maximize utility and if that's the case, then why do we feel guilt? Why is it that we always find potential people that do absolutely nothing with their lives and completely ruin it?
There's a kind of approach to the free will question that for me is still a bit unresolved.
An intelligent unselfconscious animal could respond to stimuli and act strategically in its own interests without reflecting on whatever qualia arise in its interior world.
A human is not only aware of stimuli; he is also aware that he is aware of them. This doesn't mean that his actions are outside of cause-effect, but it may make him a radically different kind of being.
"i'm just saying that there may be things we don't directly study that are just as true and they're worth thinking about"
Only in the sense that they might be worth thinking about for the purpose of formulating scientific hypotheses for later tests. If you go beyond that, the answer is that they're not worth thinking about, because the lack of evidence means that you're almost guaranteed to be wrong because there are an infinity of ways reality could work and only evidence lets you restrict it.
At the same time, determinism is saying that YOU are something being controlled by the universe, when in fact this requires a distinction between yourself and the universe to begin with.. we grow from the universe like apples from a tree.. we are symptoms of the universe and thus expressions of it.. both free will and determinism neglect the fact that there is nothing being controlled or making a decision in the first place.
But not being able to do or something, or not having the opportunities to do something (like being born into a bad environment), does not mean you lack the ability to choose to do it. Whether you become an astronaut or not has absolutely nothing to do with being able to choose to be an astronaut, which is what the notion free will is actually addressing.
I think free will exists when we speak of voluntary actions and it doesn't when we speak of involuntary actions, simple as that. Atleast biologically.
If you think you have voluntary actions.Then volunteer not to think for one minute.
I believe in freedom of choices, but even that function is dependant on past experiences and the choices that we can imagine or see as viable (logic).
Free will is the illusion that one can act totally independent of the circumstances.
That is not what he said. He mentioned nothing about a computer. He said, "human choices will not be predictable in any simple way from the stimuli that I've hinged on beforehand." There is nothing about technology here.
For example speech or expression of ideas is not just a product of neorons only but must be orderly with free will to make any sense. That is why we can sometime determine or predict what someone may do next because of the person's free will utterances attributable to that person. People also complain when their free will choices are hampered by whatever means.
1.I'm 13; trying to stretch my mind beyond my age is something I do to separate me from other people.Honestly, I thought you could assume that I was young(Yes, I know its idiotic, but you have no idea how much of my school curriculum is 'cut up')
2.Thank you for correcting me on my mistakes, even though it was laced with indirect insults
3.Hilariously, in my school 'noise factor' represents a random variable in science (this is why I test them online)
4.Could you explain randomness existing plz?
So what are "thoughts" then? Are you asserting that we're all just a collection of thoughts that play out and then at one point, they cease? I look, feel, act the way i am/do because I subconsciously "think" that way? Our conversation right now is merely our thoughts interacting with one-another? Are thoughts substantive or are they just impulses within space? Is there space or do we just think it?
I can't prove that I have free will. I feel like I have free will. And the arguments against free will have failed to convince me.
There is a delay between my decision and my awareness of my decision. So what? There is a delay between burning my hand and awareness of burning my hand.
My decisions are influenced by outside forces. So what? If there were no influences, my decisions would never be made, because all options would be equally attractive.
I don't have all-power to determine my birth, my genes, my parents, my nationality, etc. So what? Here I am right now, and I choose which way to go from here.
(pt3) It can also be demonstrated by time dilation. Find an analog clock with a second hand and look at it quickly. You will realize that the very first second seems to hang before the second hand moves. It takes an extra bit of time. Try it. That's because your brain is combining together the moment of "now" and you're actually seeing about .1 seconds in the past. Notice when you blink you don't see it usually, or when you move your head your vision seems to skip immediately to it's new view?
Antony Latham wrote "To have free will (as we do) there must be an autonomous non physical self that is not tied to the laws of physics. The fact that we do have free will is superb evidence for the immaterial soul. Descartes got it right."
Descartes lived when they were still jailing people like Galileo for proving that Venus was not orbiting the Earth. Descartes can be forgiven for his ignorance ... you on the other hand
Even if there was a "ghost in the machine," nothing about the argument would change. One cannot take responsibility for having one soul rather than another.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I apologize if it sounded that way. Neuroscience is an incredible vast field and our understanding of the mind is immense and simply does not require a soul. We look to the metaphysical to explain that which we cannot. We have physical explanations for most of what you probably consider the functions of the soul. There is no need to bring in a metaphysical explanation for things we already understand do not operate by such means.