John Searle - What is Free Will?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 січ 2013
- For more videos and information from John Searle click here bit.ly/1IbvESM
For more videos on what free will is click here bit.ly/1I8iExc
Free will is a problem. If it seems obvious that you are perfectly free to choose and decide, then it seems perfectly clear that you do not understand the problem. Your source for the study of philosophy and college philosophy class materials.
Man, I love this guy. I don't really agree with all his views, but I think he's a great philosopher. He was one of the first philosophers I read and ever since then, I've been in love with the subject. He may not be the most brilliant or ground breaking philosopher of the century, but he's still up there and he's definitely a really smart dude and a very clear writer. I think the world would be a better place if every student at least read his book "Mind, Language, and Society". Its ashame US students aren't required to take even a single philosophy class. It can really purify ones thinking. So often I see students that can't recognize the logical connections between things, the difference between an actual problem and a semantic discrepancy, the difference between correlation and causation, and even obvious but crucial distinctions like the difference between the concept "most of the time" and "all of the time". This is a problem I see in students from pretty much every discipline, and yet it could be easily resolved. Unfortuanely, I don't see it happening any time soon.
Sorry for the off-topic rant, but I just felt like sharing my views today for some reason.
I’ve been told by Psychologists that the reason basic logic or critical thinking classes aren’t taught in high school is that once a student - and I should note a student with a brain that isn’t fully developed - learns these tools they are much more likely to question authority figures. A brief introspection into what high school (and middle and elementary school) was like demonstrates this beautifully. The whole educational process has a huge focus on subservience to authority. You learn what you can say and do and what you can’t. Students who have “behavioral issues” - the ones who ask the wrong questions or can’t pay attention in class or are distracting are marginalized and labeled “bad students”. It really is a method of indoctrination, however benign one might think it is. Noam Chomsky has some fascinating and illuminating thoughts on this, some of which I’ve paraphrased above.
I should note that I am with you though. I believe these classes should be taught junior and senior year.
I first read some of his papers when I was a grad student fifty years ago. His picture of the world is appealing to me and his arguments are really strong.
Critical reasoning should be a core course in first year university. In Australia it is becoming this way.
instablaster.
I love how John sits up and leans forward for these questions.
It was a great pleasure for me to welcome Amie Thomasson (University of Miami) to Trinity College earlier. She spoke about the truthmaker approach to ontological commitment in metaphysics. Afterwards we attended John Searle's (University of California) talk about consciousness as a problem in philosophy & neurobiology at Wolfson College, Cambridge. (Jason Wakefield, University of Cambridge).
Finally, 2 guys that know what they're talking about! I just wish I could understand it as well as they do.
One of my favorite videos on UA-cam, from the first time I viewed it to today.
I'm only 3 minutes in, and this man, BY FAR, has just stated the Free Will problem in the most succinct and clear way I have ever heard.
another video about him is even better in my opinion. look up "6 The paradox of free will & determinism (John Searle)". It summarises all the ideas and problems around the topic extremely clearly and consicely.
I have been predestined to adhere to the conviction that free will is indeed no illusion. ;)
***** I have chosen not to have free will.
It is
Good conversation. Even the refusal to exercise free will has a cause. Even if it's just to be contrarian, some factor has caused you to be contrarian. THAT we make a choice does not explain WHY we made that choice. Who you are, internally and externally, where you're from, what you've experienced, and the circumstances create more factors determining our choices than we can even imagine let alone control.
You can do what you want but you can't choose what you want. Even our brains are part of the deterministic network and it still has to do the calculations and then we become aware of what we want most to act on.
Those infinite factors shape us in our life.. The only reason i do not believe in natural cause-decision determinism is that our world is too perfect and there are some surreal coincidences happening. That's why I believe in determism, but created by some divine ...
@@pedromateus9575 : Coincidences are just that and they don't necessarily mean anything but sometimes they have a thread in common. They idea that our world is "too perfect" I find rather fanciful. Most of it is trying to kill us. Most species die young and it's just by shear numbers of offspring they survive at all.
@@pedromateus9575, if your "Devine" exists, then UNWANTED SUFFERING totally, utterly, and completely proves that your "Devine" is EVIL
Totally agree with "We say that.....". It IS determined, but what what matters is how we "use" the expression free will, which is like you described it. In addition, it is subjective. It is a feeling, both of the subject and of an observer, which or may not coincide. Similarly, there is what we say is "involuntary, and it is also determined .
I chose freely to be a determinist !
Good point. By the way, as far as I remember, this was exactly Schopenhauer's response to the question of free will. He said, "Der Mensch kann zwar tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will", which roughly translates to "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants"
Great guys!
Harris is great, but Searle has been a boss for decades. I'd love to hear them discuss the topic together
uh no harris is fucking terrible
I chose to watch this video on free will, did I freely choose, or was I determined, based on my knowledge to learn more about free will!
And the absence of anything more pressing in your life.
"Compatibilism is a cop out."
We decide in that we are the embodied particular seat of what our decision, as locus of contextualized causes internal and external, manifests itself as the, then conscious, advent of the power of our being, participating in being itself.
"Freedom is what you do with whats been done to you."
meh. You don't decide what you do with what's been done to you, so no, that's not freedom, that just sounds good.
Not freedom
But things are *incessantly* being _done_ to you. Gravity, heat, hunger, photonic bombardment ...
I like to talk about destination rather than determinism. And we do decide, inasmuch as a decision is our necessary assumption of our being uniting our internal disposition with our accessible comprehension of environmental or situational state implying constraints along with a realm of opportunities. In yoghurt words, we decide
There certainly seems to be a mental process that we label as _deciding._
One that is indeed influenced by a wide-range of compelling forces outside and in.
Not choosing is also a choice❣️
Freedom comes from knowledge and understanding,..it's about not being caused but being a causer.choosing which desires to satisfy and which not.
Let's say that an agent has a desire to do X and he decides to satisfy that desire. My question is why did he choose to satisfy that desire rather than not to satisfy it? Presumably he could have simply ignored the desire, so why did he choose to satisfy it rather than ignore the desire?
There's a reason for everything we say and do,a cause.i know and agree with that but we don't just feel caused to say or do something and just so it.we get to consciously and rationally weigh up what we feel caused to do and then make a decision which way to go.okay that decision has a cause but that cause only becomes an effect once you've chosen.we consciously get to evaluate,decide,chose.you decide what your going to allow your to be caused to do.your freedom lies in the ability to consciously pick and that is all you need to be in charge of your future..it depends what you mean when you say freewill..every desire of our will has a cause but you make the final decision which cause you go with.n than decision will be caused but you have the conscious self aware power to chose and that is all we need..
@@paulmatkin7392 But one's compelled to always pick the perceived path of least resistance, whose semblance of which lays outside of their control.
The only scientist that ACTUALLY understand the problem
Nicolás Ignacio Arancibia Godoy just a note, Searle is not just a neuroscientists in the conventional sense, he is a philosopher in a very strong sense.
That's because he is not only a scientist but also a philosopher; scientist are terrible at philosophy, Stephen Hawkins, ehem, ehem.
Well, if you say the refusal to choose beef or viel is an execise of free will, i could say that the refusal is deterministic as well. Both choosing something or refusing to choose is deterministic.
Sartre said that freedom isn't something that we have but something which we are.
Excellent interview, cogent and interesting.
excellent👌
In a deterministic universe you can use bits from a radioactive source that appear random statistically for all intents and purposes, but we really dONT have any access into the mechanism behind the apparent random interval between emissions that generate the random bits .. So the maximum free will, which we might as well call 'generally non predictable will' gets maximized when we use a radioactive bit source to decise what we should do next .. Of course this is an extreme way to live your life and we might as well go back to living in our happy little 'we are in control ways'..
The restaurant example is given with a loaded framing; you can exercise your _will_ without it being _free_ will. By choosing steak, you aren't necessarily doing it freely; the act of choosing doesn't imply freedom.
There are different versions of compatiblism and the one that is logically necessary is that the "spiritual" side of things is metaphors representing our experience of the physical/material side of things. There's absolutely no mutual exclusivity - in fact they are entirely inseparable. There is no idea that does not correspond to reality, being either a representation of it or a remix of various parts.
ua-cam.com/video/jJnjbGtWNe0/v-deo.html
More specifically, a choice being the effect of a cause is not only irrelevant, it is absolutely necessary. We cannot make choices without cause, therefore, free will cannot be debated unless the term "choice" is also given a new definition. People can argue the genuineness of reality, consciousness, free will, and all other things uncertain to uncertain people; in the meantime I will take these things, as they are, always have been, and forever will be, and continue living my life rationally.
You don't make emotional and faith decisions?
How convenient. Motivation is exactly what Searle goes over in this video. I believe the term for my motivation is "antecedently sufficient causal conditions." A bit wordy for me, but it sums it up quite thoroughly.
oO(Isn't the term _How convenient_ normally a cynicism?)
The decision to say whatever will be will be while in the restaurant, would be determined by antecedent causes.
Indeed, such complacency/resignation wouldn't have a spontaneous birth.
Maybe some confusion when only action is referred to, freedom comes down to choice of what to do in their environment / nature, while the will to be is taken over or taken away.
Hmm, The mind isn't obviously less constrained than the body.
The problem of free will in my philosophical logical opinion is actually not a paradoxical rift or conundrum between determinism and the volition of the autonomous causation. Determinism = chains of antecedent events happening in a cosmic and atom scale (the problem by many philosophers is regarding the environmental and biological factors that are extrinsically linked together.) Free will = the ability to choose based on rational, and irrational choices with an emotional attachment of the person (in philosophy, a person is someone who has a conscious, able to act on the higher and lower perceptual decision-making process that is intrinsically linked to the mechanism in which the person operates via neurons and electrons in the brain, primarily in the pre-frontal cortex, and the limbic region) and the rift away from material reality to immaterial substance that provides a overall framework in which reason and emotion operates under.
Hence, both deterministic cosmic environment in which the cause of all things have to have antecedent events to occurs, chiefly called the first cause effect, and free will libertarianism of volition of the extra-mechanism are related but totally separated phenomena.
Awesome.
ua-cam.com/video/jJnjbGtWNe0/v-deo.html
Is there any time a person doesn't choose the best perceived option? Even acts of sacrifice or self harm are choices made because they were preferable to some alternative. Even choosing the worst option on purpose, just to prove you could, would set up an incentive where doing it was preferable to not doing it (or you wouldn't do it).
If that's the case, that people always choose a certain way based on conditions, then our choices are driven by conditions. Even if conditions were completely random, with no causality, it would still negate free will.
Plus the choosing in itself is forced by conditions.
This when you “smash the like button”, not after some needy pleb begs you to
Which is both small compared to what the modern individualistic prometheism postulates, but crucial in its destinal, and sometimes immense in its epochal, prerogative.
determinism is about choosing poorly but not having to take responsibility. it comes down to a choice of conflicting goods, especially when the better is more difficult and a person chooses. the determinism says what base choice is not built on a series of choices but that the primary choice is determined. if I research something to do the right thing or I don't, I'm just a robot either way and its not determined by any effort of free will only part. I don't think I want any determinists any where near me
+St tom How about someone who is a determinist and a moral nihilist? Let's hang out
Einstein was a determinist it certainly didn't disturb him to be one of the greatest scientists in mankinds history. Sam Harris is a determinst he certainly isn't a fatalistic and as he said it has only made him more compassionate. and you are going to do research if your urge to do so overcomes your urge to be a fatalist and then gives you impulse to to do it
The Will, is Eternal, (in various degrees)
Free your Thinking from speculations.
How about in the court of law. The judge has to be unbiased and detached and can go either left or right. Was it pre-determined he would go left or right or is depending on the evidence put forward?
Obviously the evidence would also be subject to predetermination.
like to see he and Dennett get into it.
5:44 This expensive mechanism is not about individuals.
It's function is to maintain and run civilization.
It was civilization that transformed a hundred thousand unconscious apes into eight billion of us and
it needed us conscious in order to do it
which is all perfectly in line with
the way evolution works.
Makes more sense than Dennett!
True enough, but they do seem to have similar views on compatabilism and what ought to count as "free will".
That things can be measured is proof that they are sufficiently non-arbitrary to be considered stable. The amount of things which show this non-arbitrary condition is sufficient to prove ultimate causality in all ways. There is no sense in which we do not find constraints.
But ... some freedom from suffering does occur in all our lives. We're not _always_ deadlocked in agony.
I'm currently in the "freewill is an illusion" camp, although that might change through no fault of my own. :)
*****
No, I'm a determinist..
*****
If you deny cause and effect then it is *you* that is the loony.
What do you mean by illusion? Is it an illusion that you have a choice of which camp you want to join? You say you're currently in the "free will is an illusion" camp. I guess you mean it's really an illusion that you had a choice of which camp you belong to?
So, you have no choice but to believe everything you believe. The idea that a child molester had a choice is an illusion? The idea that you're any different from a child molester is an illusion?
*****
You could not have chosen to do otherwise.
If nobody said there wasn't free will you wouldn't even be contemplating the idea. Let alone type each of this letter as if you chose the letters these words consisted of.
Conscious experience is not a physical thing, though it is dependent on the physical brain. Our minds operate within consciousness to make decisions based on reason. Consciousness is a terrain apart from the laws of physics, and thus is independent of them. Thus, because we can think using our minds within consciousness, we have free will. The problem for most people is they can't accept that consciousness isn't a physical thing. It's an experiential thing. It can't be weighed or measured, but it's presence is undeniable ONLY for the person experiencing it for his or herself.
It's somewhat depressing that I both agree with everything you've said AND realize that to most people it probably sounds like delusional and mystical ramblings :(.
That you "experience" your consciousness does not mean it is not physical. What you recognize as "consciousness" is merely a construct of what's actually physically transpiring in your mind and body.
Perhaps having the illusion of free will is evolutionarily advantageous? I personally do not believe in free will but try to maintain a willful ignorance of this fact in everyday life, as succumbing to fatalism seems a much less fulfilling alternative.
+A seeker And if you act now, I'll throw in this free Holy Bible, personally signed by Jesus himself! What do you have to lose? Order now!
4:54
It is impossible to impose will, therefore all will is free. What can possibly "free will" be if not a will that is not imposed? Determined does not mean imposed. All facts are determined, otherwise how would they be determined? Random does not mean indetermined. It means unknown.
Along with free will and consciousness. ;)
If you sit down in that restaurant and proclaims determinism and give up your “free will” you will find that you sit still and quite and can’t make a choice. To live your life you have to accept the “free will” no matter if it as an illusion or not. You can experience this through mediation and focusing on the separateness of the thoughts in your mind vs the consciousness you experience. You will find that you are really just an observer of your thoughts and actions.
Yes, but standing still and not ordering nothing is free will itself according to him.
I'm not sure why it's so hard for people to see that there is a difference between a passive object and a living organism. A turtle is subject to the same laws of thermodynamics as a rock, and yet the turtle will almost never be the same temperature as a similarly sized rock of the same color and mass. The turtle will move out into the sun, it will shunt it's blood to the surface to gather heat and then the opposite when in cooler conditions. The turtle actively manages heat flow, so while it is subject to the same physical laws, the outcome is different. It is the same with causation. A living organism will use reliable causation to set up a system that allows it to respond to the environment and actively change the environment. A similarly sized object will just sit there until it is acted upon by an outside force. The rules are the same, but the outcome is completely different. Determinism is not the same as cause and effect.
When people are conditioned or form a habit, does the conditioning or habit become sub-conscious / unconscious or a part of consciousness?
I imagine that it would depend on the habit in question.
First he claims that free will is a scandal. Then half way through the discussion he admits that determinism and free will both can't be ignored.
I understood Searle to be declaring that philosophy's *failure* to have made any progress in the subject of _free will_ over the course of century or two, was the shameful "scandal".
We would then hold a predisposition for our fate. If determinism I can be supported, then how could we incarcerate a criminal for a crime. Would you still hold them accountable, If so, Why?
I get that there is the experience of this 'gap' .. that our actions seem lacking suficient causes.
But if it is not determenistic, what else can one fit into this gap but randomness? How does one get from an unsuficient cause to a desicion without just flipping a coin? Is there and alternative that i fail to see?
***** In what sense does a dualist view solve this problem?
*****
1/ I don't realy see how placing this 'moment of free choice' in a supernatural realm makes any difference.
(It makes it fuzzy and unfalsifiable as to the 'how-this-would-actually-work part of the question. People never seem to think they have to explain supernatural stuff. Just claim it does the thing 'somehow' that we fail to describe in natural processes.)
Anyway: if you were to agree that a hypothetical supernatural flow would work on a basis of logical processes you still have the same problem. If you want to make a decision: you have input (information to the question), a 'supernatural' process, and a decision as output. If the decision does not follow from the input by a logical stream. If it is not based on your internal workings and senses. What then is at work and how does it add this 'true free will' into this? What is this choice of will free from?
2/ "If I cannot measure it or describe it by the laws that I have derived from my measurements it does not exist".
No-one is saying it is impossible for things to exist outside our known measurements and laws. (And in a sense there are things that don't follow direct laws of nature.. that is chaos and chance, and is fundamental to physics).
I just fail to comprehend what 'existence' would mean if it can apply to things that are,in their core, undetectable. (Which is not the same as 'beyond our current scientific horizon')
*****
a) I can imagen lots of things that we can not detect. i can not imagen how something that would be fundamentally undetectable interact with the physical world.
I also accept that there are concepts and ideas. I do not see a reason to think they exist is a way similar to matter. They are descriptions of processes on another level. Very meaningfull, important though.
b) I don't mind the presumption that input/output works from this different realm. What i am looking for is an actual explanation of how these processes can be free (and what that means). How they can not be directly derive their output from the input through somthing else then a logical deterministic path or a random factor.
It still seems just the assertion that there is a realm where the things happen that seem impossible in the physical world. That there is this 'supernatural I' that just does these things 'somehow'. I am looking for a meaningfull view on how the process of choice can work in that way.
To be clear. I don't think i am looking to trick someone into rethoric. This claim is made so often.. and i never get an explanation that actually explains something to me. (And, in a humble way, i'm not that stupid on a general basis).
Suppose making a choice means your brain is in superposition and entangled with many possible parallel worlds each containing a possible path. You intuitively know all this possible paths and choose one. You might be doing the most probable thing or something very improbable. The whole function of possible choices resembles a bell curve. You feel you chose but meanwhile an observer sees after all the parallel worlds where the other possible choices are made and so that it's more a matter of chance. But in each reality the person feels free, he made the choice but the observer sees also the choice was so much determined by the history that "following the straight path " was very likely. It's almost like a decaying block uranium where each atom chooses to decay but the observer sees that very predictable half life.
Are you saying that ... _determinism_ is a kind of mirage that appears to those who consider it, when they reflect on their free decisions?
@@beingsshepherd Yes, only a mirage I think too. So think about a distribution where, in the end to keep it simple, 60% stayed home, 20% went to the party, another 20% went to another party . So only 1/5 met his future wife and the rest stayed single. They all had the same past but from then on not the same future. It branched. In this situation I imagine we see not pure determinism leading to a certain outcome. Of course the history has much influence but for many worlds there must be randomness added. This element of always existing randomness which we intuitively feel, could explain while we are,with reason,convinced not to be fully determined. Where does the" inner dice" (working on subconscious level) come from?? Most likely chaos theory suffices to explain it but this kind of uncertainty has the same splitting in many branches effect as quantum uncertainty I suppose. But so yes, that element of randomness coming in, is not what we think of as " a free soul taking free decisions". But I am only a layman and there must be big holes in my theory.
Simple. Free will is a necessary illusion.
@larrycarter3765, you are correct
Steven Pinker also has a good grasp on the subject as well.
Quantum mind is still only a hypothesis. Regardless of you commenting on ones lack of common sense. May I ask why he lacks common sense? (purely curious), I just randomly chose to add a line from him, I could have chosen another. Cheers.
If you think Harris is in the same league as Searle, you have lost your ever-loving mind.
Modern science claims that from a singularity, everything in existence came into existence, including the forces of nature that it operates by, and including you and me and our supposed consciousness', memories, thoughts, and freewill.
But now, does anything at all even exist per se, OR, does only the singularity exist in the form of all things? How could I ever have freewill if "I" don't even exist in the first place but the singularity is existing as me and you and with our supposed consciousness', memories, thoughts, and freewill?
One thing an eternally consciously existent entity could never ever do is to personally experience a total cessation of conscious existence. And yet, that just happens to be the one very thing "we" (as well as many other species) cannot apparently escape. Coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe this singularity is doing it all this way so as to be able to experience conscious death. Create supposed conscious entities out of self, who appear to individually exist, but then they all consciously die one day from something, and the eternally existent singularity experiences "death". Basically, the only way how the singularity could experience "conscious death" is by how it is apparently being done.
So, one purpose of our conscious existence, (and possibly the only purpose of our conscious existence), is to cease to consciously exist one day from something.
Prove me wrong.
OK, let's talk about some specific hypotheticals.....
1. Addiction:
You're a smoker, a heroin addict or a body builder, regularly injecting yourself with anabolic steroids (known to make people more aggressive than they normally are). If Searle says that these situations are distinct from your normal 'gap' where you can make rational decisions, then what's really the difference? Surely, essentially, he's admitting that drugs can affect our actions in these cases, then why can't hormones or other chemicals be one of the many causes of our day to day 'decisions' in 'non addicts' during these so-called 'gaps'?
2. Circumstances:
You were physically and sexually abused as child. You were continually bullied at school and failed your exams. Both your parents then died. You were fostered into a family where you were abused even more. You left home and were homeless for a while. You finally got a minimum wage job, but now you've lost your job. You've no money. You've no friends or family who even know you or care if you live or die. You walk to Beachy Head. It would be easy to just throw yourself off and end it. Say I meet you and then slip something in your food that drastically reduces your levels of serotonin in your body. You feel really, really depressed now..... I walk away. Do you always jump off the cliff?
FW advocates will always make out that regardless of what happens to be coursing through your bloodstream at any given time (1) or what circumstances you find yourself in (2), you always have a free choice to go one way or another, notwithstanding some obvious constraints (you can't choose to fly to the moon or breathe fire).
The point of (2) is that regardless of the circumstances you paint, how bad they might be, you always, always can do one thing or another and looking back, you could always have acted in a different way. Searle gives an example of this sort of reasoning when he says 'Oh, sure, I could have voted for the other guy." Then he would probably have been voting against his own self interest and then surely all environmental or historical 'facts' are irrelevant as you're effectively making 'decisions in a vacuum'.
The point of (1) and of mentioning serotonin in (2) is to illustrate the convenient FW advocates easily allow for addiction to certain chemicals but disregard the effect of more natural ones.
The other big elephant in the room with this debate is how people use the pronoun 'I'. What does that actually mean then? If you can disregard all antecedents, then who is making the 'decision'? Define your own identity, without reference to your physical body. You're left with Dualism surely? But then, as Sam Harris so sweetly puts, but then that doesn't help, because you didn't choose your soul, did you?
1. Yes, and he never said anything to the contrary.
2. There is only one thing that the person can choose given all the antecedent events. Once, we know what he'll choose, then all identical people in an identical situation will choose the same thing. This is the lack of choice that is highlighted by determinists, such as myself. Mind you, when I say identical, I mean down to the last atom.
"I" is the witnessing consciousness, the source of which science still doesn't know for sure. I'm not sure what you mean by the "soul", but there isn't any compelling evidence of such a thing.
I think you are wrong to create a class called "free will advocates" and then assume a set of myths and prejudices about them. I can't imagine anyone who believes in free will that would pretend that people don't get addicted to drugs or tobacco. Most people have also heard the phrase, "walk a mile in the other man's shoes", and would not dispute the effects of being raised in a privileged environment versus an underprivileged environment. Certainly every Democrat is aware of that. And plenty of them believe in free will. On the other hand, you are right on the nose about the importance of correctly defining "I". The hard determinists make the mistake of removing all the genetics and environmental influences from the "I" and turning them against it, as if all internal influences were compelling us against our will. The problem is that after they remove all the internal stuff, like the brain, our appetites, our beliefs and values, and all the other things that make us uniquely us, we're left with nothing! So then what can the "I" be when separated from all of our internals? A soul?? The correct balance is to recognize that we are purposeful causal agents, and all of that internal stuff is integral to that "I" that is us. The final responsible determinant of what we do is the deliberate choice that happens in our own heads.
@@marvinedwards737 I think you've just made the argument for determinism, after you remove the genetics and environmental influences and all the other stuff you mentioned there is no "I", there is no scientific reason to think there is, that's the whole point.
@@sunbear3324 Your mistake is assuming that the genetics and environmental influences are somehow not the "I" that we each refer to. Explaining how we work does not "explain us away", it simply explains what the "I" is made of and how it works. The "I" is still quite real, and it is the meaningful and relevant causal agent of our deliberate actions. I think we can say that the world is certainly deterministic, and that every freedom that we have, to do anything at all, REQUIRES reliable causation. So, the notion of freedom logically implies a world of reliable cause and effect. And, because choosing is a deterministic operation (two options are input, then evaluated, and then based on that evaluation a single choice is output), FREE WILL IS A DETERMINISTIC EVENT (surprise!). So, both the "I" and "free will" are real.
The question is whether "determinism" is real. And that depends upon what you mean by determinism. The hard determinist portrays determinism as an entity that robs us of all control over our choices and actions, and forces us to do things against our will. It is no longer us, but some boogeyman pulling our strings that is responsible for what we do. And, of course, that is superstitious nonsense.
@@marvinedwards737 I'm not sure I'm getting your point and i hope we're not talking past each other. But if you grant that there is no other attributes to us other that our nature and nurture and those factors are what drive our desires and actions I just don't see any place for left for free will. Our agency is the very thing that is governed by our desires that stem from our biology and life experiences.
As far as" explaining us away " that's an interesting point, the thing is that neuroscience and psychology can tell us a lot about our behavior for example , if certain part of brain is damaged the human will act in a certain way, or what environmental will affect a persons behavio, even without then knowing. We now know a lot more about human behavior than we used to. If we continue down this slope, and eventually can explain every or almost every aspect of human behavior, wouldn't it really be the case that what we previously had ascribed to free will would now be explained "away or not" in some sense?
The unexamined experience of free will...
I can't believe that John Searle has mistaken Nhilism with Determinism 3:49, and I can't believe he's even bothering to mention the argument that as there is no obvious evolutionary benefit for the illusion to exist, it doesn't. By that reasoning, the appendix doesn't exist. When did we cease to be perpetually evolving? Did I miss a memo?
Free will is manifestation of Devine intervention. It called Grace. It is meta-physical. "To be or not to be." That is the question. From here-and-now we can at transcend to there-and-not-now. Have you forgotten Kant? Is a baboon free? Free Will becomes manifest when you choose absolutely.
The question I like to pose is: what mechanism would enable free will to exist? I can think of none.
The total absence of resistance.
Another possibility is that only a single living being actually exists and this being has free will. Every other being has free will that is simulated on the basis of an enormous set of scripts that obtain their parameters from a random number generator. To account for individual personalities the parameters would have a maximum range of values for each individual.
That one suffering soul will undoubtedly find itself the prisoner of circumstance.
"Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that’s not real while the magic that’s real-that can actually be done-is not real magic."
Samme applies here; There is a reason why philosophers haven't solved this issue, because they want to press their definition of something 'ideal' onto reality. We accept all sorts of impedaments to ouer will, all sorts of influences, yet somehow, we hope to find 'freedom' deep down.
I would love for it to exist, just like i would love for magic to exist. But i suggest coming up with a coherent definition first. So we can know what to look for.
ua-cam.com/video/jJnjbGtWNe0/v-deo.html
DeadEndFrog, I agree that many people who say there is no free will are using a definition that precludes anything but magic from applying. They demand total knowledge of every input, foreknowledge of every consequence and total freedom to make any choice, even those that are physically impossible or imaginary. You would need god level omniscience and omnipotence to even begin, and there is nothing more magical than god.
Just as an aside, there is one time in your life where you will experience real magic, the impossible kind. One day you will exist and a moment later you will not exist. That's a metaphysical change that should not happen in a closed material universe with conservation of everything. Everyone's last word should be abracadabra.
@@solomontruthlover5308 You seem like a thoughtful person, so why do you continue to link to that egghead B. Beckeld? He goes straight to the "couldn't have chosen differently under the same circumstances." This is a metaphysical claim about possible futures. In the real world, the future does not exist until it becomes the present, so possible futures is just an imaginary concept, even if a very useful one. Humans do what they want in every situation, so in the same situation they would do what they want. Of course, then someone like Beckeld will say that you can't choose what you want, but that is also nonsensical. You are you, so you can only be you, and you and your wants are a feature of the universe and have causal powers within the scope of your person. Once again, cause and effect is not the same as determinism.
Go ahead...
That's in itself a provocation.
Is it not possible that our knowledge has limitations? That we don't know what we don't know?
Surely. We barely have any scientific understanding of the Universe and ourselves compared to the available data. The problem is proving things.
What is real practical use of these notion. Free or no free will ?!
Moral responsibility
The question of free will is beyond human understanding. Does God have free will? If God is omnipotent, can He create a super-God (who is more powerful than God Himself)?
Free means not imposed. Will cannot be imposed, therefore, will is free. Determined does mean not mean imposed. The bewilderment with the issue of free will comes from missing this difference. When the misunderstanding is shown, the issue is not resolved. It is dissolved.
this is the Spinoza answer but I dont buy it.
That I'm not running right now does not mean I can't run.
That I don't exercise free will in a given instant or even over an extended period does not mean I can't exercise free will. To have free will means to do what is in one's will to do. It is independent of determinism and is dependent only on what one does according to one's personality, experiences and jugments. If something doesn't matter to the individual, free will isn't at issue. When it does matter and the individual makes a choice and acts accordingly, that demonstrates free will. That your choice is different than my choice and your friends and family would predict your choice as my friends and family would predict my choice further demonstrates that exercise of free will. The predictability itself demonstrates free will.
Some have claimed that you have to be able to choose differently, but that would demonstrate the opposite. No, free will is not choosing other than what you would choose but choosing and acting according to your will, and that is predictable.
Your will can't be free if it is determined by your gens, enviroment and conditioning what you like or dislike! Just like you didn't choose your parents, gender, height etc. you didn't choose the enviroment you were brought up, which shaped your conditioning and therefore your preferences ("will"=genes+conditioning). A psychopath didn't choose to have no brain structure for empathy and therefore he can't choose to have empathy like "normal" people have. Thats the whole point of determinism - everything is predictable - if one would know all causal effects at the time being, one could predict the future...your example of the parents/friends being able to predict the behavior just makes the point for determinism.
@@amorfati1990 I made no argument against determinism. My argument is for compatibilism. Free will does not imply your will is free. Free will is a term with a meaning different than the two words independent of each other. Free will is acting according to one's will without coercion. Freedom of the will is a different concept entirely. I make no argument for freedom of the will. My argument is that free will is compatible with (or independent of) determinism.
"Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants"
From "The 7 pillars of Wisdom", by T.E.Lawrence 1921.
I'm quite sure Arthur Schopenhauer said it earlier.
_Man can do what he will, but cannot will what he wills._
Free will is true and why their is such a big mystery at the heart of quantum mechanics and the apparent lack of local objective reality and seemingly infinite many worlds universe spawned with every possible quantum bifurcation.
The answer is in the DNA. It's code. You're the machine. You are asked what you want to have for dinner at the restaurant and your body just runs the code, analyses information and gives the answer. Free will to choose ham but free will to like ham too?
You can live your life with the assumption of determinism. All determinists do. Not having free will doesn't mean you stop acting altogether, that's a particular form of nihilism. And all determinists aren't hypocrites.
Because our behavior as living humans is no different than geological forces like earthquake.
But unlike the earthquake, we do _suffer._
A good discussion, but unfortunately Searle does not define 'free will'. He rejects compatabalism on the basis that his understanding of free will is different than how the compatabalist understands it. I wish he would have discussed this instead of simply simply calling compatabalism a 'cop-out'.
Exactly the problem with all the discussions of free will
Every individual is allowed to choose what God, in God's infinite wisdom and Love, might not choose.
Every individual is allowed to do something other than what God would do.
After all if an individual did not have free will, he or she would always choose what God would choose.
So free will by definition is the ability to choose something other than what God would choose.
In this way, God is able to explore and discover what happens when humankind make various choices; including unwise, unLoving and harmful choices.
What happens if every possible choice is allowed?
Philosophers are just smart people with way too much time on their hands. Philosophy often goes hand and hand with redundancy. Free will is defined not by philosophers or scientists; it is defined by the experience of the mind, a specific definition long-attached to the term "free will", a definition that cannot be debated unless the term is redefined, a definition that says: You have a choice. A choice being the effect of a cause is irrelevant; it is still a choice. Thus, free will.
Just because an experience is real doesn't mean the experience is OF something real.
If philosophy is stalled despite many years of all the aspects of a problem being understood, it's probably because the answer was already found but most philosophers aren't smart enough to understand it. There is only one true and correct answer to any problem, given sufficiently specific starting conditions, however many ways there are too approach it or phrase it.
It would have been nice to start defining some more precise meaning of "free"and "will", then assuming there's an agent gifted with free will and trying to analyze how does this agent comes to a decision down to the lowest level details: there could only be a completely deterministic process or some randomness somewhere. In the first case it wouldnt be considered completely free, in the second there wouldn't probably be an act of will...
"Will" operates at two different levels. Every living organism comes with a built-in purpose: to survive, to thrive, and to reproduce. We might call this a "biological will". Intelligent living organisms come with the ability to imagine more than one way to meet their survival needs (I can get my own apple or I can steal yours), evaluate them, and choose what they "will" do, based upon which option best suits their own purpose and their own reasons. The choice determines one's current "will" at that moment. Ordinarily we call a decision we make for ourselves "free will" to distinguish it from decisions forced upon us against our will ("Johnny, put on that coat or you can't go outside to play" or "Hand over your wallet or I'll put a bullet in your head"). When our will is subjugated by coercion or other undue influences, then it is not "free". The bit of nonsense in the historical paradox is the mental delusion that reliable causality is some kind of constraint upon our will. But it turns out that what we will inevitably do is exactly identical to us just being us, doing what we do, and choosing what we choose. There is no meaningful constraint, and therefore nothing we should feel any need to be free from. Still, some dumb philosopher got himself caught in this Chinese finger trap, and was faithfully followed down that rabbit hole by many of his cohorts. Apparently Dr. Searle is still suck in the finger trap.
Thanks! And yes, Searle is often trapped in this sort of things apparently.
Free = to be without limits to be without restriction to have no reason,
+Carlos Gomez
No, the term is "free will" and the two words together have a historical meaning different than the combined meanings of the separate words. It is the exercise of the will without coercion. Without coercion does not mean without constraint. We do have social pressures, duties and obligations. Those are not like a gun to the head or a threat of harm to a loved one which are coercive.
@@jaredprince4772 Constraints (even weak ones) do influence one's _path of least resistance._
@@beingsshepherd I have made no argument against constraints. My argument is for compatibilism.
@@jaredprince4772 I was arguing that constraints can be coercive. Consider a scenario where one is afforded a single path to salvation.
@@beingsshepherd You have it backward. Coercion can be constraining. Not the other way around. Your statement is like saying all rectangles are squares, which is false. All squares are rectangles is true. There is no salvation. Salvation is a false belief for people that have been taught to value ignorance over truth. Only they are taught the truth is false (the truth they don't know because of their pervasive ignorance), and they are taught lies and told the lies are truth. They don't know the difference because they are immersed in ignorance. They think they know truth, but they know nothing. They think they value truth, but what they think is truth is lies.
Free will is a feeling. The only thing we know about free will is that people feel it, and people understand one another when this feeling is expressed. Anything else is not true or false. It is nonsense. Free will is not determined. Determined will is not free. Isn't there a circularity of definitions here?
I really love how people easily dismiss philosophy while engaging in thousands of words' long philosophical rants on their own. And they can't even see it! Probably that lack of free will kicking just a little bit too hard.
Could the phenotype be the result of sexual selection?
Our will is determined by our stomachs.
+MrBeautifulba1 eat to live and not live to eat.
Free will is a notion a slave master believes he has and a slave knows absolutely no one has.
For humans, "free will" is not just based on determining certain decisions, or movements with the soma. "Free will" is determined by "becoming". So that even if a son's father is known to have been a murder, the son doesn't have to be like his father. Free will is about becoming the person that a human desires to become. It's not about choosing meals, entertainments, clothing, etc.
But the _desire_ will have taken form by historic experience of an insurmountably hostile world.
Just like wet clay in the hands of a sculptor.
One doesn't _spontaneously_ decide to be a serial killer.
To paraphrase Schopenhauer, You can do what you want but you can't choose what you want.
- UA-cam, Sabine Hossenfelder, You don’t have free will but don’t worry.
-UA-cam, Cosmic Skeptic, Why free will doesn’t exist.
@@beingsshepherd : Right. Choices with no causal antecedents would be random, without purpose, and likely have negative results.
@@lrvogt1257 Prisoners of circumstance, compelled to experience whatever this realm has in store.
Like being strapped into a particularly boring rollercoaster, designed by one's worst enemy.
@@lrvogt1257 If you're not of free will, then you're not "of becoming". You're simply are what your body is, and you make no determinations whatsoever about what you decide to embody and become. You're simply a biological robot, like the animals, with no free will and no awareness. You're just like them.
Free Will is Biblical term and not physical term. Free Will is about having choices to disobey god or obey god, if we had not free will, we would not be able to disobey god. Free Will is a spiritual term and has to do with ones soul, why we choose to be good rather than evil, why our choices are based on spiritual level. That is the meaning of Free Will, do we choose to forgive a person or do we not, do we choose to hate someone or do we not. That is the concept of Free Will. Because god created human as his image, thus allowing us humans to have a Free Will. If we did not have Free Will, we would not be able to choose whether we forgive a person or not, whether we hate someone or not, whether we love someone or not, etc.
I suggest a middle position between the two hypotheses.
We're free in many levels, until we reach a high, deep level where we can not control our thoughts and decisions independently.
We got the burden of responsibility in all these levels where we think freely, and in those other levels we are excused.
Bassam Yaghmour I don't even know if you are still using this account or still agree with this comment, but thank you for leaving it here for me to find. In this soup of deteeminists it was quite refreshing.
But one's thoughts (however navel-gazing) are *never* liberated from pressures: time, energy, mood, ignorance, priority etc.
Just because these coercions are at times less accutely-felt, doesn't mean that they're any less compelling.
@@beingsshepherd, you are correct. Freewill, just like "God", does NOT exist
@@newmankidman5763 Ah, but such a proclamation falls victim to the _observer effect._
As Heidegger argued: Being (i.e. God) is self-concealing; as one shines their conscious attention onto the subject, the subject is pushed into the shadows.
@@beingsshepherd, the "proclamation" that "God" does NOT exist?
If my choice was inevitable, then so was my choosing. My choosing was the final, responsible, prior cause of my choice. No causes prior to me can bypass me and bring about this choice without me. Any version of determinism that denies my role in bringing about this choice would be incomplete, and therefore false. For more, see marvinedwards.me/2019/03/08/free-will-whats-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/
Eu estou article in defense of free will, when I end, you is interested on read?
@@diadetediotedio6918 Sorry, but I can't make any promises to read anything. I've read quite a bit already. And the basic problem is not really that complicated.
What you are postulating would be the same as I state there is Intrinsic Contradictions and udder confusion among Islamic, Jewish, Christian and Buddhist theologies. Therefore it proves itself in the negative, when [god] is accepted common sense goes out the window. [Huge list of theologians] are the evidence. Dan Dennett - okay, sure.
da..se to vprasajte..kako izgleda cloveska transformacija..ki bo vedno boljsa in boljsa..dokler bo stabilna,dokler tega ne mora nihce zrusiti..
Anyone that thinks we have free will should be able to explain exactly what it is , exactly what it does and exactly where it is etc. The burden of proof should be on the people making the claim that we have free will as extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence and to say we have free will is definitely an extrodinary claim . Where in the brain is the mechanism for free will ? This is why this debate is a problem. Do we have free will in the womb ? Do we have free will once we're born ? Or maybe we get free will when we turn two or three ? What is this free will people speak of , sounds kinda interesting .
by the logic of the first line of your response? can you explain conciousness? or do you believe that we aren't concious?
Luke Morgan I have no idea what consciousness is lol.
if that's you're honest answer, then okay, if its instead a cheap snipe at my poor spelling... well then.
Your spelling appears to be flawless , and I'm definetely being honest about consciousness. Do you know what consciousness is?
don't pick him up on his spelling instead pick up the point that is made. Clearly you understood the word so spelling is not that important.
I don't wanna be the guy that claims that ultimately it boils down to language, but doesn't our current vocabulary seem obsolete? I am not siding with free will (unsufficiently caused "choices" made by agents), but determinism seems like a somewhat liberal use of the word "determined". If we speak about an event being determined, we are suggesting that the causal chain leading to its emergence is sufficiently known. Assuming there are no gaps in the causal chain, sufficient knowledge of any event eventually leads back to events for which the causes are unknown, or insufficiently understood. Of course that doesn't mean they are uncaused, but then what sense is there in refering to a a misunderstood phenomenon as a wholly determined event? I really don't think this distinction is trivial. In fact, I think the dislike some people have to the rejection of free will has to do with that: they confuse the idea that, at any time, there is only possible outcome with someday being able to tell exactly what that outcome will be, which I personally find unlikely.
The two sides are absolutely not incompatible. They're two sides of the same coin, yin/yang, as such: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p7hKimR4_lJS8cRWNUaEVgT0Dig9QZV1UWy_X2Kbneo/