Should we believe in free will? | Roger Penrose, Galen Strawson, Brian Greene, Daniel Dennett...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- Leading philosophers and scientists discuss whether free will is an illusion.
Featuring Roger Penrose, Galen Strawson, Brian Greene, Daniel Dennett, Hannah Dawson, Michael Shermer, Julian Baggini and Helen Steward.
00:00 Introduction
00:42 Galen Strawson
03:39 Hannah Dawson
07:59 Roger Penrose
12:07 Helen Steward
14:56 Daniel Dennett
18:44 Brian Greene & Michael Shermer
21:25 Julian Baggini
#DeterministicProcess #IsFreeWillAnIllusion #FreeWillAndTheSelf
Links to the debates and talks in order of appearance:
Galen Strawson - Free will is a necessary illusion (2022)
iai.tv/video/galen-strawson-f...
Hannah Dawson - In search of freedom (2020)
iai.tv/video/in-search-of-fre...
Sir Roger Penrose - In-depth Interview on Gravity and Quantum Mechanics
iai.tv/video/roger-penrose-in...
Helen Steward and Daniel Dennett - The freedom paradox (2020)
iai.tv/video/the-freedom-para...
Brian Greene and Michael Shermer - The end of everything (2022)
iai.tv/video/the-end-of-every...
Julian Baggini - In search of freedom (2020)
iai.tv/video/in-search-of-fre...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
What about you? Do you believe we have control over our actions? Or is causal determinism incompatible with the idea of free will? Let us know in the comments below! To watch those debates in full, you can head over to our main channel iai.tv/player?UA-cam&
How does a person discard their past so as to behave without its influence?
It’s really hard to talk about this subject because of how poorly worded it usually is. I don’t think that’s a shortcoming of the philosophers but more of our human nature/the nature of language.
I do not believe in ‘free will’. I do think ‘we’ have control over our actions but what the we, me, you and I amounts to is not what most people think it does, or at least it’s not your everyday kind of intuition for most people.
We can be described in countless ways. We have an intuition about what we are but this seems to be an evolutionary adaptation; a way to make sense of the world and cope with it. The sense of self is just as illusionary, if not more so than free will. It’s a way to describe things but it is by no mean the only way, or the most accurate.
Time and time again, science has demonstrated that objective reality very rarely reflects human intuitions. It’s rather absurd to assume it would really.
Also there’s just absolutely NO evidence for the existence of such a force. If one is asserting a claim, the burden of proof would fall onto that person. And the strongest argument people who claim that have is that they ‘feel’ they have free will.
Doesn’t cut it for me.
@@donaldmcronald8989 please teach me if you find out lol
I address these issues in a recent paper "A Rationalist Defense of Determinism" (Theoria, 2021). Thanks for the video.
@@AdaptiveApeHybrid
I think the illusion of free will is not so hard to define. I think it is the case that philosophers do a poor job on this score.
Roger is a gift to humanity
A brilliant and loving gift, at that 😇🎁☘️
I have respect for sir penrose too. But all he said was his opinion, and going by the number of "maybe" and "I don't know". I don't think you should take it as true.
He’s incredible
@@saimbhat6243 Indeed and I think he would encourage scepticism.
@@saimbhat6243 Everything they say is an opinion. Its just proven
Roger Penrose section was great - see how he played 'paper rock scissors' as a boy! An example of a true genius.
when i listen to free will discussions and debates i always imagine a group of scientists in the 1500s debating the true nature of reality well before gravity, relativity, electromagnetism, gravity, and QM had been formulated. I imagine they were confident in their positions and must have debated passionately; but in hindsight they didn't even know the right questions to ask much less what the answers to those questions might even begin to look like
Its still the same today, we focus on quantum gravity but we don't even have a proper quantum _theory_ just an amazing model with many different interpretations
It doesn't account for entropy, or energy (not fundamentally), quantum information (again, fundamentally, without simplifying it down to fit our models and use as a calculation variable), what even is spacetime, what's a measurement and if fails spectacularly when we try to move up in scales of complexity.
Pretty similar to a navier stokes in 3d, it's too complicated and we can't simplify it down into a precise model.
Even at the quantum level, we assume smooth wavefunctions and dismiss quantum vaccum fluctuations as if it weren't there at all, and that's so much worse than simply dismissing friction and air resistance, but we act as if it's just as negligible.
We don't know what matter is, what mass is, and there's no actual theory that predicts particles without having to use measurements.
If there's anything we learned about the true nature of reality is how little we know about it and how far we still are from even getting close to knowing anything truly fundamental about it.
We're still not asking the right questions, for that, physics is in dire need for philosophers to treat it more like natural philosophy instead of making models and simulating systems that we further explain without ever *really* knowing how the model is related to reality itself.
To this day, physics is about models, it's not abou the true nature of reality, and there is a point to that, relying on measurements and what we can actually observe and making it useful, so to do physics one _has_ to shut up and calculate.
But that is yet so extreme that anyone wanting to investigate the foundations of physics or the true nature of reality is deemed a fool and can't get a grant in the physics department, only in the philosophy department.
All of cosmology and theoretical physics are actually phylosophy, but not quite just that either, but physics is about measurement, what we are able to measure in the first place, what we can observe and the models and systems we construct from those observations.
We're never describing a real system, that's engineering, we explain platonically perfect models with no noise or chaos.
In college I've heard that physics isn't about the true nature of reality, but the information we get from it, from the same professors that told me to shut up and calculate, and they do got a point, physics as it is today is about that, is about our answers, not the questions.
And we've been stuck for 50 years with the same answers, along with the same doubts and so many more
We need new answers, we need a philosophical reformulation to physics itself, we need a quantum theory that is an actual theory, and maybe in a decade or so we might begin to ask the right questions once we start to realize how much we don't actually know instead of relying on castles built on sand that collapse more and more the further we go so we get nowhere.
The biggest delusion ever has been a "Theory of Everything", believing it exists and believing we're close to it at all(its not just string theory, mond, loop quantum gravity, they all overestimate the solidity of the foundations of modern physics)
If you go back to Heisenberg, you'll find that his principle of uncertainty was almost as universal, it's almost a proper theory, and further back you get that Heisenberg was inspired by Pierce's semiotics, so there's fundamental objective reality, how we see it and how we interpret it, and yet nowadays we still refuse to acknowledge our intrinsic biases and assumptions like "the measurement is a direct observation of reality" which isn't based off of anything at all besides classical mechanics.
All qm interpretations are misinterpretations, we need to build a proper theory of what happens beneath and beyond our measurements instead of jumping to conclusions like "measurement collapses the wavefunction and destroys superposition" because when you dig deep enough you find that there's no reason to assume that at all unless you're trying to simplify down quantum mechanics to a classical model, same with pilot wave, many words...
I suppose quantum mechanics has a truth that can be interpreted like that, but at the same time, interpretations don't describe reality as it is, not even as we see it, it describes how we think about it.
The confusion between those three aspects is precisely what allows mystical interpretations to arise, they're fundamentally just as bad as any other interpretation, they usually assume explicitly what Copenhagen assumes implicitly.
Quantum mechanics is deeper than that, it's more complicated than smooth wavefunctions and we need to acknowledge the triad by Pierce's semiotics, why do we put so much faith in systems where we pretend to know a "particle"'s momentum and position simultaneously? The uncertainty principle does actually say that models like that are fundamentally flawed! Pretending to know(and that we _could_ ever know) isn't knowing.
Quantum mechanics is much more fundamental than any description or interpretation about it. In which manner? If I didn't say enough already I could speculate further, but it's not on me to build a proper quantum *theory* , I _was_ working on a project called "Mathematical foundations of theoretical physics" strictly because I had the grant before I even had a project, but I ended up dropping out completely, so no matter how much I want to, it's not my job to do so(anymore).
I might just be a stupid frustrated psychotic drop out, but in my mind I'm simply more aware of the limitations of physics.
Definitely don't trust me and do your own research, what I write may even seem appealing but I have no authority whatsoever to be saying anything I said, It's just what I think and Id appreciate if anyone could correct me, bc I'll keep thinking like this until someone enlightens me on how I'm wrong(which I assume I am but am blinded as to how).
My whole point is that we're still in the very same situation, fiercely defending ideas based on little (when it comes to the true nature of reality). We're still very far from getting close to it, and that might be a permanent state, maybe the most fundamental truth is precisely uncertainty.
To the first guy: you can develop just as much of an emotional dependency on the idea of determinism. It can be comforting to believe that your actions cannot unfold any other way than they do. Or than they did. You can be less tormented by regrets and less freaked out by a universe where your choices matter.
Excellent point.
I have experienced samadhi where while walking to work one day, my consciousness shifted from the body to everything including empty space. This I know sounds crazy, but it is well known, has been written about for thousands of years. There was more to this experience, one was that because my consciousness had shifted from the body , I no longer experienced the body, foot steps were not felt, etc. I observed that the body went about and I was sort of a dumb passenger, like a person looking at a monitor and watching a streaming video from a drone, if the drone crashes you don't feel it however your visuals experienced are just that, dumb visuals. After the samadhi which lasted about 3 hours, insights come, I suppose you could say it is a matter of making sense of the experience, however ideas flow that were seemingly unrelated and also 180 degree flip from your usual paradigm.
That experience, of seeing the body going about without me in the driver seat, proved to me and everyone who experiences it, that the body is following a predetermined script. However here is something most don't understand about free will, we do have free will, and it has nothing at all to do with "doing", it is purely about your thoughts , you are free to respond mentally to any situation, your power is to understand this, and develop your "will" so that you can feel happiness by choice, not by needing some external experiences.
With all due respect to the experience you seemed to have Had, i must disagree with you on your final conclusion. What you Judged about the Body counts necessarily for the mind too. For free will means Something specific, and Not just the more or less capability to direct to this or that direction of thought, although it Brings much Freedom and Power with it probably. Everything related and causal is bound by necessity. Therefore the mind too, just by the laws of thought and the flow of causation in thought. One never decides what to think, concerning the arising of the thought itself, without antecedent, for it is Impossible.
All i have learned about samadhi and other such states in other contexts is, that all duality and relatedness vanishes. And it would need to do so, If it is supposed to be the ultimate experience.
Thank you all of you. Again I can see how wonderful and different we ,called humans ,are. I have chosen to be happy and responsible of my actions . I accept what everyone is saying as sign of respect. To LIVE is a constant challenge!!
Humanity is far from wonderful, it’s proven itself to be inherently evil and selfish over countless centuries.
This video strongly shows, more than anything else, that whether or not free-will exists seems to play second fiddle to the question as to whether or not academicians and media pundits are really, _really_ free to hold the position that it might...
😇😂👌
Has Dennett ever discussed free will with Robert Sapolsky? That would be a fascinating conversation.
I'd pay to see that, actually. I was watching Sapolsky prior to this video.
They just did recently if you're still interested! It's unlisted though for some reason, I found it by going through Sapolskys instagram story highlights
Yes they have had that conversation. Dennett admitted that he accepts Sapolsky's evidence for the chain of causality, but he still holds to the notion that free will somehow exists. I found his arguments very weak and unconvincing. More hand waving, and wishful imagining, than rigorously reasoned.
This is such a wonderful discussion, and I am still grappling with the ideas including what is meant by causal determinism which I believe might work in simple systems but would not work in complex systems. When I first read the title, I had thought immediately what a depressing thing to believe that there is no such thing as free will. My own view is that although we can say that classical mechanics has determinism built into it and quantum mechanics has probabilistic determinism built into and we can probably say similar things with some of the other sciences it would not be possible to extrapolate that to systems involve human beings because complex systems built out of simpler systems do not follow the same rules. Human beings live in a complex society of human interaction everywhere. Also, I would say that we all have free will. An example is that the vast majority of people would not hurt another human being and that is because they exercise the conscious choice to not hurt another human being. I do not believe that determinism comes into it.
The claim that "majority of people would not hurt another human being and that is because they exercise the conscious choice to not hurt another human being" is a dangerous fallacy that leads to belief in retribution in criminal punishment with implications like the support for punishments death penalty or life without parole. Most do not hurt other people because of inhibitory mechanisms in our brain, which interacts with social norms and under which we don't have any control.
@@mikhailpetrovich8657Very interesting. I agree with what you are saying regarding inhibitory mechanisms in our brain. I am positive that such mechanisms as you describe exist. You have some very good arguments regarding the criminal justice system and misuse of the argument of free will that I am unable to refute. However, I still thought we exercise free will! The inhibitory mechanisms narrow our choices! That is my current thinking.
Whether we have free will or not depends on how you define it. But for us to have free will it MUST be defined in a way compatible with determinism. This is because indeterminism cannot possibly make any difference. Also because the illusion that indeterminism could is only a mistake over what it is to have options we can select.
The thing is if we define free will in a way compatible with determinism we should take the consequences seriously. For me to make good choices next week, I need the universe to have been set up in the distance past so that the one physically possible future I can get to from there is to do so.
That is completely out of my hands and we should treat ourselves and each other accordingly.
This is why getting free will right matters.
I am very curious now about how freewill works within Roger's CCC theory. :)
Since basically the same happened in the previous universe and into the infinite past, you know the hawking radiation from black holes and the universe forgetting its size ie conformal geometry and starting a new big bang then it makes me think there is a fractal nature to this. And in fractals, you get self similarities. A fractal is quite similar to determinism because you can see a repeating pattern and predict that it'll be the same patten as it goes on. So, that being said, I've came to a conclusion that freewill is fractal like with the self similarity aspect. Free will may be determined BUT because of the self similarity then it is not determined to a high degree of determinism. For example, a galaxy contains many fractals ie its stars but they aren't exactly the same pattern, self similar patterns! You know, b stars, red giant stars to dwarf stars, neutron stars, etc. I think freewill is similar.
But then we have the block universe which just pretty much makes you ponder that free will doesn't exist at all. Past, present AND future all exist simultaneously in the block universe. I really like the analogy that our experience of time is like that of a DVD. We know the future events exist on the DVD. So, all our brains are doing is being a DVD player, constructing time passing linearly.
Though, I think freewill can still exist in a block universe, just not choices that are within the present because the choice you made tomorrow is already set in stone. It has already happened just like the ending of a movie has already happened even though you're only at the start of a movie.
So, how could freewill work in this? I don't know but I will assume that we must have made those choices otherwise how would they be set in stone? It makes me ponder that there must be another you in the future in your future present. Or, we must take into consideration that space-time is just so bizarre and that somehow when the big bang happened events were recorded from the previous aeon like information stored in dna. With Roger's ccc theory this would makes sense since the previous aeon prior to this one and the one before it and the one before that one was self similar, so events in those previous universes, ie our lives were also self similar. This must be true because in ccc theory each time a new aeon arises, the conditions had to be similar for hawking radiation to evaporate from the last supermassive black holes and subsequently that hawking radiation and the conformal geometry is what starts a new big bang. Maybe this is why we experience dejavu! So, our choices were made in the past!
Very interesting thoughts 💭☘️💖
@@Self-Duality Thank you
No matter what we choose, our choices are informed by our past experiences, and by our limited ability to see the long-term effects of our choices, and by whatever did or did not occur to us, or what we happened to remember or not.
Don't forget that you have the time and space relativity to contend with as well as the concept of free will or determinism ratteling around in your mind. That takes up a few cycles of processing time if you let it.
The problem of free will is exactly the same as the hard problem of consciousness.
What is the need for us to be conscious if life is governed by deterministic laws of physics?
Yes, that's a valid point. But I guess I would say the difference between the two is that I only rarely feel like I have free will, but I am_always_ conscious that I am conscious.
I don't think so. Why we're conscious is not obvious.
Being able to select from options by thinking about possible consequences of different courses of action is clearly advantages in a deterministic universe.
@@stephenlawrence4821 machines select from options using logarithms, what is the need for us to be conscious to think?
@@BiswarupRay
I'm not sure about the need for conscious. All I said was the need for selecting from options is obvious. Yes machines do it.
i agree with your point
Hannah is clueless about this issue. "We know we are free because we feel free." 🤪
Another reason I have for thinking we don’t really have free will is that it is actually a silly self-referentially incoherent idea. If we have free will, we don’t really choose to have it. If we turn to free will itself and reflect on how we come to have it, we realize that we really have no control over having or not having it. We have no choice but to have it. In other words, free will itself is determined, which makes the idea self-referentially incoherent. It cannot be true both that we have free will and that free will is determined.
How is this topic not popular enough? Isn't this related wholly to the way we perceive the world in general and human beings in particular?
It depends on what's meant by free will.
If it only means that no one else can force you to behave the way they want you to behave, that's true for the moment, but is subject to change when upcoming discoveries in neuroscience are weaponized into tools of mind control.
If it refers to something more fundamental, free will would require something "supernatural" or outside the known laws of physics. If the universe is entirely deterministic then there can't be a fundamental free will. If the universe is deterministic except for the quantum randomness accepted in many interpretations of quantum mechanics, that too doesn't allow for free will because random choices aren't free choices.
It wouldn't make much sense to change the justice system to not hold anyone accountable for their behavior based on the conclusion that their behavior isn't free. This is because the knowledge that you're likely to be sufficiently punished constrains the behavior of most people. Similarly, knowledge of one's dependency on other people and belief that people will reward good behaviors and shun bad behaviors constrains the behavior of most people.
"If it refers to something more fundamental, free will would require something "supernatural" or outside the known laws of physics." Like consciousness? Inner experience of stimuli? A random chemical reaction does not feel or experience, nor does a computer, but magically, a brain does? Complex information processing you might say, but that explains literally nothing. For complex experience to have been born out of complex information processing, there must have been inner experience and constituents thereof in the first place - the only physicalist explanation, paradoxically, requires panpsychism to work.
@@Filioush : Consciousness has not yet been explained and seems mysterious. But that doesn't imply it's supernatural. Nor that everything is conscious, as panpsychism boldly asserts.
@@Filioush the term inner experience also explains literally nothing
@@AdaptiveApeHybrid How so? I mean we can use qualia or something else if you prefer that, the fact of the matter is that the thing these terms refer to exists. In what way do you think these terms are insufficient/wrong?
@@brothermine2292
"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
Your own statement was that free will would "require something "supernatural" or outside the known laws of physics", and consciousness does satisfy exactly this - it is outside the known laws of physics and by many definitions could be seen as supernatural. The closest we have gotten so far is measuring correlates of in-brain consciousness through EEG, but that gets us literally no closer, because we still have no idea why or how there are sensations being experienced by what, according to some, should be just a complex biological computer.
"Nor that everything is conscious, as panpsychism boldly asserts."
Well, then you are more than free to take apart my arguments for why the physicalist explanation implies panpsychism and explain how they can work without it. Surely you won't have any problems with that, seeing as you already know panpsychism is not implied, right?
Yes
The statement "You do what you do because you are who you are" is not a proof against free will - rather, it merely points out limits to free will. It is the same statement as, "You cannot flap your arms and fly like a bird does."
There is no free will. Saying that free will exists is like saying that a Trabant and a Porsche could both have a speed of 300 km/h.
OUR CHOICES WERE MADE IN THE PAST. Past, present AND future all exist simultaneously in the block universe. I really like the analogy that our experience of time is like that of a DVD. We know the future events exist on the DVD. So, all our brains are doing is being a DVD player, constructing time passing linearly.
Though, I think freewill can still exist in a block universe, just not choices that are within the present because the choice you made tomorrow is already set in stone. It has already happened just like the ending of a movie has already happened even though you're only at the start of a movie.
So, how could freewill work in this? I don't know but I will assume that we must have made those choices otherwise how would they be set in stone? It makes me ponder that there must be another you in the future in your future present. Or, we must take into consideration that space-time is just so bizarre and that somehow when the big bang happened events were recorded from the previous aeon like information stored in dna. With Roger's ccc theory this would makes sense since the previous aeon prior to this one and the one before it and the one before that one was self similar, so events in those previous universes, ie our lives were also self similar. This must be true because in ccc theory each time a new aeon arises, the conditions had to be similar for hawking radiation to evaporate from the last supermassive black holes and subsequently that hawking radiation and the conformal geometry is what starts a new big bang. Maybe this is why we experience dejavu! So, our choices were made in the past!
I didn't read the whole comment but it made me think. You do have freewill in the present if you consider the ripple effects far into the future. I would use driving a car to illustrate. You have freewill when you decide your ultimate destination far down the road but not in the second to second steering adjustments. Considering time as a block helped me conceptualize the idea. Now I will read the whole post.
The block isn't real but is a useful concept.
I guess you could say it is real because it exists as a concept in mind. Projecting that concept into the future guides our decisions so the block has real effects. Its a place holder. It's a blank writable DVD.
What is wired right? What is the fundamental difference between a person with a tumor and one without one?
Free will is an emotion, a feeling. Saying "Should we believe in free will?" is like saying "Should we believe in jealousy?", it's a useless question. But also not useless, there's a use for every question. Behind every question is a person looking for the truth. I don't know if we have free will, but it's worth questioning.
what is it if not physical? If physical then it is determined . QED
One of the chesscomputer wins, because it makes better choices. Also the chesscomputer hat free will.... :)
The possibility of choice does not necessarily mean that free will exists.
Responsibility is limited to some extent. The judiciary does not "punish", but on the one hand protects society, and on the other hand it manipulates the future decisions of the perpetrator and the decisions of others on the basis of consequences.
Do I misunderstand her, or did Hannah Dawson defend the technical claim of determinism by appealing to her experience of choosing chocolate over celery and following her mother’s career? If so, is her argument refuted by examples of people who don’t follow their parents’ career paths? What of someone making a choice between brownies and chocolate chip cookies? (I understand that in the main she is arguing that we should behave as if we have freedom.)
I think her examples are of wanting to choose one thing but ending up choosing the other despite this want.
The definition of living intelligent beings requires free will. The definition of ethical moral values requires free will. The definition of reasoning requires free will. The definition of wisdom requires free will. The definition of rational decision making requires free will.
The problem we are really having over free will is not that it exists, because it overwhelmingly obviously exists just like the Earth exists. The real problem is what people define free will to be.
If you define free will as something that free will is not, defining free will as something which does not exist, than that INCORRECT DEFINITION does not exist.
People get into this mode of thinking that existence is 100% deterministic and that means there is no free will... but existence is NOT 100% deterministic, it is a balance of determinism and uncertainty where both are required for existence to exist and neither can exist without the other within a whole existence.
Related to this is getting into a mode of thinking that if existence is not 100% deterministic then it must be 100% non-deterministic which would be 100% random... but existence is NOT 100% non-deterministic, it is a balance of determinism and uncertainty where both are required for existence to exist and neither can exist without the other within a whole existence.
Similar to this is where people get into thinking that if our thinking and decision making is completely bound within the material matter/energy existence controlled by the Laws of Nature, that means free will can't exist. That in order for free will to exist we must be able to make decisions without being bound by the Laws of Nature, thus either out free will comes from a supernatural source like God or we do not have free will. But, that is not just wrong, it is silly wrong. It is like saying the Earth can only exist if God created it and if God didn't create the Earth then the Earth can't exist just within the Laws of Nature. Sorry, but free will is an overwhelmingly observed and used phenomena that its existence is as certain as the existence of the Earth... the problem arises when people define free will as something that is NOT free will.
From systems of elementary particles in the Observable Universe prior to the first matter like protons, neutrons, hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, and such; there is a combination of determinism and uncertainty that bubbles up thru all scales of existence to the whole of the Observable Universe and probably beyond what we can observe. The development of increasingly complex living intelligent systems arise from, evolve from, and exist within being systems of elementary particles obeying the Laws of Nature which include a balance of determinism and uncertainty.
Free will is the ability of a defined bounded intelligent system being able to make decisions it can make without an unreasonable degree of external influence upon that defined bounded intelligent system upon the decision being made. The uncertainty involved within the systems means that defined bounded intelligent systems can make decisions which were not deterministically decided from the point of creation. The growth of complexity in intelligence is around the building of increasingly complex systems which take advantage of both the determinism and uncertainty within a system to make decisions which are not 100% determined but are also not 100% random, rather those decisions are intelligently made.
If you do not believe in free will, but that everything is deterministic, then you must accept that your belief in determinism is not a result of a logical analysis of evidence, but predetermined. Therefore your argument is moot and just a rationalization of a predetermined outcome. This alone does not render the argument false, however it would apply equally to those proposing the opposite view. This would lead to the supposition that no point of view on any issue can be justified.
While have free will (nature), is it better to look at things through causation for greater effect on world and people? Everything and everyone is an agent of causation?
I have defended Strawson's argument from objections in "Concerning the Resilience of Galen Strawson's Basic Argument" (Phil Studies, 2011). I have offered a defense of hard determinism in "A Rationalist Defense of Determinism" (Theoria, 2021)
What he means by "we do what we do because of what we're"?
Does he mean that he says what he says because of his eyes? Or because of his skin color?
This premice is not clear at all.
Interesting, but the bigger question is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Be life is free will.
Subject great.
The only reason we feel like we have free will is because we do not know what the future is. So, the feeling comes from our ignorance.
The mechanics of it all is deterministic and we have no insight into the details.
How do you know these things if you are ignorant and have no insights into the details?
@@Adm_Guirk we have insight into the building blocks of our very being (molecules) and we have a clear understanding as to how they operate. Neuroscience can help us identify and recognize how the details work even though we ourselves cant figure it out on our own. Other individuals (researchers) watching us can have insight into the details as they can look at our brains, and physists can look at our molecules. Hope this made sense
@@davidodetola780 You confuse the map for the territory. You're not even talking about the finer scale map. Those are quantum. Molecules are theoretical entities that are useful in making predictions. You can't explain consciousness in terms of brain activity. You can only find correlations. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Hope that helps.
Maybe its a case of Newtonian/Einstein gravity vs Quantum gravity.
On a large scale, the Universe is deterministic, but on small scales, determinism breaks down into free will.
No-one really knows if we live in a determinate universe therefore to act as if we have freewill is the effective path.
Isn't Consciousness an epiphenomenon of complex arrangement(or not, to include panpsychism as a possibility) of matter?
It all depends on who you ask, physicists or non-phycist
Whether free will exists is moot. We all naturally act as if we do. It would totally UNnatural/forced to act otherwise.
I agree with Hannah Dawson. Never mind if it is or isn't get on with improving the world.
If you take chess players may have a choice to say move a pawn or a piece but those choices are never free they are contained by the laws of the game and so it is with life. I use chess because Roger's Brother was 9 times British Chess Champion no mean feat.
There is a confusion of assuming an undefined meaning. You being free to walk wherever you want is limited by where you can be. You can only be free to walk on the moon if you have the means to get to the moon. Freedom is within choice, ability and resources at a point in time. We are free to procrastinate in the hope of favourable change in circumstances. Whether or not we have the ability to change the circumstances is predetermined.
indeed, the notion of choices free of all constraints is entirely incoherent. the constraints constitute the possibiity of choice (if such indeed exists). on the other side of the issue, no choice we feel we have made can be demonstrated NOT to have been predetermined by our constitution and situation. to do so would require actuallty being able to choose both of two incompatible options. thus the choice vs determinism dichotomy is likewise incoherently formulated. pseudoproblem begone!
This conversation is void of discussion around who or what makes decisions. There is no black box inside our minds determining the best action between 2 thoughts just another set of thoughts. There is only thought.
One of the best bits of advice I ever received from my late father was to listen to what people say, but also to carefully watch how they act. He said that if if there is any discrepancy between the things they say and the things they do, their true convictions can be discerned from the latter. Have you every met anyone who ACTS as if free will doesn't exist? No? Neither have I.
What would acting as if free will doesn't exist be like???
@@stephenlawrence4821 Being impulsive and acting without forethought. To not consider the consequences of your actions beforehand.
@@Adm_Guirk
Sounds to me like you're thinking about how somebody would behave if they didn't believe in consequences of their actions.
I don't believe in free will but I believe in consequences. I'd call myself a consequentialist determinist.
@@stephenlawrence4821 Do you believe your knowledge of future consequences effects the choices you make?
@@Adm_Guirk
Absolutely! I have wants for the future and I have some Idea of what actions are likely to produce better or worse futures, that is how I work out which option to select.
"Should we believe in free will?"
We should fix our beliefs on the basis of evidence. The very best evidence we have is that everything in the universe operates on the basis of causality. Every event occurs because of the strict chain of causality going back to the Big Bang. Where in that chain is there a gap in which can be inserted an action or event that is "free" of its preceding causality, an uncaused cause? I find belief in free will comparable to believing in angels, a mythical idea outside the boundaries of our physical universe. It might be a comforting belief for some, but has no rational or evidentiary basis.
I will agree that we have freedom of 'Choice' only if we have freedom to manufacture that 'Choice.'
I think before we make claims we need to discover the theory of everything that explains everything so idk if the universe has free will or is deterministic, it wouldn’t change any thing about our lives, but all I care about is making society better and telling people they don’t have control over their lives is not the right way to go about. I think this is where science turns into scientism.
Do we have a choice?
I find Sam Harris's arguments against free will more convincing than all the others so far.
Seems there are some scientist that are forced to speak about free will, and there are others who just speak about free will. :-)
After having listened to Hannah Dawson, we are all a little stupider.
Quantum mechanics doesn’t equal free will neither does random.
Free Will is compatable only to personality, that is the attainment of all seven levels of concious mind through to the levels of worship and wisdom, which is what separates mankind from the animal kingdom. These seven evolutionary conscious levels of mind involve, firstly withe instinct, then to understanding, then courage to knowledge, and from council (as attained in the animal world as herds, schools, flocks and so forth) and then onto whorshp and wisdom... The Urantia Book.
"Will" asserts its existence, yet is a cipher by itself, not necessarily even a thing, being dependent on context, and context shifts like a blob of mercury, contingent on its particular conditions at any point. "Free" has an opposite, a binary, i.e. 'unfree', which gives multiple different shapes to "free" depending on multiple contexts. There is no stillness, tho we have an abiding longing for it, and tho language transacts trade with it
The ability to have done otherwise is what matters to me. We don't appear to have that, therefore we don't have free will.
More precisely we don't appear to be able to verify if we really could have done otherwise as we cannot go back in time. The matter shall remain unresolved but we can still debate about it
@@vjnt1star debating does pass the time.
@@vjnt1star I think it's like god. Yes, we can't totally disprove him no matter how much we discover, but we never see him, so I'd say it's reasonable to say he doesn't exist. We never see alternatives to what we did just like we never see god. We only imagine.
@@vjnt1star
I looked in my cupboard for coffee. It could have been there. But it wasn't. I can't verify if it really could have been there in those exact circumstances, with the past prior to opening the cupboard exactly as it was.
But I know I don't need to because I know that is not what I mean by it could have been there.
All we need to do is interpret "could have" correctly. It's that simple.
@@vjnt1star isn't it a screaming hint at the true nature of reality that the very definition of free will, this idea that "you could have done differently," is itself utterly rejected by reality?
If you can prove that a person can think about thinking a thought before they think it, or resist thinking a thought before they think it, I'd happily subscribe to "free will."
Your example has nothing to do with free will
@@JHeb_ If you are not the willful author of your thoughts and can't control feelings, you can't claim free will.
Yes.
the only people who believe in free will are those that doesn't yet know enough about the topic, which is the case for most people
Free will is outside the scope of science. Science makes quantifiable predictions about the phenomena we observe but has no theory about the mind and what exists beyond phenomena. Dennett added some nuance with the idea that we need to be able to make predictions about the possible outcomes to choose between alternatives. Knowledge of deterministic laws is required to will a particular outcome into existence. A pitcher has to understand the laws of motion to throw a curveball that hits the strike zone.
You are correct that science has no theory about what lies external to our universe. I would take some issue with your other points, however, and if _any_ pitcher in the world series knows the laws of motion then I'll eat my hat! I assume you disagree with causality and reductionism, and so believe that you are free to think whatever you may so wish. Fair enough, well then I'll ask you to demonstrate this free will for me, just once. Take an egg timer and set it for one minute, sit down in a comfortable chair, and just stop thinking till you hear the time is up. Easy, right? Yeah, I thought so.
You are correct that science has no theory about what lies external to our universe. I would take some issue with your other points, however, and if _any_ pitcher in the world series knows the laws of motion then I'll eat my hat! I assume you disagree with causality and reductionism, and so believe that you are free to think whatever you may so wish. Fair enough, well then I'll ask you to demonstrate this free will for me, just once. Take an egg timer and set it for one minute, sit down in a comfortable chair, and just stop thinking till you hear the time is up. Easy, right? Yeah, I thought so.
@@simesaid That the brain keeps constantly serving you new thoughts for you to act upon is a known fact, it however does not in any way disprove the conception of free will and the idea that there is some "you" irreducible to reactions within the brain that then acts/decides on the thoughts served to it.
@@simesaid
"You are correct that science has no theory about what lies external to our universe."
That's not what I said. I said "beyond phenomena" which is what we observe in the universe through our perceptual apparatus, our senses. I will let you consider what is beyond phenomena that is in our universe. Google noumena if you need hints. There is nothing external to the universe as I define it. The universe is everything. It's the All.
"if any pitcher in the world series knows the laws of motion then I'll eat my hat!"
When a pitcher throws a curveball they add angular momentum to the ball before the release so it doesn't go in a straight line. That's the second law. Ranch will help that hat go down easy.
"I assume you disagree with causality and reductionism"
You assume wrong. If you use your knowledge of deterministic laws as I already mentioned to act out your will than you are causing an effect in reality that was intended beforehand. You hit the target that you were aiming at. You were the agent of causality. I am a reductionist. I just know my reduction base is different than yours.
This is what I mean by freewill but some may disagree with my definition. You are not free to will anything you want into existance. There are obvious limits but you are free to decide what you will. I am not a skilled meditator but I believe people who are can stop thinking intentionally or at least stop putting attention on thoughts for a period of time. Time's up.
@@Filioush it’s not disproven but where is the evidence?
We have free will within several constraints, genetics, life experiences, and unknown influences on our decisions and choices. The criterion of "Could I have done differently" is not demonstrable and therefore speculative. The neural networks that make up who we are, our perceived identity (self) have the ability to interrupt deterministic propensities and emotional pressures to make a selection/decision under the stated constraints.
Even then, you cannot account for your own power to "interrupt deterministic propensities."
@@alf9708 I think a set of experiments could demonstrate it. More problematic is that that is doing the interrupting.
It's all about could have done otherwise. What people believe is they have options they "can" select, past tense "could have" selected. When we blame, were upset largely because a person could have done what he should have done.
That is the subject.
@@stephenlawrence4821 Once you make a decision and act on it, you cannot reverse time and demonstrate that you could have done otherwise. You can reflect on it and declare, "I should have decided and acted otherwise."
@@georgegrubbs2966
It depends how you interpret "could have".
What we should do is assume determinism. So assume we could not have done otherwise in the actual circumstances with exactly the same past.
Do you think free will is compatible with that???
Free will isn't that you have choice but that you think you have a choice
You mean we can choose whether we should believe in free will?
There are three kinds of actions:
1. Inevitable and unavoidable actions that will certainly happen because there are certain events that are bound to happen
2. Semi certain actions whose occurrence is dependent on something else happening or not happening
3. Actions that are totally free to happen or to not happen
Exersise of free will is dependent on the circumstance of the action.
But then this is the enigma of free will, isn't it? How can you ever have a thought that doesn't arise because of one that came before it? Or, to put it another way, is quantum indeterminacy sufficient 'freedom' for us to escape determinism?
@@simesaid probabilities in the quantum world allows enough leeway or flexibility to consciousness to exercise some degree of free will in our everyday life.
When physicists hear the word free will they think of absolute free will that defies the laws of physics. Obviously that is not possible. At the same time it is not true that 100% of events that happen in the universe are deterministic in nature.
@@BiswarupRay "...it is not true that 100% of events ...are deterministic..." Mr. Hammer, meet Mr. Nailhead. That's the point. _No_ events in the Universe can, even in principle, be determined. Case in point: the decay of a free neutron in the 12 minutes or so it takes on average. Or anything else involving the Weak nuclear force which always involves a neutrino. Determinism (and quantum mechanics) requires a fixed number of spatial dimensions -- namely three. The proposal is that neutrino interactions take place at the boundary of our holographic Universe with an undefined number of dimensions. An even stronger requirement is that something that is deterministic can be simulated. However, Ringel and Korvizhini showed in 2016 that the quantum Hall effect cannot be simulated. And Penrose, in "The Emperor's New Mind," argued that neither can consciousness. He uses by example Goodstein's Theorem, which cannot be proven algorithmically; that is, by a computer or even the most elaborate neural network the size of the Universe. A too-short explanation is that it requires "reasoning about reasoning," the idea that you can know a system of logic is correct but can't use that system to prove the Theorem, and yet, by knowing _that_ the system is correct, you can. Penrose calls this "understanding." This is Turing's computational interpretation of Gödel's Incompleteness theorems. Goodstein's Theorem (called a "Gödel theorem" for that reason) uses transfinite ordinals, which is a meticulous infinite ordering of ordered infinities. Look up John Conway's game-theory-based surreal numbers and the game of Hackenbush.
Penrose is too gentle here in his conclusions; in a video conference with researchers on his last birthday, I think he and others made it clear that free will _is_ a demonstrable, testable, falsifiable, physical reality. What he did _not_ say in _this_ video is that, along with objective gravitational collapse of the wavefunction, our _memory_ of events is actually of those that took place about 1/3 of a second in the past. That is, what we perceive as "now" is a little less than a half-second ago. The gap in between the event hitting our lizard-brain cerebellum at the back of our head and the bouncing off the front back to the giant pyramidal cells of the cerebrum across the top is _not_ deterministic and _is_ the basis our free will.
@@johnjamesbaldridge867 There is no way Penrose said he proved free will. Stop deluding yourself.
@@alf9708 Are you sure? Did you choose to believe that? Or are you deluded? How would you know the difference? Can one delude oneself or must one be deluded by others? He did say this, or at least words to that effect. I'm referring to a three-part webinar series starting with "Roger Penrose - Webinar - Day 1" by "The Science of Consciousness - Conference - CCS." It's a natural consequence of Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR). On the other hand, I didn't say he _proved_ free will, and, I suppose you are right that neither did he. Instead, if experimentally demonstrated quantum superposition can be shown to be a fundamental component of "proto-consciousness," then free will is the natural and unavoidable consequence of that. But he's already certain it must be true. The _understanding_ of Goodstein's Theorem _requires_ nondeterminism. My own opinion is that you don't need to go that far. The simple fact that you can't predict the future combined with the unavoidability of nondeterministic accidental events in your life is enough to show that no other alternative exists when it comes to making choices.
It doesn't matter whether the universe is strictly deterministic or not, because Laplace's Demon isn't real. You can’t do the calculations because you cannot know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe, and there isn’t enough matter in the universe to encode all that information. Besides, where do you draw the system boundary for the human mind?
Brian Greene hedges the argument with his probability calculation. He's a sharp guy, and I have great respect for his intellect, but I'm calling BS on that one. There is no calculus of neuronal impulses that makes any sense because there is no quantum coherence at the neuronal scale. Sir Roger hypothesizes that microtubules can support quantum coherence, but those are much smaller than neurons.
But you’re still left with the problem of doing calculations…but with what equations? There is no physics that connects quantum states at the microtubule scale with the macroscopic phenomenon of human behavior vis a vis choice and its motivations. You can speculate that such a physics could possibly be developed, but you’d be wrong. The reason is rooted in Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.
Haven't any of these people heard of *_complexity?_* Sheesh...the notion that the behavior of a system as complex as the human brain can be modeled by finite, deterministic algorithms is just plain silly. I'm not saying that it's not deterministic (or that it is); I'm saying that there is no way to model it algorithmically in any way that will produce correct predictions consistently. And anyway, it's irrelevant.
The reason it’s irrelevant is because the only choices that matter are moral ones. Daniel Dennett dances around it, but he doesn’t have an absolute standard of rightness, so he sort of bumps into it and then bounces off it and wanders off somewhere. Here’s the key point: It doesn’t matter whether we have free will. The only thing that matters is that we *_do_* have *_free won’t._*
That is, we have the ability to choose not to interfere with others against their will, and they have the same choice. That is how morality is defined. If everyone left everyone else alone, there would be no immoral behavior. The great problem of human civilization is coercion-interference with the lives and property of others against their will. We can choose *_not_* to do that. *_Free won’t._*
I presume that I have free will, but I can’t prove it, so I’m not losing any sleep over it. But I know for an absolute fact that I have free won’t. That’s what really matters.
Criminal in the dock to judge, "I happen to know you don't believe in free will so how can you convict me when you know I had no true choice in my actions?" Judge to criminal, "How can you question my judgement when you know I had no true choice but to convict you?!"
No need for a justification like that. The actions of the criminal tell us about what he was predisposed (predetermined, whatever) to do - and what he is likely to do in the future under comparable circumstances. We still need to protect the rest of society from the harm he is likely to cause.
The difference would be _how_ we treat criminals, that we'll see their imprisonment as a necessary evil, and that we'll hopefully get rid of the "revenge" mindset as much as possible. Sure, it helped us build a societal system with consequences for unwanted behaviour, but it _is_ a shortcut, one with pretty horrible consequences in far too many cases. We'll probably never get rid of that instinct, but we can be aware of it and do our best to not _act_ upon it - and for that, taking into account the lack of free will should help a lot.
Listening to Penrose, I think suddenly that free will could perhaps be a basic part of the universe. Some commenter on youtube suggested that the outcome of the double split experiment can be explained too with accepting that every particle makes a choice where to go. That sounds ridiculous because we feel a particle has no ego. It probably hasn't , but still perhaps some spark of choice. A choice is then decoupled from intelligence or perhaps even consciousness. It is "something else".
Suppose quantum particles "decide", then we don't, cause we didn't decide what they chose.
@@AlvaroALorite we are particles, so in a way we did choose
Should we believe what is true? Or should we believe what is false? Answer this for yourself and you have your answer to the question of the video title.
Yes.
There is no Freedom. That is an Ideal. There are particular freedoms limited by necessities. There are individuals with different levels of character. There are societal arrangements in place which allow individuals to blossom more and there are others that make it difficult to realise one's potential. There are rich and there are poor and there are those with political power and those with less, even a lot less political power. Entropy exists until we run out of time, until there is no more space/time.
Free will exists. How? Human beings can create reasons for action, which explain the choice why an action was taken. There is nothing about pointing towards the way the person is psycho-biologically constituted, or the situation he is in, that can determine such reasons, because they are simply created within the being as a type of practical creative guess of what to do.
How does having an explanation for one's choice imply that a different choice could have been made? We can explain how gravity causes an apple to fall, but no alternative is possible.
@@brothermine2292 I do not think it is meant to be defined in a way that free will requires ability to do otherwise in the comment. But most of the people seems to understand free will as ability to do otherwise and do not want to satisfy with the definitions excluding this feature.
belief is faulty
Hannah "Screw the Metaphysics" Dawson.
You don't have to believe in it we all have it because God wanted all of us to have it.
I think what Julian is struggling with is that some people are able to see through his semantic games, and others are not.
It seems dennett is confusing wise choices with free choices, suppose god controls dennett's actions while dennett is playing chess and suppose that dennett is very clever at chess and he computes chess moves very well,now look god does the moves for dennett and dennett thinks that those moves chosen by god are optimal,it follows then according to dan dennett that dennett is free in his choices.
But that seems false.
Has anyone ever done what they could have done rather than what they did?
Consciousness is an illusion, therefore free will is part of that illusion. Consciousness is akin to the image one sees on a television screen. Did Seinfeld's choice reflect the existence of free will. No, his actions were that of an actor following a script on a television show. "Free will" was merely a portrayal. Consciousness too is a portrayal provided to us by our big brains. The meat brain is as blissfully unaware of its own portrayal as it is unaware of each constituent brain cell. No consciousness involved. We only think otherwise because we are scripted to do so.
Lower volume of horrid jingle. TOO LOUD!!!!!!
Hannah Dawson speaks about freedom compatible with determinism which is great.
But therefore we do not have to "screw the metaphysics" at all. We can deny freedom incompatible with determinism and focus on freedom compatible with determinism which would be a tremendous improvement.
Cosmos=quantum potential (Dirac)! Life=molecular one(Dawkins)! Consciousness=memetic one (Dennet)!
the woman is absolutely wrong about hume. it is the exact opposite. hume questioned cause and effect. he was a skeptic in the modern use of the word. he argued we can never really know if a causes b at all. we just think it does bc that is what we've experienced.
I just can't believe we don't have free will, I'm determined to believe in it lol
No ... just free Willy damn it ...!
First comment was like zeno's paradox, it was fallacy. You are responsible every moment to become what you are in the next moment, you are a construction.
He was by far the worst commentator IMO lol
I think he was getting at much of who we are is imposed on us by our genetics, epi-genetics, environment, upbringing, time and place you exist... no free will there and they all have a huge influence on who you are and the choices you make.
You had the free will to misspell physicist as "phycisist" :-)
Almighty God gave the Gift of FREEWILL to all His Angels (Spiritual beings) and Humankind (physical beings)... The Gift of Freewill was FREELY given by God without any price tag, but with the attached CONSEQUENCES... to choose and do GOOD (adj.), we will be rewarded... while to choose and do Evil (adj.), we will be punished... based upon through both the Law of Man here on Earth and with the Law of God/Christ in the Kingdom of Heaven or in Fire of Hell...
sovereign God's free will kingdom provides people conscious substantive choice
Appeal to mysticism doesn't solve the question, it just pushes the mystery back a step
I honestly think Galen Strawson has cracked the code. He makes complete sense to me. Dan Dennett seems to be playing word games and being sneaky.
Brian Greene certainly doesn’t have free will. He chose to give it up to his belief that it doesn’t exist. I find hard determinists to be the most intellectually rude and hypocritical people I have met.
what do you truly want really?
everything in the universe is just the inevitable result of inter actions between particles and molecules bouncing off of each other
whenever two atoms of elementary particles collide their bits flip, spin up, spin down. do they really want to do that?
isn't it simply because the conservation of angular momentum, the total spin needs to be conserved.
which means that if one is spin up, the other needs to be spin down. thus their bits inevitably flip
there's no fundamental difference between what elementary particles do and what us, humans do
do you truly want to watch youtube videos?
considering your inter actions with youtube, essentially you're just reacting to videos on youtube that might actually be made before you're even born
youtube knows what you want to watch and also knows what you don't want to watch *before you even willed anything*
Is Dobby really free?
We have access to free will at certain crossroads moments of our lives. . otherwise, our whole life is predetermined, we play according to a script written by a supermind and only from time to time, we are allowed to choose... we choose well, we pass the class, we choose wrong,we repeat it ...
sovereign God presents substantive choice for federal hegemony
We don't live in a deterministic universe. We live in a universe that features reliable causation. This means that the interaction of particles does not determine what happens at the macroscopic level, but instead, that macroscopic active creatures can use reliable causation to move through the world with knowledge and intention.
So the state of your neurons has only a tangential effect on your behaviour? What else is there that determines your next thought or action?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not convinced that we do live in a fully deterministic universe, quantum theory may in fact bring an element of actual chaos/randomness into it. But even then, we have zero impact on how those dice roll, so it doesn't allow for any more or less free will than a fully deterministic universe.
@@Wolf-ln1ml Let me try out a new idea I have on you. People like Sabine say that every particle interaction follows the differential equations of QM so there is only one outcome to every interaction and a fixed universe. Imagine she was talking about Legos, and each block fits into the next block according to exact rules. Would that mean that there was only one way for the blocks to be configured?
@@caricue I don't know in what sense you mean "next block". For that analogy to match the main criteria, there would have to be only one singular other piece that came next, and it could only be attached in exactly one way.
Then, yeah, there'd be only one way for the entire mass of blocks to be configured, without even the slightest option for deviation.
You have no choice whether you believe in free will or you don't believe in free will. So believe as you will ! LOL
trust a 'modern women' to debase the awesome concept of superdeterminism of the universe to
the patriarchy !
It started up with some rubbish arguments! People refuting determinism by saying that people don't like it, and feel like they have free will. Or saying that 'I'm a bit like my mother' to validate determinism!
The past is only a recepit of the fùture
Too often I hear proponents of free will make reference to examples of situations in which an agent has no control. It was said, a person reaches a point they can choose the “right” course of action “if they were raised correctly” and “are” a good citizen. Thus instead they demonstrate the reality of the deterministic nature of any agent’s behavior.
How about this?
Your brain is an abstraction machine experiencing stimuli through multiple other abstraction apparatus. What is the purpose of sentience? Pleanty of life at different levels of awareness. Pleanty of existance barren of life. It is a survival mechanism struggling against competing variables. Determinism is the ultimate abyss in that struggle. The abstraction of determanism is powerful in different ways for different experiences. You can be defeatist, defiant, ambivalent but that depends on your experience, same as any other response. Free will for some people is the hope they require to balance the equation and make a contribution rather than surrender.
Sentience also is a regulation function. It is the constant abstraction necessary to maintain the conviction to persever is action, find solutions and general adaptations.
None of this proves free will, but I wanted to demonstrate why the reactions against determanism are so strong.
In general the argument for determanism goes that there are consistent behavioural rules in all levels of physics for how particals, energy and matter work. So it does not matter that no deamon has a whole picture the model will just do what is required of a consistent derivative machine. Extending that through chemestry and biology.
So we have a lot of data points to say everything works that way. Not much else that can be done other than to carry on as if it didn't impact on your life for the slim chance it good be wrong, or the risk of self sabotage.
If we are arguing whether we have free will or not, are we not free in arguing it? 😂
Why are we arguing it?
@@williamburts3114 perhaps because we can?
@@idorenyin-akpan "we" as self, or "we" as brain?
@@williamburts3114 good question. That distinction is a modern one which I do not accept as valid. The human being has and uses a brain like say, some other organisms. The difference is that the human being thinks a bit more abstractly, even of things that have not and may not even happen of be the case.
So it is strange that of all organisms, it is the one capable of language and other abstract thinking that seems to see itself as merely brains.
Why not a limb, or heart, or liver? Because the brain is the seat of most actions does that make it all the actions?
@@idorenyin-akpan The way I see it is that the brain is in charge of bodily function, but it is the self that is in charge of intent of action.
Free will is a good question. Pretenders are so proudly and freely not free. I wish I could date Helen by the way ;-)
There is no free will. There is no thing individual to have free will. The self is imagined. There is no one in this video. Nothing is being said as all words have imagined meaning.
so you at least admit meaning exists.
@@rand5 No meaning. No words. No things. No stories. No concepts. No control. No humans. No aliens. No time.
You can’t read or write or listen or speak.
There is no individual to do anything.
@@rickhobman3322 you made your assertion that writing doesn't exist by writing. consider the implication of the contradiction. its the same for meaning and the same for truth.
it is provable in absolute terms that both meaning and truth exists.
is it possible for someone to believe a lie?
too many appeals to concequences fallacies in one video for people that want to say that there is free will...