Does Free Will Exist? | Sapolsky vs. Huemer Debate Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- I’m joined by Dr. Taylor Cyr to review the recent debate between Dr. Robert Sapolsky and Dr. Michael Huemer on free will.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
OUTLINE
0:00 Intro & Outline
2:15 Key terms
13:12 Sapolsky’s opening
47:43 Huemer’s opening
1:50:20 Conclusion
LINKS
(1) Original debate on @PercyPrior1: • Does free will exist? ...
(2) Taylor's website: taylorwcyr.com/
(3) The Free Will Show (@thefreewillshow2132): thefreewillshow.com/
(4) Fischer's review of Sapolsky's book: ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/determine...
(5) My Free Will playlist: • Free Will
(6) My Springer book: (a) www.amazon.com/Existential-In... (b) link.springer.com/book/10.100...
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uN...
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/josep...
Man, this channel makes my life so much better. 🙏🏻
Hey, thank you for reviewing my video! 🎉
Hey thank you for the video
I guess it makes a lot of sense to see you here. hi !@@jmike2039
William James: If you believe there’s no free will, why present an argument?
Woke up to my late Christmas present! Thanks Joe
You guys keep using the term “you” - which to me is the crucial question in the free will debate. What makes me me? If *I* didn’t get to freely and consciously make the choices that make me me - including the choice to exist in this world in the first place, then in what sense am I free? I didn’t even get the choice to be the person making the choices I make whether they’re determined or not. No?
Bingo.
To my mind, the only thing we can say for sure is part of what we are, is our consciousness.
Everything else appears to us as an object of our consciousness, and so it's relationship to what we fundamentally are is unknown.
We use the short form of "I thought X" when we really should be using a word meaning "my mind" or "the mind my consciousness is localized to" thought X.
There is two distinctly different things we refer to when we say "me" or "I", the character "Chris" that is the mind/body, and the conscious experiencer localized to them, and yet we confuse/conflate them together.
@@sigigleCorrect. Having watched inmendham videos on the subject 2007-24, (quite refreshing & enlightening)
I can say It's just "Me Brain" here reacting. I'm just a witness to it, I had no real 'choice' in the matter, the brain makes decisions, words just come to mind and somehow I put sentences together before I know what the final product will be, I'm not doing it, I don't choose the floating ideas that my brain comes up with and shows to me. I can't take credit.
The universe is just action, reaction. Just a chain of reactions.
We're just robots that are either programmed well, or programmed poorly. And we should recognize we should still want (logically) to be programmed well. The goals don't really change, punishment as (decentives) still a thing, etc.
I have to agree with this. It ties in with galen strawsons argument against free will.
Thanks gang! I’ll check out those other channels/references. I really appreciate the feedback!
A similar sense crossed my mind when they talk about our oxy levels influencing our behavior, 33:30 where he says maybe it just "makes certain reasons more salient to us" and that "we have a mediator here" which are this certain reasons. As you point out, just like we had no choice in the "I" we are that makes the choice, how do we have any choice at the reasons that we have that supposedly mediate in the situation to make the choice? We had no say in the culture, ancestors or language we inherited that shaped/makes this reasons to begin with.
It seems to me that this is just an attempt to latch on to some concept which somehow is outside causality and in the realm of the "I" which somehow is not determined by factors outside our control.
Well said!
I find it highly problematic to define free will as "that what makes you morally responsible", because 'morally responsible' is a much more convoluted and fuzzy term than 'free' or 'will'. To me, it sounds like: tomato is the fruit that gets made into ketchup. Not a very good definition, is it?
responsibility only applies at a certain point of maturity. Wouldn't say that to a 5 year old
"Most of what we are is non physical, though, our lowest form is physical. All life on our planet has the lowest form, the Body. Our Body is an Animal and the other type of Body on our planet is a Plant. Bodies are bound absolutely to Natural Law, which is the lowest form of true Law. Natural Law is a localised form of Law and is derived from the Laws of Nature. Natural Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of species, members of species, and the material sources of a planet.
The lowest non physical form of what we are is the Mind, which is a Process. There are other forms of life on our planet that have both a Body and a Mind, however, so far as we currently know, there are no Plants and only some Animals that have a Body and a Mind. The lowest forms of Mind, Instinct and Emotion, are predominantly bound to Natural Law. The next higher form of Mind is Intellect which is bound predominantly to the Laws of Nature. Intuition, the highest form of Mind, can be bound or not to both Natural Law and the Laws of Nature separately or together, or to higher forms of Law altogether. Intuition is the truest guide for our Selves.
The next non physical form of what we are is the Self, which is an Awareness. There are relatively few other forms of life on our planet that have a Self. The Self is not bound to any form of Law other than One's Own Law. It is the only form of Law that cannot be violated.
The foundation of what we are is the highest non physical form of what we are. The highest form of what we are is the Being, which is an Existence. The Being is not bound to any form of Law originating within Existence. The Being is bound absolutely to The Law.
Existence, and the Laws of Nature which are the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements within Existence, cannot Be without The Law being The Law.
So, what is The Law?
In a word, The Law is options.
Definition
option: a thing that is or may be chosen.
The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is.
Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is.
In clarifying what The Law is;
The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing.
Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate.
Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating;
the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon,
the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded,
the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded,
the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence,
the concept of options, and
Free Will.
However one thinks, believes, guesses, hopes, or "knows", whether by a Big Bang, a creation story, a computer program, an expansion of consciousness, or whatever means by which Existence could have come to Be, the option for Existence to not Be also exists. Existence and Non Existence, the original options connected by the very concept of options, connected by The Law. Outside of space and before time. Extra-Existential.
As we experience The Law in our Being,
The Law is Free Will.
The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent.
The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent."
- Goho-tekina Otoko
That's a very good critique, I agree.
It‘s problematic to define free will with moral responsibility. However, to justify holding s.o. responsible for their actions requires that they made a conscious choice. At least in the sense we use those words. What also follows after you underwent the _thought experiment_ that there is no free will is that you have to redefine „consciousness“.
I would think "free will" would refer to the ability to make autonomous choices, nothing more or nothing less. Sure, the absence of free will would imply the absence of morality, but that doesn't mean free will itself would equate to moral responsibility. A person could obviously have free will and still not be morally responsible.
@@NondescriptMammal How so? How do you chose an action - with intend and without being forced in any way - and not be responsible?
I’ll be candid, I had so much trouble following this. I’m not at a college level of understanding. Like what the heck does nominal reasons mean they gloss over definitions and concepts so quickly.
I am having a hard time understanding the destinction between leeway and source free will. This is what I grasp:
L .. Leeway: I can do otherwise S .. Source: I make that decision
Which leads to the following combinations:
L & S: I could have done otherwise and the decision was up to me = free will
L & not S: I could have done otherwise, but it was not my decision = can hardly be called free will (maybe free, but no will?)
not L & S: I could not have done otherwise and that was up to me = makes no sense (will, but not free?)
not L & not S: I could not have done otherwise and it was not my decision = no free will
As to my mind, only leeway and source free will together would constitute something that could be called 'free will'; why make this distinction?
If anyone could make an example where differentiation is of use OR what source to read on that, I would appreciate it.
I recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on free will if you want to read more in depth on this. I think most philosophers do think that both leeway and sourcehood are necessary, at least in some sense, but I think that the third combination you wrote out is probably the most common alternate view. The way you wrote it out is a bit misleading, in addition to being strictly incorrect in a way that might be accidental; it would be more accurate to say that you could not have done otherwise, but you decided to do what you did. This is sort of what the Frankfurt cases try to justify.
@@shirube313 Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately 'most philosophers do think' in itself is not a good reason for me. What is the reason they do?
Also thank you for correcting me on (3). Would it not be more accurate to say, then: 'I could not have done otherwise, but I FEEL like I made a choice'. Which would exactly be determinism experienced in real life.
I stress that the decision is only a feeling, or some might call it an illusion, because, while you can go to an ice cream shop and choose vanilla, you have had no control on what you chose. Several flavors went through your head and something made you pick vanilla. But you did not steer that 'something'.
Again I appreciate your response.
@@mTsp4ce No, you legitimately DID make the choice. By which I mean, the mechanism that we call "you" has calculated the choice. You are imagining it as if you're some "soul" which feels like it can "steer" the mechanism, but really can't. Instead, you ARE the mechanism. There's nothing more to "you" than the mechanism. The mechanism has control, thus, "you" have control.
@@user-qm4ev6jb7d I 100% agree. You do make a choice, but it is in no way free. It is the result of who you are.
@@mTsp4ce Yep. That's what you call "will but not free", and it makes total sense.
And I personally think that determinism needs to be taken very seriously. Trying to pretend like we're not deterministic is outright harmful, in my opinion.
I'm probably missing something, but on the child drowning in water with the forcefield example, if the person *is* aware that there is a forcefield but does not save the child, isn't he not responsible precisely because he doesn't have leeway freewill? Doesn't this demonstrate leeway freewill is necessary for responsibility?
Also, when they say moral responsibility in this context, do they mean:
'duty' (as in: "you are responsible for saving children from drowning in this lake")
or:
'blameworthy' (as in "you will be held responsible for the child who drown")
??
I’m just unconvinced that compatibilism is true as it seems that the definition of “free will” needs to be changed in order to contend with determinism.
In the literature that’s not the case, the reason why people think the definition is “changed” is because they assume a LFW incompatiblist notion of freedom.
@@ryanbrown9833 sure. If you define free will as: the ability to make choices and act upon them without outside constraints. But, that’s not the free will most people are thinking of when asked if they have it. LFW is the kind of free will most non-philosophers believe they have: the ability to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. And that definition of free will is NOT compatible with determinism.
@@kimmyswan there’s actually literature in folk psychology that actually contests that people have a incompatibilist intuition of free will. It’s actually not quite clear of people have a libertarian view of freedom or a compatiblist notion of freedom. I mean that definition you gave us also compatible with determinism. We make choices and act upon them that’s not incompatible with determinism. Also libertarian free will doesn’t entail that you are uncaused as well btw.
@@ryanbrown9833 LFW requires that we either have an immaterial soul that utilizes or acts upon the brain somehow, or that our actions are essentially uncaused causes.
I’m skeptical that most laypersons believe that their will is determined, but that because they can do what they want it doesn’t matter. Can you provide me with links to any of those studies you mentioned?
@@kimmyswan no agent causal libertarians requires that lmao not event causal libertarians. Again the contemporary literature is very clear on this, libertarians grant that all our actions don’t have to be uncaused.
57:20 that example with the crevice did actually happen to someone and there is also a movie based on it called '127 hours'.
Some comments: Given the definition given of Sourcehood free will in this video, it would seem that both robots and caterpillars would be said to have free will under such a definition. Sourcehood free will also seems to require the existence of a self, and the self could be an illusion, at least according to philosopher/scientist Thomas Metzinger. And yes, Sapolsky does seem to think that determinism precludes free will, which may or may not be true, but he does sidestep the issue of compatibilism as this video demonstrates.
That actually would not be a reductio to the compatiblist position, although there’s a lot more to say about sourcehood conditions saying that a robot could of free will if this robot just had the necessary and sufficient conditions for freedom isn’t gonna be like some counter to compatbilist, it would just mean that robots would have free will as well. So yea if caterpillars and robots had reasons responsiveness, guidance control, the epistemic openness condition, etc. then it would have free will as well and it wouldn’t be an issue.
@@ryanbrown9833 Your point is that an entirely deterministic machine can have 'free will' if it exhibits specific cognitive criteria?
Don't get me wrong, that is entirely how I understand the compatibilist position also. But that's also why it seems utterly ridiculous to me - because it seems obviously just made up. Beings which possess these cognitive attributes have free will, because we say so and define free will as having those cognitive attributes. Beings which fall outside of that definition don't have free will, because well, we define free will in such a way as for humans to generally have it. It seems obviously circular and meaningless to me.
@@lVideoWatcherl it’s not made up because when dealing with epistemology and metaphysics that’s exactly what we are talking about. You have to do an internal critique to show why it’s an issue. Also again the idea that we are just redefining free will is again cope. Not trying to be offensive but the people who generally make this claim seem to think that free will just means libertarian free will which is very mistaken. Majority of scholars in the free will literature agree that free will is a control conditioned for moral responsibility and they go into reasons why that definition actually makes sense. The question is what are the controlled conditions for moral responsibility.
@@lVideoWatcherl well I mean yeah, compatiblist agree that some people don’t have free will. We aren’t claiming that everyone has it, it’s just that most seem to have it.
@@lVideoWatcherl yeah also a lot of lay people seem to think that determinism means coercion which isn’t the case. Determinism =/= coerced or controlled.
i see this whole thing this way: we are under influences all the time, so it is easier to get more free will if we work on the influences and not ourselves.
example: we have a tormentor forcing us to do things, we then need to change the tormentor and not ourselves.
we live in systems, change the system and we change everything. and that is more close to free will.
well, the recognition to understand we don't really have power to influence ourselves, as it's just the internal mechanism doing what it's programmed or inevitably going to do, but where we really have the power is to influence the outside world. I wouldn't call that free will, cause there is no such thing as a 'FREE' anything, and I'd argue 'FREE' + 'WILL' is an oxymoron, and impossible.
was it meant by free here exactly? FREE to get the wrong answer? to think 2 + 2 = 87
I don't want a free or random will, I want a confined will.
a Right will, good will, intelligent will, Always get the right answer WILL.
watch an inmendham video on the subject, you'll see we have no use for this word/concept.
It's like you are forgetting that Sapolsky is not a philosopher. You criticize him for 'generalizing from a lot of particular cases', but that is pretty much what science is about right - developing theories based on emperical evidence. He is sharing his understanding of how the world works, given his live long studies of biology and neuroscience, and an important part of that are these countless examples.
~17:40 If not deterministically caused, what does non-deterministically caused mean?
I don't really agree, but it seems thier basis of deterministic cause means a means 1:1 outcome between a cause and an effect. As examples of "non determined" causes they list probability and randomness. I would tend to agree that true randomness, that is no correlation between cause and effect, would count as non determined. But I agree it's kind of odd to call that a cause, because precisely speaking I'd say there was no cause or effect in that scenario, and I'm skeptical that such a thing could exist.
My "steelman" of it is: you can cause your car to go between 50 and 60 km/h, but you can't choose the exact speed - that part is random. So if someone asks, "What caused this car to accelerate from 0 to 52.35 km/h?" - well, you did. Even though you didn't choose exactly that number.
@@user-qm4ev6jb7d No, it was not only me pressing the gas pedal. It was the interaction of all factors, internal to me as an agent and external to the environment of the car, which ultimately _determined_ the final speed of the car. There is no space for non-deterministic cause in your example, there is only space for unknowns. But just because a system is chaotic (as with the weather, for example), doesn't mean the system is not calculable. It's just difficult to do - even though with the speed of the car, this would rather be pretty simple, as all the equations for a _very_ good estimate are available.
@@lVideoWatcherl That's a bit beside the point. Hypothetically, even if the other factors didn't add any randomness, you still couldn't control the timing of the gas pedal to the needed precision.
If your reaction time was comparable to the engine's RPM, then it might be correct to say that you deterministically caused the exact number of ignitions, and it's all determined from there. But in reality you don't have good enough control even over your own limbs.
Or, if you say that your limbs are "the environment", and only the brain is truly "you", then it's still the same issue: you don't control the exact timing of neural impulses coming out of your brain.
@@user-qm4ev6jb7d I believe I addressed your exact argument in my comment by stating that "There is no space for non-deterministic cause in your example, there is only space for unknowns." The unknowns here meaning that we are not _aware_ of how exactly we need to press the pedal in order to get the speed that is desired, we cannot _calculate_ how hard we needed to push the pedal, and we do not have the _motor control_ to exact that exact amount of pressure upon the pedal even if we knew exactly how much was needed.
But errors in abstraction do not mean that the system is not entirely determined. It only means that the system was determined in such a way that it would never have exactly reached the desired outcome, because too many variables factor into it.
Additionally, your last sentence seems to me rather than steelmanning some idea of "non-deterministic causation" to be an affirmation of deterministic principles. Yes, there is no agent in control of neural impulses. That is exactly the kind of naturalistic argument that determinists use in order to refute compatibilist arguments; there is simply no space for any kind of control there.
I am not really well versed in philosophy compared to a lot of people who would be watching this video, but i do have a strong intuition that free will doesn’t make any logical sense to me although it does make sense emotionally in that i experience it. I also don’t really understand how compatibilism can be true which i feel embarrassed to say if it truly is the most popular belief amongst philosophers, there must be something I'm missing but I just can't understand it.
Exactly, free will doesn't make sense _(for most definitions),_ but we _feel_ like we have it. I acknowledge the _illusion_ of free will and choice making as useful.
@@Rogstin is this essentially what compatibilism is? I don't disagree with what you're saying I think but from my perspective as a layperson, if you alter the definition of free will to be an illusory concept, it seems to me to defeat the purpose? I really don't know, I can obviously see the utility of moral responsibility and agency and think it would probably be a bad thing if everyone on the planet didn't believe in free will, but that doesn't mean I actually believe in those things in reality.
@@jcbl62 Compatibilism would more argue that free will is real and can exist with determinism. I don't think free will is real, but I think the illusion is useful for introspection and moral discussions.
I am not defining free will as an illusion, I am saying that we experience free will only as an illusion.
@@Rogstin I think I get you then, so you're not a compatibilist I'm assuming. I just can't really seem to get my head around compatibilism, if you're familiar with the position do you think you could steelman it for me?
@@jcbl62 The strongest Compatibilist argument to me is unfortunately a redefinition of free will. That it is the freedom act to your motivation, but that your motivation is determined.
_"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."_
But I would say:
__"Man __-can-__ _*_must_*_ do what he wills __-but-__ _*_and_*_ he cannot will what he wills."_
The fundamental problem with free will is that it involves making choices, and I don't see how choice's can exist as a real thing. Again, I acknowledge the experience of them, but it's just part of the complex evaluation of the current state our brain does. This may be a bit reductionist to some, but I'd like to know how the world works at the bottom as much as I can, even if I pretend it is another way for the sake of ease _(I am an electrical engineer and comp. sci. person, so this is probably why)._
This also means to me, no amount of mind-body dualism can solve it either, because we are just moving the choice making problem somewhere else.
Joe, how does determinism function in a cyclical universe if every action is predetermined by a prior cause?
54:45 another thing as well, there’s a difference between the conditional ability to do otherwise and the categorical ability to do otherwise.
They responded a lot to the failure of Huemer’s argument that determinism and rationality were incompatible but it would have been interesting to see if they thought the same thing for a compatibilist notion of free will and rationality. Ie. Is some notion of free will necessary for rationality?
Anybody else think that thumbnail was Justin Chancellor and Danny Carey at first?
good video. i generally cringe when scientists try to tackle philosophical questions and fail quite hard, like there, but they think they just solved the issue lol.
What do you think about transcendental argument, are you familiar with Jay Dyer??
I won't speak for Joe, but I think Jay Dyer is Jay Dyer's biggest fan by far. I think what he calls a "transcendental argument" isn't what the rest of western philosophy calls a transcendental argument, and I think his version of a transcendental argument (if you can ever get him to present it instead of just giving metacommentary on it) is doodie.
Listening to Sapolsky's opening statement, not one of his examples described causation. At best, he described correlations (and judging from what I know about social science they were probably very weak correlations at that). Perhaps these could be described as influences. But in no way did he show that "smelling garbage causes homophobia." Or "missing a meal causes bankers to reject loan applications."
Sapolsky is the perfect picture of the arrogant scientist who thinks that his tiny niche is the ultimate answer to every question in the universe. This is a little more excusable with something like physics, or chemistry, which is so fundamental. But neuroscience? Neuroscience is in a very nascent state, and many of its conclusions are on very shaky grounds at the moment.
Doesn't matter, either way. Causation is it determinism.
@@FightFilmsI wholeheartedly agree. I think the very fact that we can become aware of the causation supposedly driving a deterministic reality is proof that we at least have some amount of free will over our actions. Sapolsky makes some extreme leaps in assumption in his arguments based on everything I’ve heard from him.
Man I really needed the terms leeway & sourcehood free will. I've held the same (or a similar) position as Dr. Taylor Cyr for a couple of years now, but have found it a bit difficult to explain to people. This is going to help a lot!
maybe I am just unable to differentiate between cause and determinate cause; I have never been able to understand compatibalism given the way free will is used in ordinary language
I think about this topic from time to time, I think is was Alex O'Connor or Rationality Rules that introduced me to the idea from a philosophical standpoint, but i it was a PBS Spacetime video called "Are Space and Time An Illusion?" that first got me thinking about it. Intuitively determinism makes sense to me... i think i would like for free will to be real but i'm not so sure.
Looking forward to hearing everything you guys have to say:)
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
@@TheWorldTeacherWow. I haven't seen your weird drivel in a comment section for so long.
@@TheWorldTeachertldr
@@TheOtherCaleb, if it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.🤫
@@TheWorldTeacher Anyone who uses any type of all caps in their comments should be automatically discredited.
I would love more dive into how should does not imply alternative possibilities. Every example lists alternative possibilities in order to create a should and then they say that is coherent which sounds like gibberish to me. What am I missing?
I think reason is a much better argument where having reasons does not imply an alternative.
One more thing cause it caught me off guard from the start. When did the term free will become synonymous with morally responsibility instead of being the ability to do otherwise. I will except the definition but it feels useless, Like defining God as the uncaused cause and nothing more. It doesn't move the conversation forward or mean what most think it does.
Great discussion though!
I won't accept the redefinition; it's useless. 😜
It's like compatibilists think of free will as "that which makes us morally culpable," without actually contemplating _why_ it does that. Then when faced with determinism, rather than reconsidering their sense of justice, they run off in search of new guilt-makers, without even bothering to change the name. They insist that determinism is compatible with free will, but instead they _argue_ it's compatible with the justice system. 🤷♂
This "source-hood free will" argument is just incoherent. "Well, perhaps it's not free in the sense that there's no actual freedom involved, but it's free in the sense that you're the ultimate source of the decision. Fine, you're really just the proximate source, but now you're just being pedantic." 🤦♂
I truly feel like most philosophers actually merely accept compatibilism as the last resort to hold on to any kind of "free will", because accepting the idea that it even mechanistically does not make any semblance of sense is just too uncomfortable for people trying to argue about the universe and wanting to lay claim to specific concepts/ideas/arguments. Because a universe without the nonsensical concept of a "free will" boils down to: you will do what you would always have done. You will have successes you would always have had, and failures you'd always have had. With the danger of sounding too much like a contrarian: maybe people formally trained in philosophy and reputable in the field just don't like the idea of them basically not being special due to anything they are consciously responsible for. In other words, I could imagine it being an issue of pride.
I agree on the redefinition. To me, "moral responsibility" is a much less clear concept than "free will," so defining free will in terms of moral responsibility just makes the concept less clear.
joe is such a good host
What do think about Kant‘s theory of freedom?
Anyone seriously putting forward the argument that it doesn't make sense to do something if you don't have free will... How am i supposed to do something else? With free will? Come on
That there are some choices does not show that the decision is made freely.
Associating free will with moral responsibility fails to show that the decision to do what is morally responsible or otherwise is done freely.
There is overwhelming evidence supporting determinism. The free will advocates keep presupposing the existence of free will.
You presuppose free will, then choose to lie to yourself
I believe the best explanation for libertarian free will is theism. I'd like to see how huemer argues against that.
How can any god existing allow libertarian free will? If the god is omnipotent, then we have the problems of it's control over everything. If it is less than omnipotent, what does it's existence permit that it's non-existence doesn't?
Everything is either deterministic or not. If everything is deterministic, then libertarian free will does not exist. If some things are non-deterministic _(that is, random),_ that still doesn't get us LFW. The concept itself doesn't make sense.
Far be it for me to say so, but it seems to me Heumer's points near the end are not making a confusion as much as he's not specifically stating what he should be. Any case of freedom to act contains the freedom of thought. The point is not "could I act differently?" but "could I think differently?" - it is a contention that objective reasoning requires that thoughts are not compelled, not that I could think otherwise but that if I chose to focus attention on reality or not, my thoughts would be different. The alternative futures here are not infinite, they are somewhat compelled and constrained, but there are alternative futures. If that is not true, how could I be confident of my objectivity? Is it possible that I am always objective and oriented to the facts of reality? Maybe sometimes I'm not, but I have the ability to choose to focus attention. The determinist ends up in an infinite regress, asking themselves if each thought about being objective is compelled "You're forced to think that, right?" "Oh and you were forced to think that too?" ad infinitum.
If you think metaphysical openness is not necessary for free will, then I don’t see how you can reconcile the idea that one had a real choice here. If there is only one possible way how things play out, then the epistemic pondering ("think that you have alternative possibilities" 1:05) what one should do is nothing but a veil. The metaphysical closedness fixes your thought process (thinking about alternative possibilities).
I mean what we would count as a choice is just the epistemic openness we have. Perebooms epistemic condition is enough for deliberation. Many times when people critique the epistemically condition they tend to begg the question for metaphysical possibilities.
I have just started watching, the example Sapolsky gives about garbage in the room is correlation not causation so it doesn't explain the people who get less homophobic, maybe their genetics, developmental environments, sexuality. But without isolating every single variable that determines belief, it is an approximation, so surely compatabilism makes the most sense. The replication crisis in psychology is in some part because a study from the 1950s may have a very different sample to one today depending on the research question, asking someone about roman numerals today will be harder in a memory test because less people wear watches, so psychological studies are always tied to culture and have endless potential pitfalls. That's why using it as evidence for determinism is a bit puzzling.
Neuroplasticy explains why people become less homophobic, being homophobic has shifted from being acceptable to not on a societal level due to an abundance of causes. Humans constantly receive social information automatically and the brain learns or doesn’t learn from it automatically. A brain’s IQ and capability of processing information, Isn’t chosen and that’s why some individuals remain homophobic. It’s luck based.
Capillary has only a limited time to present his case. You are right - he has pointed out correlations. But in his bok, "Behave", he goes into enormous detail about what we know about how the brain works...causally,; brain cells, hormones.neurotransmitter s etc. He then gives more.social science type.evidence as examples. He then comes to the conclusion that there is no room for free will and asks the question, "You say free will exists, well show is How it happens because no one has yet found a mechanism by which it can occur." Personally, I think he has a valid position . Hope this comment is useful.
Sapolsky......NOT capillary!!!!😊
I’m fairly new to philosophy and very new to the arguments for and against free will so please don’t berate me if this is wrong but: Doesn’t the very ability to be consciously aware of these casual factors undermine Sapolsky’s argument? Obviously not everyone would be aware of them, but everyone (or everyone with no brain impairment) has the ability to become aware of them, and if we can incorporate these considerations into our decisions, does that not then undermine Sapolsky’s argument that all our decisions are determined by these causal factors?
I have a sense that I think, it doesn’t undermine his arguments at all, he has said, “Humans are aware of their machinery, but are not comfortable with it.” It steams down to the brain/minds capability of incorporating “casual” events into an apparently “freely” “chosen” “discussion”. What makes any given individual, that individual. It’s the millions of threads, everything that came before that individual.
Also how does one simply “freely will” (become aware) of said “causal events.” Does it really happen “freely” or does it just happen? It’s similar to the notion - attempt to stop having thoughts for any number of minutes. From my experience it’s impossible thoughts just happen.
It also generally accepted that thoughts are automatic, in the psychiatric field. Then coming from left field, actions aren’t though… Doesn’t all human actions begin with thought?
It’s human nature to assume that - person A should think act and be a certain way, simply because of the fact that person B thinks, and acts a certain way. Even if both person A and B have seemingly healthy brains, it’s important to account for everything that is automatically learned and absorbed throughout a lifetime causing drastically different individuals.
@@theofficialness578 well for one you can choose what to think about. Yes automatic thoughts happen which are out of our control, but the simple presence of automatic thoughts does not then lead to the conclusion of a lack of free will. I can choose to think about a certain topic and brainstorm, and even though random thoughts pop in, that doesn’t mean I have no free will, I simply freely choose to ignore the thought and continue focusing my thoughts on the chosen topic. Furthermore, sure you can assert that because we were shaped by multitudes of past events/genetics that we don’t have much control over who we are. I just don’t buy that the existence of influences equates to no free will. For example, I can be born with a predisposition towards alcohol due to my parents and relatives being heavy drinkers. That is a huge influence over my life that I have little control over. Except for the fact that I do have control to some extent and the ability to be aware that it is a problem, which then allows me to choose to not drink alcohol. I have then, despite generational influences affecting me from the moment of conception, freely chosen against my inherent influences. To me, that is free will. If you want to define free will as making a choice without any influence whatsoever, then sure you can say there’s no free will. I just don’t believe that is the way free will is commonly understood as we all know that we have many many influences in our lives.
@@mpeters99 What makes an individual able to be aware and think critically about a predisposition towards alcohol? Thus a higher chance of not becoming an alcoholic.
On the other side of the coin (undoubtedly both sides exist.)
What makes an individual unable to be aware and think critically about a predisposition towards alcohol? Thus a higher chance of becoming an alcoholic.
If you don’t mind answering both questions so we can continue the debate?
@@mpeters99 Also what accounts for an individuals capacity to focus their thoughts?
@@theofficialness578 All of those things could be explained by the simple fact that the brain has evolved the capability of having organized thoughts. Your brain is capable of thinking critically about whether to drink some alcohol or not, regardless of any predisposition, and regardless of any awareness of that predisposition or lack of it.
What accounts for your capacity to decide whether free will exists, or doesn't? If any individual's opinion of the matter is predetermined and inevitable, what value is there in anybody's opinion about it? What point is there in any discussion of it?
So what exactly is the problem with Huemer's notion (albeit worded by Joseph) of were determinism to be true we would essentially be automatons simply reacting to our surroundings in nomological or necessitarianistic (given a reality) fashion? If all events resulted causally from previous ones, be the cause physical and/or whatever, what makes the idea implausible? Is it a problem in definition such that we are kind of past thinking about "all events" and are only focusing on events related to human "choices" and "actions" and if so isn't it still fair to leverage the underlying nomological consideration into it? Not sure if I'm the confused one here or if it's you guys.
To add to this: I guess it could/would be a conflict of metaphysics. If one assumes that minds, at least one's own, exists then information and such things usually associated with minds are coherent concepts. If we presuppose some "extreme physicalism", for lack of a better term in my vocabulary, and take everything to literally just be quarks or whatever in a completely causal system, then all information etc. is arguably(?) just meaningless patterns that the system just so happened (by necessity, not by chance whatsoever outside of maybe the very first moment) to produce at one point.
@@Pingvinicecream why do u speak in such way..ur not making a point at all nor are you explaining anything
If you make words sound confusing and rich you are then not being percieved as the one who has put a time and thought into problem
but as one who just wants to be percieved as smart
In first one u said how does causality make idea implausable..which is basically materialistic standpoint
While in 2nd you make intuition appealing non argument against materialsm..much stronger one
@@Pingvinicecream how tf is determinism meaningless...if things exist they remain existing..that is what determinism enables..
But in ur world things would randomly disappear..
U dont get to pick and choose
And why do u even want for your free will to be exception to all the other world?.. for it to be random??
So that then in ur confused thinking you lose yourself and be controlled by some true indetermined randomness
@@ivicavukasinovic8601 I have not put the time and effort into the topic, that was the point of my comment. I'm not stating anything but rather asking for clarification as it wasn't clear from the video what exactly made the points presented seem implausible.
Or to be more precise I hadn't put much thought into the topic prior to the comment. Since then, at the latest only this morning, I've thought of this video a couple times and come to the realisation that the typical "internet way" of thinking of determinism, that is making it a non-problem by contributing it to some lazy materialism/physicalism is a question-begging approach which would call for an argument for the materialism (and succeeding might still not have an answer to the problem of free will at all). This mere assuming of framework makes many things but especially this topic quite annoying to discuss casually.
@@Pingvinicecream
what other fact could others possibly tell you that u dont know already or is relevant in any way...
.. no one had access to some supernatural to then additionally inform you
ur already equipped with basic facts of world to engage with problem..start contemplating
and why need of differentiating between mat. and det. ?...
what specific point do u want to address?
supernat is similar to mat just resining in space to which there is no access...to which cause cant be back traced.. but all the thing in there would in a similar fashion follow some set of rules and laws
and everything in 2nd link of causal chain is determined..
if there is randomness generating something new..already at 2nd tick of its existence it is determined by previous state
so to ask is world indet doesnt even make sense..
for new random thing to affect surrounding it would have to TICK and at that point its no longer indet
beginning is by def indet as nothing precedes it
that does not make things stemming from it indet
free will is nothing but a sufficiently complex system capable of maintaining and improving on itself
There's a difference between I could have done otherwise and I can imagine I can do otherwise. Imagining that you could have done otherwise is not proof that you could have done otherwise. Even if there is no impediment to you doing otherwise.
Even if we _could_ choose otherwise, _why would we?_ Should we not expect under freewill *and* determinism that everyone should make the _same choice_ in the _same circumstance?_
@@Rogstin your second sentence seems to be the conclusion of an argument what's the argument?
@@jjjccc728 Under determinism, given an initial state, we should expect an agent to always perform the same action as a result.
Under free will, given an initial state, we should expect an agent to evaluate that state and choose to perform the same action as a result.
That is, there is not experiment to distinguish between determinism and free will, only determinism and nondeterminism _(in which we would expect occasionally different actions for the same initial state, depending on the influence of the random elements)._
@@Rogstin are you saying the evaluation and the outcome of the evaluation is determined under your idea of free will? What is the status of evaluation under determinism?
@@jjjccc728 _are you saying the evaluation and the outcome of the evaluation is determined under your idea of free will?_ That's the conclusion, yes, and why free will doesn't exist to me.
Specifically, if we could rewind time, and place an agent in a situation that we could repeat exactly _(every quantum field),_ then we should expect that person to make the same choice every time. Why should they change their mind?
If they did, this would be evidence that sometime is evolving randomly.
If they knew about the previous tests, that is new input, and the result could of course change, but that's true under both free will and hard determinism.
Fundamentally, what is a choice? How does one make it? There is no non-agent analog.
Litmus test for all of the "I have free will because I can choose to ..." who haven't read Sapolsky's book "Turtles all the way down." People are double thinking when they believe in free will because of the implications it has to their egos. Tragic
its not always to do with the self or ourselves
"Most of what we are is non physical, though, our lowest form is physical. All life on our planet has the lowest form, the Body. Our Body is an Animal and the other type of Body on our planet is a Plant. Bodies are bound absolutely to Natural Law, which is the lowest form of true Law. Natural Law is a localised form of Law and is derived from the Laws of Nature. Natural Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of species, members of species, and the material sources of a planet.
The lowest non physical form of what we are is the Mind, which is a Process. There are other forms of life on our planet that have both a Body and a Mind, however, so far as we currently know, there are no Plants and only some Animals that have a Body and a Mind. The lowest forms of Mind, Instinct and Emotion, are predominantly bound to Natural Law. The next higher form of Mind is Intellect which is bound predominantly to the Laws of Nature. Intuition, the highest form of Mind, can be bound or not to both Natural Law and the Laws of Nature separately or together, or to higher forms of Law altogether. Intuition is the truest guide for our Selves.
The next non physical form of what we are is the Self, which is an Awareness. There are relatively few other forms of life on our planet that have a Self. The Self is not bound to any form of Law other than One's Own Law. It is the only form of Law that cannot be violated.
The foundation of what we are is the highest non physical form of what we are. The highest form of what we are is the Being, which is an Existence. The Being is not bound to any form of Law originating within Existence. The Being is bound absolutely to The Law.
Existence, and the Laws of Nature which are the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements within Existence, cannot Be without The Law being The Law.
So, what is The Law?
In a word, The Law is options.
Definition
option: a thing that is or may be chosen.
The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is.
Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is.
In clarifying what The Law is;
The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing.
Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate.
Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating;
the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon,
the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded,
the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded,
the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence,
the concept of options, and
Free Will.
However one thinks, believes, guesses, hopes, or "knows", whether by a Big Bang, a creation story, a computer program, an expansion of consciousness, or whatever means by which Existence could have come to Be, the option for Existence to not Be also exists. Existence and Non Existence, the original options connected by the very concept of options, connected by The Law. Outside of space and before time. Extra-Existential.
As we experience The Law in our Being,
The Law is Free Will.
The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent.
The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent."
- Goho-tekina Otoko
So people can choose to believe in FW because their ego dictates this, which obviously means they have no free will. Lmao...
@@starc.drivel word salad prattlw
@@FightFilms no need to expose your intelligence in public like that
@@starc.do you do drugs? How many?
I really have a hard time understanding why the discovery of empirical regularities would imply causal determinism. Mathematical models of empirical phenomenon are just that, models. The map is not the territory. Furthermore, mathematical models specify functional relationships, not causal relations; hence the equality operator, rather than the "do" operator from do-calculus. The causal interpretation is imposed on the model after the fact, conditional on replication (among other things). But the model could always fail to generalize in novel situations. Novelty implies a sort of open-endedness, the state space of a system cannot be written down a-priori, hence causal determinism must be false. Also, on the topic of do-calculus, this is a common framework in the biomedical/social sciences, and requires a counterfactual theory of causation. To me this would seem to imply that there is a possibility things "could have been some other way", how else are we supposed to conclude some intervention/manipulation "causes" some effect? Do-calculus also gives you a notion of directedness, specified by a directed acyclic graph, something functional relationships defined by equality operators do not yield. Even if we conclude something external causes some human behavior, how could that imply determinism? I interact causally with my environment, learn from experience, updating how I would update in similar scenarios in the future. This is just what humans do; there are things out of my control, and things in my control.
If we conceive free will as "that which is not causally influenced by anything", you are simply describing an eternally inert system that has no ability to do anything, which to me seems un-free. Think about it like this, who is more "free", the person living in isolation from everyone else with very few options? Or the person interconnected within a complex network who potentially has exponential option value? Sure, the latter situation implies a new set of constraints the former wouldn't have, and is susceptible to new causal forces, but the former is severed from possibility.
Hear, hear. Fantastic analysis. I would also add that while we have very good (but not perfect) models in disciplines like physics and chemistry, the models in neuroscience and psychology are much more rudimentary, contentious, and (at the moment) poorly founded. Maybe one day we will have enough data, and good enough theoretical models, to show that human behavior is caused in a law-like way by our neurons, etc. But we are currently nowhere near that point.
29:45 He said that because our decisions are routed with the same processes that judge disgust, it will not work change if you deliberate in months or that is an average. LoL
I just read Sapolsky's book. This is an excellent analysis, I hope one or both of you guys talks to Sapolsky sometime soon! Btw I emailed him and he responded, if you wanted to talk I'm pretty sure he'd be down to do that!
I just read it. It’s laughably bad.
@@TyrellWellickEcorpwhy?
20:50 The problem is we believe we can tell the difference. You don't choose what you desire, how bad you desire it, or how good you are at resisting a desire. Even the explanation of why you tell yourself you did something is just a rationalization that you don't get to choose (something else before decided you just validated the feeling or whatever it is). His argument that sells me is "look at how many inconsequential things that nobody normally considers actually have huge effects on the trajectory of how you get to live your life. There is no room in the chain of mostly imperceivable random events for human free will to have an INFORMED influence. If it even exists.
I choose what I desire every single day
Speak for yourself. Not everyone has weak will like you
I watched the debated and found myself wishing that a professional in the field would actually break it down. It was great seeing your channel tackling the debate! Keep up the great work ❤
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
Professional in what field break what down?
Chad Bach enjoyer
idk.. i think asking if i could have done otherwise is like asking whats north of the northpole. its the wrong question. you couldnt have done otherwise because then you would have done it! there is only one point/event in time or one path forward. you have only one choice, you never can take the other free will route. so its kinda a nonsense question. no, you couldnt have done otherwise bcs you already done it. we talk about this as if we could see all realitys forward and then decide wich one we woudl like best! we talk about this as if we are "leplass daemon"! you could also say.. the wave function has to collapse when you look/measure whats the future. it converges down to one event/reality! you cant take both ways so you never had a choice. thats a whole different view i didnt hear about in this debate. having a choice would require that there are always multiple realitys forward that you are aware of. on top.. nothign in teh universe decides.. EVER! what even is this term? an atom didnt decide to obey gravity.. chemical reactions didnt decide to take place. the universe didnt decide to pop into existence. its all cause and effect. show me one event where something in the universe deicdes something. its kinda a very human concept to feel more important but it doesnt make ANY sense. even a photon didnt decide how its wanna be measured. it follows a distribution. its not random. if you really think about this.. deciding something doesnt mean anything. its not a concept we find in physics. nothing in the universe we know of decides something. its only this weird concept we came up with to describe a feeling. like, good and bad. these are not concepts mirrored in the universe. they describe feelings we got to interact better as apes. but they arent real. nothing in the universe is good or bad. i cant see a mechanism where our brains change reality/matter trough decision and sheer will and not the other way around. its nonsense. there is no such mechanism other then MAGIC! this would mean you influence matter and reality with your mind. its more likely that matter and reality cause your brain to think a certain way. you cant manifest reality through sheer will. this woudl it mean to have free will!
After watching this video, I'm compelled to discuss the Frankfurt Cases in the context of free will, particularly focusing on the nuances they present.
Consider an inverted scenario from the video: a person consistently chooses evil, but a brain chip overrides these decisions. Despite the morally right outcomes, the individual's continuous choice of evil clearly indicates moral wrongdoing. This scenario reveals a critical oversight in the Frankfurt Cases: the focus on outcome rather than the inherent moral quality of the choice.
Reflect on different stages of intervention post-decision:
1. A shooter's gun doesn't fire.
2. Someone stops the shooter's finger as he pulls the trigger.
3. A divine force prevents muscle contraction.
4. A brain chip intervenes just before the action.
In each scenario, as the gap between decision and intervention decreases, the person's choice remains morally evil, regardless of the action’s actualization.
Now imagine we decrease the gab even further: What if technology intervenes at the point of decision-making? Some libertarians might argue this is metaphysically impossible, or at least it might suggest the individual is no longer fully human. Instead, they could be viewed as a cyborg, blending human and machine elements, which complicates notions of moral agency and responsibility.Whether the individual has Free Will may then depend on your view, whether computers have Free Will.
In conclusion, while the Frankfurt Cases provide an interesting perspective, they fall short in addressing the full complexity of free will and moral responsibility. Like the bullet-not-firing analogy, they overlook the depth of human decision-making, particularly when technological intervention muddies the distinction between human choice and automated behavior.
Or the person who controls the computer chip chooses to not activate the chip and the person chooses B instead of A 😂 too many agents involved.
Frankfurt cases are only convincing to people who are motivated to believe compatibilism is true.
This was interesting. Thank you Joe and Taylor; fascinating thoughts.
I must be knew to this free will vs determinism thing because I always thought of free will to relate to how *other people are intervening with one's actions; not the physics aspect.
ie: when I (at least) say something like "I'm writing this comment of my free will" I mean that there isn't anybody acting on me to do so; Joe or Taylor isn't holding a gun to my head forcing me to write this comment. In this sense I think it's legitimate to say I bear full responsibility for what I am writing, even if reality is deterministic.
I guess I have a different view what 'free will' is to these guys and anyone else lol
Also - is there some conflation going on? Because at times it seems when they talk about determinism they appear to be speaking as if it's the same a necessitarianism (no possibilities - could not have been otherwise)? To my understanding determinism doesn't imply necessitarianism. Maybe I'm wrong about that?
If determinism doesn't imply necessitarianism, then I don't see what is wrong with saying our actions are contingent; one can choose to act differently. Which I suppose is a compatibilist approach? But these two seem to think determinism and free and not compatible.
Most arguments about free will are in relation to the problems of gods and punishment. How can we be justly punished by a creator god if we don't physically have free will, if we could only ever have done what the creator ordained? What would being able to make a choice even be? Can the god have free will?
Necessitarianism would be a type of determinism. That would just depend on if the universe has some truly random component or not. If it doesn't then necessitarianism. If it does, then each given state S(t0) could evolve into numerous states S(t1), and depending on how reality actually works, one or all of them occur. To the inside observer however, it's probably still appear like necessitarianism.
*"A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants."*
_I guess I have a different view what 'free will' is to these guys and anyone else lol_ I would say you are talking about the perception or illusion of free will, in comparison to any kind of real mechanism of choice making. I'd call it _freedom of will,_ the state of being subject only to yourself and the environment, and not under the influence of any other agent. We all have varying degrees of this, from the influence of the state, community, or a mugger; our decision making is influenced by these relations. It's all still just state evaluation and evolution, though, we don't make a choice, but it helps to think we do. An evolutionary advantage that creates ownership and responsibility for social creatures.
@@Rogstin Thanks for your reply.
*"How can we be justly punished by a creator god if we don't physically have free will,"*
I don't believe gods exists anyway, but yes I agree that *if we don't have free will (assuming for sake of argument) then I don't think God can "justly" judge anyone.
Which is why I suspect theists will tend to reject the idea that God predetermined our actions. ie: God "knows" what we will do, but he's not choosing for us.
If all of our actions are predetermined by God, then from our perspective "choice" will be illusory. Sure - I think God can have free will - he'd be the only being that would have it.
*"That would just depend on if the universe has some truly random component or not. If it doesn't then necessitarianism."*
I'm not sure that I see the conditional implication there. ie: I don't see why that *if there's no true random component to the universe then necessitarianism is true?
Sure - I agree that I (at least) only experience one outcome, but I don't feel that implies necessitarianism.
*"I would say you are talking about the perception or illusion of free will"*
No, I don't think it's illusory. As I said - when I use the phrase "of my own free will" I mean it in relation to being "free" of control by other people. eg: no-one is forcing/controlling me to write this comment; it's just me in the house; my hands aren't being moved by someone else in the house. In this sense "I am writing this comment of my free will."
*"I'd call it freedom of will, the state of being subject only to yourself and the environment, and not under the influence of any other agent."*
To me that's a distinction without a difference. "Freedom of will" is just synonymous/interchangeable to me as "free will." I don't see any relevant difference.
Yes - to me "free will" has always been about personal responsibility - ie: I am responsible for this comment - Joe (I promise) didn't coerce/force/control me to write this comment.
@@christaylor6574 _I think God can have free will - he'd be the only being that would have it._ Based on your definition of free will, I agree.
_To me that's a distinction without a difference._ Again, with regard to your definition, yes.
I would say that most discussion of free will in philosophical circles, it involves making choices. What you are describing is not about making choices, but _how_ we reach our decisions. That is the difference between free will and freedom of will to me. Making _(libertarian, non-deterministic)_ choices vs reaching decisions without external agent influence.
_but I don't feel that implies necessitarianism._ If there is no random component, then should we not expect the same initial state S(t) to _always_ evolve into state S(t+1)? This would make each state inevitable and necessary.
@@Rogstin Thanks for your reply.
*"That is the difference between free will and freedom of will to me. Making (libertarian, non-deterministic) choices vs reaching decisions without external agent influence."*
The only difference there is "how we make a choice" is just to give a reason for the "choice" we made. It's something given after the fact. It adds clarity and gives more information - provides a rationale. eg: why did I eat breakfast? Well, I woke up hungry. To give a reason for a "decision/choice" is just to affirm we make decisions/choices.
But if God exists and predetermined (decided) all of my actions for me, then I think I have no free will; whether that's my sense of it (free from control of another) or a libertarian (without any external influence) concept. ie: In such a scenario I'm not the one who makes the decisions - God did - eg: he'd be the reason why I ate breakfast.
*"If there is no random component, then should we not expect the same initial state S(t) to always evolve into state S(t+1)? This would make each state inevitable and necessary."*
I think all you've said here is to re-state/rephrase the same conditional implication. I need some kind of explanation as to why this is the case - because I don't see why this is a true implication.
@@christaylor6574 Yeah, if a sufficiently powerful god exists, neither type, free will or freedom of will can exist.
Free will would state that I chose _(not _*_merely_*_ by my brain)_ to eat breakfast. Freedom of will just says that eating was not influenced by someone else _(but that the "choice" was just a calculation in my brain)._ Not that *_I_* chose to eat breakfast.
_But if God exists and predetermined (decided) all of my actions for me_ OK, now consider if no god exists, but that the laws of nature absolutely determine the next state given the current. That how each neuron fires, each chemical vibrates and reacts, each sense senses, each muscle contracts and relaxes, and see that there is no choice anywhere. We reach decisions that take time, because we are complex and advanced. The process however, is just a series of this states advancing, and cannot deviate. It wouldn't make sense that they even could _(barring random influences, but again, does not lead to choice making: garbage in garbage out)._
_I need some kind of explanation as to why this is the case - because I don't see why this is a true implication._ Well, what's a counter example? How could a deterministic system _not_ progress through a series of states in a well-defined manner?
Well, deterministic system is a bit defined that way. Instead: how could any system lacking a random component? Additionally, how could either kind of system produce a choice?
The disconnect seems to be that you already hold a view of "choice" that denies traditional ideas of free will. Which is fine, because those ideas of free will and choice are, to me at least, incoherent.
Whey-he! This should be good!!
Sapolsky goes out of his way to say he is not generalizing and not to trust anyone that does.
Then his argument fails, since it only works if he does, indeed, make hasty generalizations. Fischer points this out well in his review, too
@@MajestyofReason He was merely providing examples of certain seemingly unrelated causes which on average within certain demographics tend to produce particular effects. The point is that phenomenon 'x' in conjunction with other factors shared amongst the subjects generally produces outcome :y'. He's not generalizing to all humans or even all the subjects of a study. He's showing that it's accepted 8n the literature that under various conditions choices will be made and behaviours displayed with a level of influence from whatever stimulus is under review. Everyone has different sets of conditions and will of course be determined differently, but on average there is a probability of x contributing to causing y. It's a frequency argument which see serves to show that whatever the coercive or constrictive factors are, you can point to enough examples of them to leave no room for free will. Personally I think that the truth of the matter is clouded not by generalizations but a lack of specificity re terminology/definitions. Hence I find myself fully in agreement with Sapolsky and say Dan Dennett, who argues for free will. They just use language differently when it needs to be precise if they are not to be at cross purposes in conveying their conclusions.
@@MajestyofReason Yeah, 'cause Phineas Gage for example is an isolated case in support of the hypothesis. Your response is a single case... You can generalise from such propositions but they are not general cases. The argument is X results in Y. Your inability to see the causal connection takes noting away from the connection itself.
People do not have free will because people are forced to think and do the types of things that their type of genetics and their types of life experiences program them to think and do throughout their life. And who and how someone happens to be is an extremely unfair unjust lottery that is dependent on what type of genetics that they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life. And the only way the way people are would be their fault is if they willingly chose to come into existence and if they created themselves and made themselves be exactly the way that they want to be, but that's not possible.
Also, please help end the suffering become an antinatalist today.
People are asking this question in the context of materialism. That is, all that exists is the mortal coil. However, if as many spiritual disciplines maintain, and NDE research seems to show, the spiritual plane is where decisions about this mortal life are made. Then, one has to distinguish between "fate" and "destiny". We are destined for our appearance on the stage of this mortal life. Our fate is determined by how we conduct ourselves on the road that finally brings us to that destiny.
Determinism still works even in a dualist universe. How are those decisions made in the spiritual plane? It's just another place with another set of rules. The very concept of making a true choice is incoherent. Whether material or not, a given state S(t) evolved into a new state S(t+1) either through a set of well defined rules or randomly. If randomly, we've been lucky.
You're just pushing the problem out a level.
So right away you tried to say that there are in deterministic causes. No ,they are determined. Our ability to identify what determines what in the chain causality has no bearing.
Even if at the bottom, fundamentally, if there were random effects without causes _(if the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is true),_ the rest of the chain appears deterministic and randomness does not get us free will anyway.
“Determined” is not the opposite of “indeterministic”. Please learn English if you wanna participate
@@FightFilms Perhaps you should. The _in-_ prefix can mean not, so like inedible is the opposite of edible, indeterministic is a valid word for the opposite of deterministic.
@@Rogstinand you can’t read…
@@FightFilms make an argument child.
If free-will is quantified relative to power then the nation state along with elite state actors have political free- will that ordinary citizens do not possess by token of being members and not leaders. Although national interests if relative to other nations entail balance of power determinism if conflict entails MAD. So free will in this sense seems a property of personal position in a group structure and not the human organism if the organ structures influence frontal cortex dictates qua central nervous system.
11:50 We have no control(in the free sense) needed for moral responsibility ... rather we are trapped in a mechanism of moral responsibility, ... we are morally responsible exactly because there are deterministic consequences to our actions, not because we are free from their causes. We are morally responsible because we can predict those consequences, unlike other animals(or defective people) that are not capable of predicting....it is the feedback loop that imbues the moral responablilty.
You see a difference in „garbage smell causes homophobia“and „reflecting on an issue for months and getting advice from others“? Makes it sound like the long-term decisions can‘t have multiple long-term influences and are truly unique and free.
Sleepwalking is an interesting example. He says that a sleepwalker is obviously not in control of their actions. What makes this obvious to him? The fact that they aren’t forming memories? 🤔
It's not at all obvious. But if that is the standard for demonstrating determinism, why aren't we all sleepwalking through life? Sapolsky is completely illogical and irrational. No wonder science is facing a crisis.
@@FightFilms Sapolsky didn’t say that. It was said by Tyler, who seems to be a compatiblist. 🤷♂️
@@FightFilms If you read his book it’s backed up by an abundance of footnotes with graphs and studies. It’s a conclusion emerging from all biology and neuroscience, not just his studies. How is a scientific finding ever illogical? It’s just so many individuals are uncomfortable with the findings, similar to evolution.
The neurologist was sharing science that you would think the philosopher would use to develope his beliefs.
What science and what beliefs?
Conversations like this almost never fail to remind me of what a former boss used to say, "I asked for a reason, not an excuse." We may be subject to biological/psychological tendencies and statistical probabilities, but whether or not I wear a condom is still my choice.
There is no way someone can ever prove that I "could" have chosen differently, isn't that the biggest problem for compatibilists? Or am I missing something? I think Joe and Taylor could have done a better job at explaining how and why a large part of philosophers doesnt support determinism.
No because compatiblist completely reject PAP which is what you are saying. It’s not an issue for compatiblilsm at all.
Why would you need that proved? The burden is on the determinist to demonstrate we have no FW despite our strong intuitions.
28:47 Just because the hungry judge study and other studies of unconscious biases use mean responses of the subjects does not weaken the results of the studies.
Sure, as mentioned in the video, there are subjects with responses below the mean.
But by definition of the mean there are also on average just as many subjects who score above the mean.
Also in "Determined", Sapolsky reminds the reader many times that the results are means and that variations about the means have to be carefully considered.
The point of considering factors that increase the probability (however small) of a human behaviour is to show how explanations for human behaviours have been improving over time, to a point sufficient to reconsider the notions of praise and blame.
Even if a complete (natural) understanding of a human behaviour has not been attained (or is unattainable), it does not make sense to me to invoke a notion like free will to fully explain the behaviour. That would be like using a "God of the gaps" argument to explain any natural process.
It appears that every event that is not a quantum event is completely determined by prior events. Completely determined here means that there can only be one outcome (there is a non-zero probability of quantum effects giving an unexpected outcome for macroscopic events which is incredibly small).
Quantum mechanics can give the precise probability of a quantum event given prior conditions but the event itself appears to be fundamentally random.
Human intentions and behaviours appear to operate on scales much greater than that of quantum events and hence are completely determined by prior events.
25:27 Sapolsky addresses the replication crisis in his book Determined. He states that he only cites studies that have been independently replicated after admitting to not having been so careful in his previous book Behaved.
27:12
It's impossible to test these hypotheses. You run an experiment, measure the event. Can you repeat it? Never. You'd have to have the exact same world as the original event in order to account for ALL the influences. And we never know what all the influences are. So the whole debate is kind of an empty question. But I still enjoy exploring it just to see what people say.
1:15:28
It seems to me that someone who claims "hard determinism" and "free will is an illusion" would be contradicting themselves or deluding themselves if they felt praise or blame about someone's actions - they couldn't have done otherwise, supposedly.
1:16:24
What does it mean for someone to be doing something "for their own reasons" under hard determinism with no free will? It seems there should be no "self" having it's own reasons under this worldview. Aren't we all just automata under "no free will/determinism"?
_"What does it mean for someone to be doing something "for their own reasons" under hard determinism with no free will? It seems there should be no "self" having it's own reasons under this worldview. Aren't we all just automata under "no free will/determinism"?"_ there are reasons and ideas, we can't really take credit for them, All that matters is there are well-programmed robots and poorly programmed robots, ones that clean up messes and ones that make messes. And the former is preferable, the goals don't change. we still should want to create a world that is sufficiently efficient. prevent waste. we're still feeling biological machines, value-generating engines.
It's good to think of humans in terms of these models. It helps us discover things that we wouldn't have otherwise. That's partly why I engage in this discussion.
But for me it's also helpful to remember that models are mental constructs. I don't feel the need to have my entire being fit into one mental construct. I engage with other models because I believe I can continue to discover things. The mind can do that. So why insist on finding the ONE model that is true? I don't believe that there is ever any model that encompasses the whole "truth". (what even is truth?). Earlier I said that "the whole debate is kind of an empty question". It's empty for me to the extent that it is striving to find the "one true abstraction". In application we can find: "this model helps us figure out how to get from A to B the best". If I think of a human being as a robot and do some experiments I can figure out some things to solve a specific problem or set of problems. But when I think of my life, I don't see myself as "nothing but" these mechanical and chemical and whatever other scientific processes.
You are just asserting incoherent nonsense without a shred of evidence
I think it's insane to not believe in "hard" determinism. Huemer says it goes against all our knowledge, but I say it's the other way around. His notion requires that paradoxs are true. In other words that things that happen and things that don't happen and things that exist and things that don't exist have equal metaphysical reality. It's very simple: If there is a fork in the road, for there to be a real alternative means that we can go both Left and Right at the same time. If not, how can it be that we could've gone Right instead of going Left? There apparently exists some future that was determined that we go Right, even though this is based on the premise there is no determinism that influences our actions, and in spite of our going Left. Also, there is some past where we made the choice to go Right, and we have knowledge of this in the present where we choose to go Left. Or there is no alternative, there is only one way we could go, which is the way that we actually did go. Which of these conforms to your experience and knowledge of reality?
Alternative means “another possibility” not “both at the same time”, which is the opposite of possible in this case. You implied only interdimensional beings or people who can split into two individuals can have free will. This is begging the question. You gotta learn English before you “do” logic.
@FightFilms How can you have a possibility that is impossible? You can only go one direction so it's not possible to go in a different direction unless you can go in two directions at the same time. In other words you can't go Either Left or Right, you can just go one direction. By "choosing" to go Right you have eliminated the possibility of going Left, yet in order to make any sense as a choice it depends on you having an alternative. Explain to me what the alternative is. There is no choice, there is no free will. There is only one reality where what happens happens. People don't want to accept that because they want to believe that they have control over thier actions, but there is no explanation for how they could have done something other than what they did do and how they can have knowledge of it.
I dont see the need for semi-compatabalism when you could have a society were everyone is operating on a deterministic world view and still hold people responsible for their actions. You can have a determinism based justice system that, even with the knowledge that the murderer had no other choice but to murder, still understands the necessity of punishment in order to maintain the moral architecture of society. I guess compatibilism is a sort of agnosticism towards determinism which is perfectly fine I just don't think moral responsibility is a good reason to shy away from seeing everything as deterministic.
That's what I was thinking. By detaching free will from determinism it seems to lose any meaning. It's like saying that you win a free car, but you have to pay fees that exceed the total value of the car. Your morality responsible for your actions so you have free will, and it doesn't matter whether or not those actions were determined. Am I missing something? Everyone is a compatiblist then, they just don't realize it yet. You just have to tautologically define free will and determinism as being compatible.
I think the main issue here is that you just don't understand compatibilism at all. You're talking about it as if it's some sort of middle position between determinism and free will. But it isn't; it's the position that you're confused for thinking of determinism and free will as opposed to begin with. Generally, compatibilists think that the world is completely deterministic, and also that free will exists. They're not agnostic about determinism, and they're not shying away from it. It's also not generally motivated by "wanting to hold people responsible for their actions" or anything like that; in my experience, it's usually motivated by thinking that incompatibilism relies on an incoherent notion of free will. So talking about not seeing a "need" for compatibilism is kind of weird; compatibilists aren't compatibilists because they think it's necessary, they're compatibilists because they think it's correct.
You could still think they're wrong, but before you go around thinking people are wrong it's probably best to have some idea of what they actually think, and it's pretty clear here that you don't.
@@shirube313 I see what you mean and you're right my understanding of compatibilism is sketchy. I haven't gone in depth with it because I haven't seen anything about it interesting enough to pull me in that direction. I think it's easier to say "both determinism and free will exist" (in whichever variables and configuration you want) then it is to be non-compatabilist and actually want to disprove free will as a fairy tale. The compatibilist gets to ascertain that both forces exist therefore you can simply choose one or the other where it fits your needs. But nowhere have I seen that line of thinking as a stronger disproof of determinism than any other bonkers free will arguments. It's my view that if you think any form of free will exists within a deterministic universe then you aren't being "compatible with determinism" --- even if the logic works on paper. I would never make this a formal argument but from a psychology perspective it seems like compatibilists are determinists that feel too depressed about determinism to be a determinist.
Ah yes, a moral society where the innocent get punished. Very coherent.
A man decides to go to the box store to pick up some things he needs to complete a project at home. He kisses his wife goodbye and tells her that he’ll be right back.
He uses his free will to go to the box store. He can make choices. He is in control.
But on the way there, he gets hit by a drunk driver, and dies in the accident.
This type of thing happens every day. Actually, thousands of times a day.
What happened to his “free will”? It was negated. It was nullified. Actually, he never had it.
If our free will can be taken away at any moment, do we really have it at all?
Many people suffer from crippling anxiety or depression. It ruins their lives. Their minds dictate everything and they can’t free themselves of the misery they are going through. How much free will do they have?
The people in chronic intractable pain. They can’t get out of bed to take a walk or go to work. How much free will do they have?
18,000 children starve to death on a daily basis. Where is their free will?
Free will is a total myth. We don’t control anything. All we do is react to our surroundings, and we don’t control our surroundings.
We don’t control our thoughts, and our thoughts dictate our actions. Our thoughts literally pop up out of nowhere and we control none of it. The 100 billion neurons are in our brains just doing their thing, and we are just along for the ride.
We lose our keys. We lock in our vehicles. We forget things all the time. We arrive late to work. We trip over things. We spill our drinks. We burn our food. We miss our exits on the free way. We do and say things we later regret.
Free will is a total myth. Peace.
Awesome review! Very helpful.
Dr. Sapolsky's interpretation of determinism, as like 'dominos in the fog,' depicts a path from the Big Bang to the present, where past events lead inexorably to our current moment. Yet, at this juncture, an impenetrable fog obscures the view forward. This model negates free will but does so at the cost of prediction - a cornerstone of deterministic worldviews and the scientific method. Sapolsky, perhaps taking a cue from Keynes' observation that 'The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent,' forgoes predictability.
However, this form of determinism, with its sacrificed predictability, poses profound questions about the efficacy and ethics of our justice system. If the system could predict criminal behaviour (since free will is absent), interventions could be justly planned. But lacking this predictive power, we're left unable to intervene or justifiably punish, a steep price to pay in terms of justice and societal safety.
But conceptualizing the fog more naturalistically, as getting thicker in both directions from our current moment, we can acknowledge both deterministic influences and the potential for individual change. Such a perspective allows us to reimagine a justice system that accounts for past deterministic factors and embraces the potential for transformation and moral agency. This approach advocates for a focus on rehabilitation and prevention, aligning with the complexities of human behaviour. It presents a vision of a justice system that respects both probabilistically deterministic nature while also holding out faith in growth and heroism, fostering a more humane and just response to criminality.
He is begging the question. He presupposes we are purely material objects, like rocks (no free will), thus inanimate subject to natural processes. His job is to proven this, not assert it a priori.
18:00 Where are you trying to squeeze control into a probabilistic outcome? If it's all just probabilites then even whatever you're defining as control is also probabilistic. A probabilistic outcome isn't morally culpable.
They don’t hold to leeway they are just saying that it doesn’t have to be an entailment. They are just leaving an option for libertarians who typically hold to leeway.
@@ryanbrown9833 Ah.
Morality is a bad 'choice' for hashing out the 'if one could do otherwise' qundry. If we agree that morality is the map: the 'is' (determined) and the territory: the ought - given intersubjective goals... The rules (determined) the choices made in keeping with or rebellious towards normative codes are both determined on a surface level by arbitrarily defined circumstances (codified). All those factors are clearly determined i.e. not free from coercion or constraint (from within and without). Free will disappears even before chalking up ALL of the determining factors beyond our control (like Laplace's Demon ostensibly can)... The suggestion is deeper than that there is no freedom for us to choose in that we are on all sides guided by forces beyond our control, but ultimately there is no unified Self beyond all those data points to be doing the choosing. We are made of the discrete units of what determines behaviour and makes up belief. The sort of free will people are looking for can't be found there is just Will and actions motivated though thought by a committee that accounts for the Self. No Self. No freedom. Just a pervasive illusion spread across the highly stratified unit we call 'us'. Mind cannot be had absent a brain as far as we can tell - or some comparable substrate. Mind also cannot be seen as contained within the structure of an agent paradoxically. We are massively parallel processors and some of what makes up that processing system is external to any individual actor. The conditions of the environment must be accounted for in a closed system we ascribe selfhood to for ease of explanation and, frankly, whatever constitutes sanity. Morality as a framework sets up argumentum ad consequentiam fallacies that aren't always transparent due to their emotional appeal (also determined).
"and yet it could be that it's indeterministically or probabilistically caused"
well, could it though? does this make sense? doesn't seem intelligible to me to assert that whatever event, occurrence, beable, happening... is "indeterministically or probabilistically caused". at least no-one to my knowledge ever clearly explicated neither a theory of the kind of stance-independent probability of events that would render this assertion just barely intelligible, nor what indeterministic causation would be.
if you listen to sapolsky across several interviews, it's clear that he hasn't been indoctrinated with the idiosyncratic linguistic mannerisms of "analytic philosophy", so when people approach him through this goofy "ah well, actually, it could be that xy unintelligible and untestable theory of causation is the case, because me and my fellow philosophers convinced each other through our obscure contemporary mysticism methodology" is a little jarring for me.
ofc he did at least acknowledge that what he's trying to articulate is strongly plausible, but determinism with some random occurrences that are either just not understood by us but still determined or "truly indeterministic" result in free-will how? i just don't see an argument here.
Yes It's a deterministic universe, should really see Inmendham video on the subject, and free will, refreshing and enlightening.
Many people hold on to free will like a religion, I just don't get it, the fact is we're just robots, and you're either programmed well, or you're programmed poorly.
Compatablism is another cheat to play and redefine free will, just makes no sense.
There's no 'free' like there's no 'spontaneous', our language is full of such words that are very inaccurate to describe reality.
There's not even such a thing as a free will that can possibly exist, what does the word Free even mean here? Free from? Free of? What?
Free from confinement? Logic? Free to get the wrong answer?
Believe 2+2 = 79
It's like saying a god would have free will to believe that, or believe torture doesn't matter and has free will to impose it, logic or knowledge doesn't confine him.
Free will might as well be called random or ignorant will.
I want a confined limited will, a 'good intelligent will', a 'right will'
Start watching an Inmendham video on the subject, 2007-2023
Refreshing and enlightening.
Spot on! Those two young man identify a few good gaps in the discussion, but the stuff they add on in their 'analysis' is much worse thought-out and full of greater gaps and issues.
I kind of agree with you, but I don't entirely discount those ideas. You do admit that you are ignorant of how they work, so that isn't a fair basis to conclude that they are incorrect. It seems to me that the hosts are assuming Compatibilism. I presume that they have a good reason for this, but I don't like the appeal to Popularity that "Most professional philosophers believe it." Anyway, so from that position they are trying to pose arguments against the position that there is only determinism and not free will. By being skeptical of determinism they have accomplished that; It's not necessary that they should have to provide arguments in support of free will.
@@JebeckyGranjola i don't discount those ideas either, i just don't find them intelligible. 🤷🏼♀️
@@JebeckyGranjola also, something very very weird is happening when there's this vague, undefined vibe-concept like free-will, and some people say that maybe it's x. so this is what, basically? hunting vibes? like, i of course know what free-will is, as i am talking as if it's real, just not what you think it is, but then we should also find out what it precisely is by trying to explain it in x different ways, so in a way, we kinda have no idea what it is, but still, let's just keep using the term as if it makes sense without an explanation and keep sticking to it?
i never had a sense or the intuition that i "have free will", so i can't relate.
I think this debate perfectly illustrates why many people have problems with Huemer: he's insanely confident that he's right, while giving arguments that are incredibly shallow compared to the actual serious free will literature. The arguments he gives for Libertarian free will on his Fake Nous blog are among the worst I've ever seen.
Sapolsky is, of course, very confused about philosophy and his book is terrible.
yea, and Sam Harris already tackled the subject, Sapolsky doesn't really add much of anything. I'd recommended people watch inmendham's videos on 'Free Will', the concept doesn't even make sense, not only is it an oxymoron, it's impossible. and even if it existed, it's not something that makes sense to want. what I want is something like a good intelligent logical will, get the right answer will. not free or random.
@@henryp.you can’t want, remember? There is no free will. Stick to the script, bro!
@@FightFilms _"you can’t want, remember? There is no free will. Stick to the script, bro!"_ I can want, that's part of the script / determinism. I can want to read a good / intelligent script. It's part of the determinism I learn/know that 2 + 2 = 4. That I want right answers, not wrong answers.
ThevDevil made me do it - Flip Wilson Sapolsky
The outliers in studies are still determined to make the outlier choices and behaviours. He doesn't suggest everyone will be influenced in the same way just that they are influenced at all to behave the way they in fact do. There's a likelihood of trends but that's just because there are certain causes that have on average normative responses. It's not just linear but contiguous determinism. Hell you could even take a philosophical B-theory of time (where all reality exists eternally and the movement of time is a perceptual illusion) and free will still can't be salvaged. Because whatever is the case is the case no matter what choice is made it is the only one that could have been given all the factors pressing in to create the cause.
A cause definitionally determines an outcome.
This is a short but incredibly relevant note - if quantum incausality were to be proven wrong.
Not according to the dictionary or basic logic.
The moral philosophy angle makes no sense - where does morality come from? When you're trying to get to the bottom of something fundamental like free will it's not a good idea to base your answer on another idea that is equally philosophically contentious.
The moral responsibility issue has nothing to do with the Free Will issue. Maybe philosophers would make more progress if they started from scratch without the morality assumptions.
It’s not contentious to Huemer. If we were to apply your logic, we couldn’t speak of anything. Why are you talking when I disagree with you?
But you both are watching this with seemingly little to no understanding of neuroscience and saying "I still see room for free will". But where? What part of the brain gives us the ability shirk off our biology and make a choice independent of ourselves and all our biological makeup? You can see this in the case of people with overt conditions but there is some utopia of a brain that is perfectly balanced and just transcends biology? Are we talking about something outside the material world? Because then its not worth debating if there is no evidence for it.
Determinism leads to authoritarianism
These two seem to keep misunderstanding the whole point from a deterministic perspective. around 35 minutes into it and couldn't keep going. They keep stopping and saying things like, "well that doesn't prove we have no choice.." and then go on a weird explanation that only shows the point from determinists. "what if the oxy-tocin levels help us see more clearly...maybe there are other factors at play." Well, yes...that'd be the point. No one is saying one causal factor is at play for any one person. When tests demonstrate there are issues involved in our decisions, as they are, it is not to say that there is always some one-to-one correlation with one thing--oxy-tocin and another--a specific act. Because,, that'd be just it...there are tons of factors going into any one of our decisions, as they are. And they only seem to be our decisions in that sense. If our brains are mechanical, then we aren't stuck thinking our minds are somehow controlling our brain. Our thinking may be impacted by many things..but that doesn't mean we're simply freely choosing in the sense we're talking about. It likely just means our choices, as we colloquially call them, are simply products of that which built them for any specific moment. I can choose a sandwich one day and a taco the next. We can say theretically I could have made the opposite decision, but that's not demonstrating free will. that's simply saying I had options, and yet all the factors that went into me choosing a sandwich one day, happened, just as they did. I can't help that. I can't change that. I couldn't even have done differently. Because it was.
I cannot even imagine how can I make a decision using a "Free Will" !!!
Although, I never make a choice, which doesn't seem to be something "I didn't choose", the final decision is a reflection of my current state of mind.
My unique genetic makeup (instincts, intuitions & compulsions), cultural and environmental influences (habits, beliefs & worldview),
current mood and energy level (hormones, endorphins & ATP resources) participate in my decision making process and the outcome is a mixture of logic, instincts, intuition & knowledge. Possibly I could make a different decision if my glucose level was different or I was in a different mood or if an outside factor influenced my thinking,
but there was a decisive reason why I've made my decision and I don't think I could "do otherwise" if everything else was the same at the given moment.
The best I could do is to "Make the best logical, optimal decision according to my intelligence potential", but even this is rarely possible.
When I'm feeling ambitious, relaxed, happy and optimistic - I tend to make better choices.
But when I'm stressed, irritated, discouraged or giving up to my instincts - my decisions are poor ( even though I'm fully aware of it and still allow it to happen... ).
"Personal responsibility" is perfectly compatible with determinism: Even if I was tempted to rob a bank, I wouldn't do it, because the emotional pain associated with prison is very strong.
Another person, capable of accepting the risk for a chance of a quick financial gain - will feel justified to do so...
And just one quick comment on Sapolsky's view of punishment:
It's not fair to punish somebody for a behavior determined by "biological deterministic factors", but a harsh punishment prevents people from doing criminal acts.
Maybe in the future we can cure people from their "antisocial behavior" and prevent crime, but until then... we need police and prisons.
@@hopefullyright5699 I agree, it is to me utterly nonsensical to claim a will can be free in a universe that is based on causality. And since it is impossible for me to imagine a universe that is not based on causality, I can not even mechanistically imagine how a "free will" could/would ever operate.
"Caused" and "determined" are not synonyms. You failed to make an argument why just because an action was caused by something that means there was no free will or choice involved. Saying "nonsensical" surely wasn't it, either.
If you don't think you have free will, why do you act as of you did? That's incoherent.
@@FightFilms They functionally are synonymous. It seems you aren't actually rigorously applying logic. If the chain of causality can be followed back from this moment to the big bang, then logically, every instance of time is _determined_ by the previous instance of time - because if one cause _causes_ the next moment, then unless you can demonstrate that the very same original state of the universe could have led to another outcome, meaning unless you can prove contingentarianism, then the two words are functionally interchangeable. That which causes a state to arise, also _determines_ it.
Huemer is arguing at the level of a flat earther. He's got to be trolling.
Tremendous argument
Taylor, determinism doesnt mean linear cause and effect, its a spiderweb of cause and effects. You cant will your own will. Free will doesnt exist. Get over it.
I too don't like when people pretend as if there's "The Cause" of some event, instead of the spiderweb that it actually is.
I would even go further and say: the difference between "action" and "inaction" doesn't really exist. A lack of action is _just as much of a cause._
Example: one of the causes of why a cannonball continues flying is _because the space in front of it is empty._ If that piece of space wasn't empty, the cannonball would do something else, either stop or change direction.
So it's more like a spiderweb of _pieces of space_ causing each other. All the time, even when nothing's happening.
Does joe believe in free will?
You can’t poo your own poo so you can’t poo! Get over it!
Pretty frustrating. Love Huemer but it’s obvious to me that there are good reasons to change the gravitational constant, namely to save the planet (assuming doing so wouldn’t… destroy all life for other reasons). Reasons exist independently of our awareness of them and of our ability to act on them.
Reactive attitudes, argumentation, deliberation, giving advice, and ‘should’ statements all make sense on a ‘no free will’ view.
Well, I'm sure glad you put red arrows pointing at the two people in the thumbnail, otherwise I probably wouldn't have been able to locate them. Or did you just put those red arrows in because you were told that red arrows in your thumbnails will improve click through rates on your videos?
21:24 But how did you become the sort of person that is sensitive to the reasons to do otherwise? None of that is under your control and so it follows that neither is the decision.
It doesn’t matter, what matters is that I’m still responsive to reasons so that isn’t a defeater for RR theory. It could be the case that I become the sort of character I am through some environment out of my control but that doesn’t matter since I don’t think history affects my freedom. What’s in my control is epistemic deliberation and being responsive to reasons. All of this is true even if determinism is the case.
@@ryanbrown9833 I'm not sure what you think you mean when you say "I don't think history affects my freedom ". History is whatever happened some arbitrary slice of time before some event. Compatibilists will admit history limits freedom and can even destroy it. So I'm not actually sure what you're saying, if you are arguing that you can make choices "free" of the causal chain then we have nothing further to speak about as your view isn't grounded in science. Otherwise, no, epistemic deliberation isn't under your control, it's just the result of what happened before.
@@christopherchilton-smith6482 no this isn’t true internalist deny that history matters, this just isn’t the case. There’s huge disagreement in the literate amongst compatiblist on this. Also no it is up to me I’m still accessing alternatives.
@@christopherchilton-smith6482 you have to do an internal critique or give an argument on why I’m not epistemically deliberating. Neuroscience is compatible with this as well although there are issues with libet experiments and some other papers on neuroscience as well. I’m still epistemically accessing alternatives and can conceive them and I’m still responding to reasons. Saying “because it’s determined therefore it’s not on you” it just assuming incomatiblism. You have to first show how determinism entails that you aren’t in control or that you are forced to do something.
@@ryanbrown9833 This is a denial of causality, what are you basing this on? How are you justifying this? If we are both working in a materialistic framework then how do you justify that assertion?
The proof of hard determinism is the outcomes that are actual and not counterfactual. You couldn't have freely done otherwise than you did unless it is in some universe where you didn't freely choose a different outcome. The language is such a sticking point in these debates. If you just drop free and go with will you can then start to evaluate potential responsibility.
You speak of proof, but go on to make baseless assertions.
@@FightFilms The base of the assertion is what demonstrably occured. You might reject the premise that it could not have happened otherwise but the heavy lifting would be all yours to show how all things being equal a different outcome could possibly be instantiated.
You made a baseless assertion: " You couldn't have freely done otherwise than you did unless it is in some universe where you didn't freely choose a different outcome", got called out, shifted the burden of proof. Dishonest AF.
@@FightFilms The assertion had it's basis in retrospective considerations. If you could have responded otherwise, you would have. If you want to say there are situations in which this might have occured otherwise it's on you. You had a snarky response 'could' you have done otherwise? I don't believe so. I may be wrong, of course. My assertion is simply that past events occured the way they did and unless you appeal to a fictional reality they could not have obtained otherwise. That's not controversial, as I understand it. Can you at this precise moment do other than you actually will given the determinant antecedents (I would say no)? But you can maybe prove me wrong by doing or refraining from doing what you actually do next... How you would illustrate your ability to do other than you in fact do remains opaque to me. This isn't a formal debate, but I don't have sand in my vagina about it because there's nothing riding it except acceptance.
Jesus Christ... Sapolsky and Huemer need to define their terms, and then apply them consistently. They just failed Phil101 -- with gusto. Moreover, proximate causation is not formal causation or final causation, and it is not pertinent to the concepts of self-identity, self-control, and ethical responsibility, thanks Aristotle and every serious logician, ontologist, and linguist, since. What Huemer wants to say is that wishful self-analysis confirms Cartesianism or an anarchic sort of careless solipsism, whereas Sapolsky wants to presume Cartesianism, then rather easily prove it is nonsense, blithely unaware that these were (logical, not scientific) issues settled rather neatly in the late bronze age. But at least Sapolsky's contribution leaves open the possibility of actually medically helping those suffering from brain disease, so all power to him, even though he is out of his expertise, and may not care as much about the victims thereof, than making what he believes to be grand metaphysical declarations, that are really quite undergraduate and embarrassing for someone of his vast scientific knowledge.
If you don't understand what I just wrote, or refuse to try, go back to the farm and contribute to the species by making food and textiles. The adults in the room have more important things to deal with than teenage revelations that dawn on 50 year old academics utterly divorced from the serious day-to-day problems of sick, neglected workers.
10:50 Sourcehood free will isn't morally culpable.
Have you read any literature on the sourcehood compatibilism?
@@ryanbrown9833 Desires, intentions and rational deliberations are forged within circumstances of which you had no control, this follows for authenticity and litteraly everything else about a person. whether or not you are rational, reasonable and self reflective isn't free from the totality of history which when taken into account determines your actions.
As Sapolsky points out, drawing your lines here is like judging a film based on the last 3 seconds. It not only makes no sense but is particularly cruel when those judgments are happening within a retributive "justice" system.
@@christopherchilton-smith6482 yeah prove externalism I don’t grant that lol. You keep saying I have these things because of history therefore you aren’t free, that’s not even just assuming historicism that’s assuming incompatibilism. Most arguments against compatibilism fails off the mark because they can’t even do an internal critique or critique it without begging the question.
@@christopherchilton-smith6482 Sapolisky hasn’t added anything new into this, he’s a non philosopher. All of his arguments aren’t new at all and it’s already been dealt with. There are far way better arguments against conpatibilism which is also depressing. But people watch psuedo like him or Alex and act like they had some knock down argument when this isn’t anything new at all.
59:49
Lmao this actually sounded exactly like a Huemer response
I believe we have free will. Otherwise, how do you explainify Mickey Mouse and Pet Rocks? Also that dumb but deliberate invented word in the last snetence. And then that spelling mistake. Nevertheless, individual free will is extremely attenuated by circumstance for most people.
_Mickey Mouse and Pet Rocks_ People have wants to make art and money.
_invented word, spelling mistake_ You wanted to make a point.
Free will is indistinguishable from determinism.
@@Rogstin So, Mickey Mouse was already predetermined at the moment of the big bang is what you are saying?
I don't deny human will is extremely attenuated by circumstance of society and the physical world. But human mind is embedded in nature and shares the same infinite varaibility as that other natural process wherein no two snowflakes are the same.
People] have wants to make art and money."
Sure, but this is a general pattern of existence and simply does not predict the exact specific details of infinite variation. Like a randum shpelling mistakkz. Whereas total lack of free will implies every drawn line of every Micky Mouse cartoon frame, every single sentence, every single word, every single voice over frequency spectrum was already dictated at the moment of the big bang. Meanwhile, you have ZERO clue what existed before the big bang. Therefore no basis to either prove or disprove the claim.
Further, in order to prove absolute determinism you would need a point of absolute resolution for observation. An atomic level of resolution would not be fine enough because inside each atom lies an unmappable dance of subatomic fields and particles.
Science currently has zero means of establishing whether or not this dance of energy inside atoms has spontaneous features or not.
@@douglascutler1037 _predetermined_ I wouldn't use that word, that implies motive and agency. It was inevitable.
_wherein no two snowflakes are the same._ Poetic imagery, does not necessarily correspond to reality.
_Meanwhile, you have ZERO clue what existed before the big bang._ And? What came before is irrelevant. Pick an arbitrary state S(t), evolve it forward to state S(t+1). The idea is that any given state will always evolve to the next. No variability. Inevitability. It doesn't matter that there are infinitely many states. What matters is how we move from one to another.
_in order to prove absolute determinism you would need a point of absolute resolution for observation_ No, you would just have to demonstrate that any apparently random or spontaneous event, isn't. We may not be able to, and that's fine, since randomness or spontaneous effects doesn't lead to free will either.
Can someone point me to the freedom in source-hood free will? Like, free from the influence of others, cept mebbe God? 🤷♂
Compatibilists insist that determinism is compatible with free will, but instead they _argue_ that it's compatible with our sense of justice. Why keep the name if they're actually changing the subject? 😕
That’s because you have a lay view of what free will means in the philosophical literature. In the contemporary literature most philosophers take free will to be the controlled conditioned for moral responsibility. There are compatiblist models that could work without the concept of “justice”.
@@ryanbrown9833 Why do they insist on calling moral responsibility “free will” if it has nothing to do with freedom of the will? Isn’t it easier to properly assign moral responsibility if we recognize and accept the fact that the will is anything but free? What’s the purpose and justification for the semantic sleight of hand? Who do they think they’re fooling, and why? 😕
@@serversurfer6169 yeah but when you say “it has nothing to do with freedom of the will” thats just assuming something against the contemporary literature on what free will is. It’s because intuitively we tend to blame or praise people for actions as if they were “free”. People also tend to feel pride or guilt for what they have done as well.
@@ryanbrown9833 Okay, and how can we properly assess whether and how to do those things if people continue to obscure the fact that our behavior is deterministic? Shouldn’t justice be served in light of determinism, not in spite of it? Are we forgetting why free will took Creation off the hook in the first place? 🤔
@@serversurfer6169 I mean compatibilist will grant that we could be living in a deterministic world it’s just that we could have free will in a certain sense. Determinism would obviously be incompatible with free will if we had a libertarian type of free will. We can see be testing which models seem to fit with most of our intuitions. I don’t know wym by your second question.
To me, Joe and Taylor seem to go into this with the presumption that free will exists and then claim that Sapolsky doesn't do a good job of disproving it. I'd not say that it's an easy "burden of proof" thing, but surely you have to start from the assumption of a natural world and then reason through materialism to see whether such a thing as ´free will could exist.
Perhaps youre assuming too much on their intent (or perhaps I am). As this looks more like a lets make a "sapolsky is wrong" video, than a lets attempt to build something.
And just to be clear, I love that this video was made, and am for that eternally grateful. 🙂
@@ivanjaldin235 Well, yes... That might, on the other hand, seem to assume too much in the other direction.
The answer is no
Determinism means “one way”? 😂🤣😂🤣 No
Guys: Your analysis reveals that you find it hard to accept there is no free will. Ok. It’s weird and unpleasant at first to think - No FW? What? My question: Where is the evidence of FW? I’ve seen none. And there are tons of evidence against it. Mike is a below average thinker in terms of offering compelling, logical points. Robert is a great scientist and a poor debater. “Debating” is not his thing. For one, he’s too nice to guys like Mike.
You thinking you can know truth is PROOF you believe you have free will. What’s this evidence of determinism?
I have a sense from listening to this, all sides of the argument fall in to the “I’m right” or attempting to convince conundrum
“I recently have had multiple useful conversations considering an understanding both sides, using a strictly subjective approach.”
All sides are coming from a biased view. Admittedly coming from my view-“yes even Robert”, although he is the one I have a sense, I completely agree with.
I have a sense, that I think that’s not the true spirit of what I would “want” to see this debate to be.
That’s why I prefer a written debate that is only spoken with the “objective” subjectiveness in mind, for everyone it seems there will only ever be one behind the eyes.
(even though me proclaiming that is a subjective notion. I have a sense that I think it’s a paradox.)
In these emotionally driven debates, so many seem to fall in to the I’m a spokesperson for all humans. The…
“We” have this ability, “We” are capable, “You” can/can’t do this and that.
(There are “I” statements, I just have a sense that I think, it should mostly be “I” statements if not only - if possible. At least “it has shown we/you” statements)
So I'm going to convey this argument, from the "I" perspective
(First part of my argument mostly comes from the teaching of Robert, I will express my more intuitive reasons at the end.)
I have a sense that, I don't think in the way of "making another choice" once a "choice" has occurred there is no going back. I can say I "could've" made another choice, the point is "|" didn't.
Doesn't answer the fundamental question, where does the "want" that leads to my choice come from? It seems to be all the history that makes up me, “the sense of "control/thinking”, is being conducted in the confines of my physical brain. My brains history, biology/anatomy, capabilities and how my brain is reacting to my environment. I am not an outside observer I'm apart of the system, the system that determines my "choices."
(Side Note: Important to mention, coming from my subjective experience (views) I don’t view the brain and “mind” as separate, I understand the feeling it is, I have a sense that I…. just think the contrary. I have a sense that I think. “The mind” “consciousness” “self awareness” is nothing more than a property of complex matter. “emergent complexity”)
Basically, I'm saying it's impossible for me to have any other "sense of control/Thinking" than I do. Which doesn't just influence my choices it causes them.
I have a sense that I feel the biggest issue in this debate is the assumption of universal mental thinking, capacity and capabilities.
My final arguments on “free will” that come more from intuition.
I have a sense that I think the fact that mental disorders even exist at all completely disproves the notion. This notion comes from intuition, because I have lived my whole life around individuals who sufferer from “mental disorders” also I have as well.
(Side Note: same with how drugs and alcohol have an effect on the “mind” at all. That a brain tumor or brain damage has the potential to completely change me, my sense of “self”)
My final argument this is in regard to the notion of “evil” and moral responsibility. I always had a sense that I’ve felt “Free Will” strongly suggests that “every human” is in a state of violent thoughts and urges, a constant state of selfishness, obsessive thinking, just hate fueled greed. That “every” human wants or thinks about “unaliveing” somebody or multiple somebodies at all times… (any evil thought that can be had) and is just resisting using “Free Will” and “choosing” to be “good”. (Or is just resisting because of the fear of punishment, same applies for seemingly “bad” actions, such as stealing.)
(Stupidly Long Side Note: I’ve always felt it was interesting it’s ever been suggested an individual who is the vessel of an evil act. Is in any way shape or form in the societal accepted state of “brain” the superficial state of “mind” is besides the point or the superficial understanding of “right” and “wrong”. I have a sense that I feel it’s beside the point because the contrary behavior is occurring, so is that “understanding” really valid, it’s not felt and why is that? I’ve never understood how one chooses to be “evil” or “good”, to me either considered side just is. I have a sense that I feel, the only path forward after what has occurred, seemingly has always occurred, and is likely to continue to occur is prevention, rehabilitation (if possible) and if absolutely necessary, forced quarantine. I have a sense that I think this because, the perceived “evil” individual(s) have occurred, seemingly has always occurred, and is likely to continue to occur. To me this makes more sense than saying don’t exist in the first place. Absolute “Free Will” Some “Free Will” or No “Free Will” I think this applies. Punishment, thirst for revenge, hating, is just meeting violence with violence. I am a recently self proclaimed pacifist though, so the notion is completely subjective, and to a degree emotionally biased.)
(I have come to a sense of understanding some scientific notions that back up my thoughts but will not approach In this statement, because the conclusion was intuitive before the understanding, which I already approached the more scientific thoughts earlier in the statement.)
I have a sense that I’m wondering, how this style of debating sits with other individuals and am interested if you agree or disagree with me and why?
I feel the only thing Sapolsky proves with his smorgasbord of evidence is that no one’s present context is ever free from their past. However, in my humble opinion the true claim that each of us has a single, albeit, circuitous and sometimes highly obscure and nuanced past history, doesn’t falsify an equally true claim that the future remain pregnant with possibilities open to everyone including the least self-knowledgable and self-reflective amongst us. I agree, that our history and present context constrains choice but strongly disagree that it does so to such an extent that we only have one predetermined option. It blows my mind that an intelligent academic like Sapolsky promotes such one-sided nonsense and with an air of absolute authority and confidence. But then, it shouldn’t really be surprising that the denial of an open future, leaves you fixated on the view in life’s rear-vision mirror.
His soyence is evidence of free will. He’s not very bright
@@FightFilms actually I think Sapolsky is bright, just not right.
Bright like a 1w lightbulb. Seems like another one of those propped-up soyentists.
Outdated information founded on fantasy. There is no predetermined course. Using physical instruments to measure non physical things may be problematic
"Most of what we are is non physical, though, our lowest form is physical. All life on our planet has the lowest form, the Body. Our Body is an Animal and the other type of Body on our planet is a Plant. Bodies are bound absolutely to Natural Law, which is the lowest form of true Law. Natural Law is a localised form of Law and is derived from the Laws of Nature. Natural Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of species, members of species, and the material sources of a planet.
The lowest non physical form of what we are is the Mind, which is a Process. There are other forms of life on our planet that have both a Body and a Mind, however, so far as we currently know, there are no Plants and only some Animals that have a Body and a Mind. The lowest forms of Mind, Instinct and Emotion, are predominantly bound to Natural Law. The next higher form of Mind is Intellect which is bound predominantly to the Laws of Nature. Intuition, the highest form of Mind, can be bound or not to both Natural Law and the Laws of Nature separately or together, or to higher forms of Law altogether. Intuition is the truest guide for our Selves.
The next non physical form of what we are is the Self, which is an Awareness. There are relatively few other forms of life on our planet that have a Self. The Self is not bound to any form of Law other than One's Own Law. It is the only form of Law that cannot be violated.
The foundation of what we are is the highest non physical form of what we are. The highest form of what we are is the Being, which is an Existence. The Being is not bound to any form of Law originating within Existence. The Being is bound absolutely to The Law.
Existence, and the Laws of Nature which are the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements within Existence, cannot Be without The Law being The Law.
So, what is The Law?
In a word, The Law is options.
Definition
option: a thing that is or may be chosen.
The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is.
Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is.
In clarifying what The Law is;
The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing.
Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate.
Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating;
the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon,
the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded,
the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded,
the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence,
the concept of options, and
Free Will.
However one thinks, believes, guesses, hopes, or "knows", whether by a Big Bang, a creation story, a computer program, an expansion of consciousness, or whatever means by which Existence could have come to Be, the option for Existence to not Be also exists. Existence and Non Existence, the original options connected by the very concept of options, connected by The Law. Outside of space and before time. Extra-Existential.
As we experience The Law in our Being,
The Law is Free Will.
The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent.
The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent."
- Goho-tekina Otoko
"Truth is always relative to the closed system it exists within. Existence is, in the strictest sense, a closed system. There are truths within existence that are true and there are truths within existence that are not true. Truth can only exist in a closed system and may or may not be true outside of that closed system, not therein. Truth is that which men and women convey through Voice and Word. One's offered truth may or may not be true. Truth and true are not the same word, and subsequently, truth and true are not the same thing. True is that which can be shown in words through at least one question and its exact answer. That which can be shown in words can subsequently be seen by all men and women.
In the closed system of the Catholic Church of four hundred years ago, the truth was that our planet was the centre of a geocentric planetary system. Galileo posited that our planet was a part of a heliocentric solar system and spent the last years of his life under house arrest as a consequence of going against the truth of the Church. The Church has since changed its truth to the heliocentric solar system model."
- Goho-tekina Otoko
spiffing
the whole point is that we dont come to a conslusion lol, as such, at least we can belief what we want to belief :) in this life, there is always a way out for every measure of plight, isnt that deterministic ? :D
Facts dont care about your feelings or religion. The more we learn about neuro science the more it points to determinism. Its not 100% but theres more and more evidence every year and it all is slowly pointing in one direction. It would be amazing if we discovered any action ever that wasnt determined by prior events. Until then....