Dennett talks about "evitability" as if simply avoiding a spear means that something "evitable" has occurred. In a determined world, even cases of avoiding the spear are inevitable, as are the cases of being hit by one. The fact that the caveman inevitably wanted to avoid the spear (as per deterministic laws controlling his brain) and the fact that he did in fact inevitably avoid the spear (as per deterministic laws operating on his brain) does not give him free will. It just makes him inevitably satisfied, and satisfaction is not synonymous with freedom.
Through evolution we dont want to harm individuals or ourselves our grains grew bigger and with the programming universe parameters the aliens put in that was the outcome. Now in other circumstance we do not have free will such as disorders in the brain causing murder that you had no control of or any other disorder that causes harm. Blame the alien programmers for generating illness, disorders, diseases, and mutations.
***** "But his point is even if you get hit by the spear, depending on the circumstances, you could have avoided it." "clearly there is some sense in which many different things are possible for us in every situation" The problem is, that by "you could have avoided it" and "different things are possible for us" all you mean is that these type of events, in general, aren't physically impossible. That is, that if they happened, they wouldn't be breaking any laws of physics. A hard determinist agrees with this. Of course the event of avoiding a spear is physically possible. When a determinist says that the man "couldn't have avoided the spear" he is not saying that avoiding spears is impossible, he's saying that given the direction the man was looking, the speed and angle of the spear, the man's reaction time, how much sleep he head the night before, the current state of his brain, the speed of his neurons, etc etc etc, he could not have avoided the spear in THIS circumstance, because the state of the universe would have to have been different in order to produce that result. (he would have to have been more alert, mor athletic, more afraid, or had better reflexes, or the spear would have to be traveling slower, or at a different angle, or what have you). Even if a TYPE of event is physically possible, any given instance of that event can be made impossible by the state of the universe and the laws of physics. It is possible for me to say the alphabet backwards while hoping on my foot, but I may be distracted enough, or angry enough, or drunk enough at times to render it truly impossible in the moment. That's determinism.
(My Comment #1) I agree with Professor Patricia Churchland that rampant uncaused actions are not an integral part of free will since people have to be reasonable and not just usually decide to do something out of nowhere. She also mentioned about Libet's experiment but this time the average time recorded was 300 milliseconds. This is where I understood that the time of conscious intention was recorded from the time seen by the subject on the clock when he feels the urge to press the button. However, that measurement is not precise and the experiment is not even representative of free will. This spontaneous action is in contrast with the conscious decisions of everyday life.
(My Comment #2) I believe that determinism and free will are incompatible since determinism takes away the aspect of choice which is a fundamental part of free will. It is problematic since the decision of the person cannot be exactly determined from initial variables, or even just the immediately preceding variables, if he has free will which can make him ignore some variables while being attentive at others. So no matter how much changes are made, determinism and free will are incompatible unless they are changed so much that they no longer resemble determinism and free will.
I see the constraints of free will like this - imagine there is a basket with balls in it. now we can choose the number of balls or the color according to our wish but someone each time is shuffling the balls or removing some balls from the basket and introducing some new balls. This to me is the illusion of free will, our choices are quite limited and determined by a host of other factors. now obviously my analogy is not completely accurate but I hope you get the basic idea that I am trying to put here.
(My Comment #3) If without concessions, free will and determinism are incompatible. But I do not understand why a lot of the philosophers in this video insist that determinism is true even though they actually see the appearance of free will. It is very possible that determinism is untrue because of the examples of random quantum interactions in Physics such as quantum tunneling. At the quantum level, outcomes become probabilistic so that even exactly similar environments could yield different outcomes, making it impossible to determine exactly what will happen. The result carries over to some macroscopic interactions such as those inside stars. This randomness does not prove free will but is disproves determinism.
@@neverstopaskingwhy1934 The idea that it was you who did it so you have free will Because of it being every single atom of you is more of trying to define it to avoid the possibility you are wrong and word play. If all the atoms that made up who you are were predetermined to behave a Pacific way than you are a puppet. I understand at the quantum level you have randomness but where is the freedom in a random will that you can not control?
if we all went back 60 years without the knowledge of this happening and without retaining the knowledge we had gained in those 60 years, I believe the exact same outcome would occur as the 60 years went by again.. Every raindrop will land and flow the exact way it did before. And every action would be repeated down to the length of every breath taken. To think some sort of different outcome would occur seems to go against common sense to me.
I have always believed that the free-will (vs.) determinism dichotomy presented a false choice - similar to, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet, yes or no?" In my opinion, neither view offers sufficient insight into the underlying processes they attempt to represent. Nor does any possible combination of these two incompatible theories. In so far as it may be possible to adequately describe in words what the underlying processes are, I believe we will need a third, completely different way of looking at the phenomena as a point from which to develop a new vocabulary. Meanwhile, because of the ingrained habit of assuming "free will" built into our languages, our social institutions would find it very difficult to function without that concept. Freedom and responsibility remain necessary fictions.
It occurs to me the key is responsibility. "I" am my responsibility (response-ability), and the key to my responsibility is my 'willingness'. My willingness is my freedom from certain kinds of mental friction, depression, torpor etc. If we deny free will it should not be because we are unwilling or wish to duck responsibility.
I think all these philosophers forget a key factor. If everyone can make choices then everyone shapes everything, what we are doing right now is shaping the future, our future and possibly the future of others. Our own actions are the cause of what will be and unfortunately or fortunately that cause affects others. Now take that an multiply it by 5, 10, 9,000,000 to see the magnitude of "I am the king" like actions. One guy commits genocide, a few others make a Nuke, and one guy found penicillin to help the world. If everyone made or discovered things like Alexander Fleming in their respective fields the world would would be a better place.
+zeabebawa And that has what to do with free will? They would all agree with you that penicillin is good and nukes are bad, that they both have significant impacts on this world, and that they were caused by a small handful of people. They would also argue that the apparent "choices" these people made were really just brain events that were caused by antecedent events and were themselves the causes of future events. How exactly does your point address that?
The question of whether or not we have free will seems meaningless to me. Even if there would be no possible doubt that physicalism is true and that it follows from that fact that every decision we make is purely the product of deterministic physical processes, then we still have "free will" in the sense that although it can be rightfully said to be an illusion, there is nothing _but_ the illusion. Usually, when we speak of an illusion, the thing that's erroneously perceived as being real, is either a copy or a permutation of something that does actually exist and that we merely mistook a mental picture for the thing it's a picure of (e.g. the illusion of being abducted by space aliens is constructed out of permutations of real things such as "aircraft", "lifeform", probably "biped", perhaps "surgery", etc.). This is not the case here: it is not a mental picture, but more akin to an abstract painting that doesn't resemble anything we know to exist. My question to that is: what is the meaning of "illusion" when there is no non-illusory variant of the very thing we're talking about? If the illusion is all there is, then all we're really left talking about is some metaphysical speculation about what ultimately drives the illusion-and that too would become pointless if it were 100% certain that physicalism is true. I'm inclined to argue that based on this, we can meaningfully say that free will is "real", if only because it's one of the most fundamental parts of the reality of our daily lives that we have no way of escaping from. If I'm wrong in making this assertion, then how exactly does our illusory free will differ from what we've always though of as "actual" free will, other than how it fits into the theoretical framework of science?
Actually an illusion it's self has nothing to do with anything that exist . An illusion is more or less something that appears to be true but is smoke and mirrors trickery. Now people have the illusion free will exist but nothing physical or non physical could grant an actual free will. The only thing that could be granted is the illusion or trickery that you have a free will. In other words you do not have it but you think you do.
This is not exactly a disagreement of what you said: Sometimes people experience their body act outside of their volition. Like when avoiding a car accident or when exhausted and flying off the handle. Also, mystics report feeling like being just a feather blown by the breeze.. So, that is another experience of non-volition that is considered quite pleasant. This doesn't suggest, though that people generally feel purely determined.
I often quote Philip K Dick in these situations, "Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." The natural phenomenon of people choosing from the available options based on knowledge and intention will never go away, no matter how many determinists balance themselves on the head of a pin.
The problem compatilist have is for it to work they have to redefine either free will or Determinism to mean something that it does not. To redefine free will in a way it maps out into the world is it also is meaningless from a freedom stand point. The reason is you would have to say your free will is only doing what you want. But if you don't chose what you want and it's predetermined you have no freedom. Randomness can not equal free will either unless the person could control the randomness which we do not. To go the route to get compatilism with libertarian free will you have to redefine or water down Determinism into either be partial Determinism or say not everything is determined. Neither of these things work and is trying to have your cake and eat it to.
If someone shows you that almost all the claims of determinism are nothing but metaphysical speculation, then it would be perverse to cling to your original definition, while claiming that you are science based.
I can't see how you can argue for a completely materialistic, deterministic mind because that would make any reason invalid also the mind has produced amazing understanding and pragmatic theories which fly in the face of a materialistic, random and irrational forces of nature on the mind. Also doesn't the theory of relativity and it's ultimate connotations that everything in the past present and future exists together invalidate cause and effect, how can what ever happens now effect the future if the future already exists?
Ultimately what determinism say to the very core: matter follow law of physic. We human are made of matter, we are not one person, it is only delimited unperfectly by human vision. So we do follow a law of nature and not a undetermined pure random law, its just that we cant comprehend or own mechanism to the core.
if you ask someone who took the risk and succeeded whether it was worth it or not, they will answer yes, if you ask the same question someone who took the risk and failed, they will answer no, but none of this is meaningful, because it's not relevant. It's not a valid question to ask wheather the decision was right or wrong because it's not the decision that determined the outcome, but some uncorrelated randomness. In another words, the summary outcome of all of our lifetime decisions can either give the best ot the worst possible result depending on the sum of all random variables involved in the process, hence it's not that important what decisions one makes throughout their lives. I call it >>The Great Paradox of Samcik
Tomek Samcik But if you're lucky enough to be in a position where your choices will make a huge difference to the health and well being of others then we better hope you've been educated on whatever subject it is that you're making choices about. If that's not the case then some people have been fortunate enough to have the intelligence and drive instilled in them to go against you or point out why a choice you make would be bad. So our choices can matter greatly, but they're just not free choices. Technically you could say they're not even choices but just actions we're influenced to do. But those actions reflect the type of person we are and how comfortable/uncomfortable our present or future will be.
+Ironic Mickey No, no argumenting nor a discussion with you. It's simply not possible to talk about or explain this 'subject' to a scientific oriented mind/brain/person (as your comment shows). Arthur Schopenhauer said it nicely: "man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". Have a good day, IM. en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
Isaiah 46:10
"Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish."
Dennett talks about "evitability" as if simply avoiding a spear means that something "evitable" has occurred. In a determined world, even cases of avoiding the spear are inevitable, as are the cases of being hit by one. The fact that the caveman inevitably wanted to avoid the spear (as per deterministic laws controlling his brain) and the fact that he did in fact inevitably avoid the spear (as per deterministic laws operating on his brain) does not give him free will. It just makes him inevitably satisfied, and satisfaction is not synonymous with freedom.
Through evolution we dont want to harm individuals or ourselves our grains grew bigger and with the programming universe parameters the aliens put in that was the outcome. Now in other circumstance we do not have free will such as disorders in the brain causing murder that you had no control of or any other disorder that causes harm. Blame the alien programmers for generating illness, disorders, diseases, and mutations.
***** "But his point is even if you get hit by the spear, depending on the circumstances, you could have avoided it."
"clearly there is some sense in which many different things are possible for us in every situation"
The problem is, that by "you could have avoided it" and "different things are possible for us" all you mean is that these type of events, in general, aren't physically impossible. That is, that if they happened, they wouldn't be breaking any laws of physics.
A hard determinist agrees with this. Of course the event of avoiding a spear is physically possible. When a determinist says that the man "couldn't have avoided the spear" he is not saying that avoiding spears is impossible, he's saying that given the direction the man was looking, the speed and angle of the spear, the man's reaction time, how much sleep he head the night before, the current state of his brain, the speed of his neurons, etc etc etc, he could not have avoided the spear in THIS circumstance, because the state of the universe would have to have been different in order to produce that result. (he would have to have been more alert, mor athletic, more afraid, or had better reflexes, or the spear would have to be traveling slower, or at a different angle, or what have you).
Even if a TYPE of event is physically possible, any given instance of that event can be made impossible by the state of the universe and the laws of physics. It is possible for me to say the alphabet backwards while hoping on my foot, but I may be distracted enough, or angry enough, or drunk enough at times to render it truly impossible in the moment. That's determinism.
Especially when you have no energy or food your brain wanders different things and cannot focus since lack of energy.
Simple solution. We are not morally responsible but we are socially responsible.
(My Comment #1) I agree with Professor Patricia Churchland that rampant uncaused actions are not an integral part of free will since people have to be reasonable and not just usually decide to do something out of nowhere. She also mentioned about Libet's experiment but this time the average time recorded was 300 milliseconds. This is where I understood that the time of conscious intention was recorded from the time seen by the subject on the clock when he feels the urge to press the button. However, that measurement is not precise and the experiment is not even representative of free will. This spontaneous action is in contrast with the conscious decisions of everyday life.
(My Comment #2) I believe that determinism and free will are incompatible since determinism takes away the aspect of choice which is a fundamental part of free will. It is problematic since the decision of the person cannot be exactly determined from initial variables, or even just the immediately preceding variables, if he has free will which can make him ignore some variables while being attentive at others. So no matter how much changes are made, determinism and free will are incompatible unless they are changed so much that they no longer resemble determinism and free will.
Define free-will first, then work on seeing if we have it or not.
I see the constraints of free will like this - imagine there is a basket with balls in it. now we can choose the number of balls or the color according to our wish but someone each time is shuffling the balls or removing some balls from the basket and introducing some new balls. This to me is the illusion of free will, our choices are quite limited and determined by a host of other factors.
now obviously my analogy is not completely accurate but I hope you get the basic idea that I am trying to put here.
(My Comment #3) If without concessions, free will and determinism are incompatible. But I do not understand why a lot of the philosophers in this video insist that determinism is true even though they actually see the appearance of free will. It is very possible that determinism is untrue because of the examples of random quantum interactions in Physics such as quantum tunneling. At the quantum level, outcomes become probabilistic so that even exactly similar environments could yield different outcomes, making it impossible to determine exactly what will happen. The result carries over to some macroscopic interactions such as those inside stars. This randomness does not prove free will but is disproves determinism.
16:26 if one accepts probabilities or determinism, both are not controlled by man but by nature
== ISBN of books to buy ==
9780307744258
9780674035157
9781596915237
9781608199334
9781494508371
9780786196364
9780062064011
9780230113848
9780007214617
9780060789411
ASIN:B012LWZHWU (οταν βλέπεις ASIN πας μεσω amazon και μετα γραφεις εκδότη-συγγραφεα)
9780781778176
9781118332597
9780878936953
9780195334364
9781609189853
9781594205262
9780465018956
ASIN:B00Y2RUQ5Q
9781405108621
9781438445182
9780805073690
9780743202411
9780684838915
9780743260169
9780307986818
9780307986795
ASIN:B009S8AV1I
9780750305600
ASIN:B0046ZRZ3K
9781421403519
9780307473349
9781400033720
9780307473332
9780307278821
9780385477055
9780385477819
9780385484992
9780393327007
9780465075683
9780465062904
9780190201081
9780192803955
9780300181807
9780195396614
9780745652375
9780199791156
9780199860517
If u could really control all of ur atom then u would be able to be constantly happy. What do u imply by free will? dosent atom interaction determin u
@@neverstopaskingwhy1934 The idea that it was you who did it so you have free will Because of it being every single atom of you is more of trying to define it to avoid the possibility you are wrong and word play.
If all the atoms that made up who you are were predetermined to behave a Pacific way than you are a puppet.
I understand at the quantum level you have randomness but where is the freedom in a random will that you can not control?
if we all went back 60 years without the knowledge of this happening and without retaining the knowledge we had gained in those 60 years, I believe the exact same outcome would occur as the 60 years went by again.. Every raindrop will land and flow the exact way it did before. And every action would be repeated down to the length of every breath taken. To think some sort of different outcome would occur seems to go against common sense to me.
dan reid yes because what you're doing essentially is rewinding a video/dvd
These people have got it all wrong.
I can't believe they haven't figured it out yet.
I have always believed that the free-will (vs.) determinism dichotomy presented a false choice - similar to, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet, yes or no?" In my opinion, neither view offers sufficient insight into the underlying processes they attempt to represent. Nor does any possible combination of these two incompatible theories. In so far as it may be possible to adequately describe in words what the underlying processes are, I believe we will need a third, completely different way of looking at the phenomena as a point from which to develop a new vocabulary. Meanwhile, because of the ingrained habit of assuming "free will" built into our languages, our social institutions would find it very difficult to function without that concept. Freedom and responsibility remain necessary fictions.
It occurs to me the key is responsibility. "I" am my responsibility (response-ability), and the key to my responsibility is my 'willingness'. My willingness is my freedom from certain kinds of mental friction, depression, torpor etc. If we deny free will it should not be because we are unwilling or wish to duck responsibility.
Sam says he doesn't have the soul of a psychopath....not so fast. But at least he's not responsible.
Who is the gal speaking after Dennett?
Nina Farahany -- Vandebilt Law School
Calon Lan Thanks
I think all these philosophers forget a key factor. If everyone can make choices then everyone shapes everything, what we are doing right now is shaping the future, our future and possibly the future of others. Our own actions are the cause of what will be and unfortunately or fortunately that cause affects others. Now take that an multiply it by 5, 10, 9,000,000 to see the magnitude of "I am the king" like actions. One guy commits genocide, a few others make a Nuke, and one guy found penicillin to help the world. If everyone made or discovered things like Alexander Fleming in their respective fields the world would would be a better place.
+zeabebawa And that has what to do with free will? They would all agree with you that penicillin is good and nukes are bad, that they both have significant impacts on this world, and that they were caused by a small handful of people. They would also argue that the apparent "choices" these people made were really just brain events that were caused by antecedent events and were themselves the causes of future events. How exactly does your point address that?
If u could really control all of ur atom then u would be able to be constantly happy. What do u imply by free will? dosent atom interaction determin u
The question of whether or not we have free will seems meaningless to me. Even if there would be no possible doubt that physicalism is true and that it follows from that fact that every decision we make is purely the product of deterministic physical processes, then we still have "free will" in the sense that although it can be rightfully said to be an illusion, there is nothing _but_ the illusion. Usually, when we speak of an illusion, the thing that's erroneously perceived as being real, is either a copy or a permutation of something that does actually exist and that we merely mistook a mental picture for the thing it's a picure of (e.g. the illusion of being abducted by space aliens is constructed out of permutations of real things such as "aircraft", "lifeform", probably "biped", perhaps "surgery", etc.). This is not the case here: it is not a mental picture, but more akin to an abstract painting that doesn't resemble anything we know to exist. My question to that is: what is the meaning of "illusion" when there is no non-illusory variant of the very thing we're talking about? If the illusion is all there is, then all we're really left talking about is some metaphysical speculation about what ultimately drives the illusion-and that too would become pointless if it were 100% certain that physicalism is true.
I'm inclined to argue that based on this, we can meaningfully say that free will is "real", if only because it's one of the most fundamental parts of the reality of our daily lives that we have no way of escaping from. If I'm wrong in making this assertion, then how exactly does our illusory free will differ from what we've always though of as "actual" free will, other than how it fits into the theoretical framework of science?
Actually an illusion it's self has nothing to do with anything that exist .
An illusion is more or less something that appears to be true but is smoke and mirrors trickery.
Now people have the illusion free will exist but nothing physical or non physical could grant an actual free will.
The only thing that could be granted is the illusion or trickery that you have a free will.
In other words you do not have it but you think you do.
This is not exactly a disagreement of what you said:
Sometimes people experience their body act outside of their volition. Like when avoiding a car accident or when exhausted and flying off the handle.
Also, mystics report feeling like being just a feather blown by the breeze.. So, that is another experience of non-volition that is considered quite pleasant.
This doesn't suggest, though that people generally feel purely determined.
I often quote Philip K Dick in these situations, "Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." The natural phenomenon of people choosing from the available options based on knowledge and intention will never go away, no matter how many determinists balance themselves on the head of a pin.
The problem compatilist have is for it to work they have to redefine either free will or Determinism to mean something that it does not.
To redefine free will in a way it maps out into the world is it also is meaningless from a freedom stand point.
The reason is you would have to say your free will is only doing what you want.
But if you don't chose what you want and it's predetermined you have no freedom.
Randomness can not equal free will either unless the person could control the randomness which we do not.
To go the route to get compatilism with libertarian free will you have to redefine or water down Determinism into either be partial Determinism or say not everything is determined.
Neither of these things work and is trying to have your cake and eat it to.
If someone shows you that almost all the claims of determinism are nothing but metaphysical speculation, then it would be perverse to cling to your original definition, while claiming that you are science based.
Dan Dennett cannot but argue in favor of free will. He has no choice.
I can't see how you can argue for a completely materialistic, deterministic mind because that would make any reason invalid also the mind has produced amazing understanding and pragmatic theories which fly in the face of a materialistic, random and irrational forces of nature on the mind. Also doesn't the theory of relativity and it's ultimate connotations that everything in the past present and future exists together invalidate cause and effect, how can what ever happens now effect the future if the future already exists?
Ultimately what determinism say to the very core:
matter follow law of physic. We human are made of matter, we are not one person, it is only delimited unperfectly by human vision. So we do follow a law of nature and not a undetermined pure random law, its just that we cant comprehend or own mechanism to the core.
if you ask someone who took the risk and succeeded whether it was worth it or not, they will answer yes, if you ask the same question someone who took the risk and failed, they will answer no, but none of this is meaningful, because it's not relevant. It's not a valid question to ask wheather the decision was right or wrong because it's not the decision that determined the outcome, but some uncorrelated randomness.
In another words, the summary outcome of all of our lifetime decisions can either give the best ot the worst possible result depending on the sum of all random variables involved in the process, hence it's not that important what decisions one makes throughout their lives.
I call it >>The Great Paradox of Samcik
Tomek Samcik But if you're lucky enough to be in a position where your choices will make a huge difference to the health and well being of others then we better hope you've been educated on whatever subject it is that you're making choices about.
If that's not the case then some people have been fortunate enough to have the intelligence and drive instilled in them to go against you or point out why a choice you make would be bad.
So our choices can matter greatly, but they're just not free choices. Technically you could say they're not even choices but just actions we're influenced to do. But those actions reflect the type of person we are and how comfortable/uncomfortable our present or future will be.
+Tomek Samcik
You are a socialist right?
+BarrySlisk nah, I'm a conservative liberal
Tomek Samcik
Liberal in the american sense?
i saw up until the first guy, and i have to say i disagree with him. he talks nonsense.
Sam "no responsibility" Harris...I guess he just can't help but believe the shit he makes up.
No .. free will does not exist.
+Rhea303 Please back up that statement with evidence.
+VikingPony - very funny, VP ..
+Ironic Mickey No, no argumenting nor a discussion with you. It's simply not possible to talk about or explain this 'subject' to a scientific oriented mind/brain/person (as your comment shows). Arthur Schopenhauer said it nicely: "man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". Have a good day, IM. en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
@@Rhea303 - If you can't back up then stfu