Was out on a walk and it was amazing listening to this interview. Conceptually clear, profound and deep thoughts keeping me company as I strolled along in the cool twilight air. Thanks to Kevin Mitchell (I will check out your book) and of course to Ricardo for continuing to bring us such stimulating material.
Finished listening to "Free Agents", and I must say this is one of the most thoughtful books I've read in the last couple of years. Would definitely recommend it. That's for bringing this guest on Ricardo!
The appeal to Bergson's mysticism is misguided. The best way to answer the rewinding argument is to state clearly that a recreation of a past state will recreate the organism's potential to choose between equally possible (but limited) range alternatives. In other words, saying that a single choice is necessary just because the system is in the same state is begging the question. It assumes that instantaneous states can not include causal powers of a divergent kind (ones that can initiate different chains of events.)
Kevin Mitchell still is missing some points about free will. You can't control a deterministic outcome in the brain or a random one. He thinks people can do top-down processing, but he doesn't really differentiate between the top-down and bottom-up processing in the brain. He also doesn't understand what people mean by top-down processing. We are talking about using the mental to cause a change in the brain without the brain first, causing the mental. This would mean that you could just think and cause your brain to change without the brain, causing your thinking in the first place. Mitchell mentioned epiphenomenon and criticizes it. I don't know if he has heard of Jaegwon Kim's causal exclusion argument where Kim challenges non-reductive physicalism. The argument is hard for me to explain briefly but I think it a good argument against Mitchell and his non-reductive view. The mental is only mental because of it supervenience base Physical. The argument is longer than that but I think it's a good argument against non-reductive physical view held by Mitchell. Kim's argument makes sense to me. The other problem is that what about if I asked anyone with the acception of some people with a different shaped brain then average. Weather or not they could memorize a 100 digit number chosen by me and if they could only read the number over twice before being asked to recite the number without being able to see the number. If you can't do that then what's constraining you from doing that. Maby Mitchell would like to answer that. For me the answer is simple it my brain restricting me from that. And what about a good memory of an experience or a really terrible memory of an experience. Why isn't it that I can't just get rid of these memories by simply thinking and using mental causation to do so. Say it's good memory from going camping with friends. Why can't I get rid of this good memory just through thoughts. If I had free will, shouldn't I be able to do this. Maybe Mitchell could answer why I can't do this. If I can't do this, isn't that an example of me not having free will. If we have free will, shouldn't we be able to get rid of memories good ones, and bad ones at our choosing. Maybe sometime this memory will disappear but it won't be because of my choosing. Then there's a point about where intent comes from that Mitchell and others speaking about this topic like to avoid answering. I don't know why they don't answer it. Final point I would like to mention is that the way you are mentally speaking is not consciously choosen by you. In order to consciously choose the way you are mentally you would have to be first meantly speaking in order to do that. Also this idea that you have degrees of freedom or agency is basically admitting you don't have free will because you didn't choose your degrees of freedom, and it's ridiculous to think you did. Like when and how did you choose your degrees of freedom. If you admitt that someone can't choose their bad luck in getting something like schizophrenia then how can you admitt that someone can choose their good luck or luck somewhere in between. It looks like it's all statistical chances that you didn't choose nor did you choose the outcome of those statistical chances. Also if consousneness is the result of random brain processes then you should get thoughts that appear randomly like " monkeys, blue, bubble gum, like I". These thoughts should appear more often which clearly they don't.
-Particles ARE deterministic (It's why the standard model of particle physics works) and our brains are made of particles. -Some say that free will must include the idea that we could have chosen otherwise… but those are just words because we didn’t. -You can do what you want but you can’t choose what you want. (Paraphrasing Schopenhauer) -To do other than what you want is to want something else more. -Agency is the ability to choose and act but it doesn’t explain why we make any specific choice. -90% of our actions are driven by unconscious motivations and that is not controlled and therefore not free. -We are only aware of a tiny fraction of the information we absorb so we aren't making conscious choices about that. -Neurologists have learned that we make decisions before we are consciously aware of them. If it isn’t a conscious choice it can’t be free. -Any choice made that is not based on external factors and based on who we have become to make such a choice would be irrational. -What will convince you to make a specific decision? You won’t know until it happens and then you become aware of it. It does the convincing TO you.
Basically What they call it the physical world is cycle one which built within cycle two (existence itself). there’s no gods, no religious souls,….etc Everything is governed by science and only science, but that doesn’t mean that this existence must be easy peasy for the irrationals to grasp! science needs real rational intelligent human entities.
Can the irrational apes challenge human mind even if they collected all the brains of all the apes in one gigantic brain of one ape?! Of course that is impossible! they can bounce as much as they can, but that will never work.
12:15 goal of persistence! that needs entity! Information! for data to become information must pass through process to become information! Value and meaning too ! It must be a new hidden gods not Science!
11:30 processes! where did processes come from?! miracles such as natural selection?! they only run forward through inventing new imaginary gods to fill the ancient gods with new imaginary gods.
Who's funding this guy? We know how stress affects the neurodevelopment of poor children - ADHD, depression, personality disorders - all these affect future decision-making. We know what social injustice looks like. He sounds like a republican attempt to save "individual responsibility".
I think his position from 1:29:00 is pretty liberal. It's not necessarily leftist since he basically says he's okay with the legal system, (as someone with anarchist sensibilities I'm willing to go further), but he advocates staying away from absolutist framings and embrace context which I don't think is very Republican.
@@onlynormalpersonnot sure what you mean by this. Genes get expressed (or not), and genetic disorders are by definition a change in expression of the gene. They don’t have to involve epigenetics in cases where the function of the protein has changed (e.g., sickle cell anemia).
Was out on a walk and it was amazing listening to this interview. Conceptually clear, profound and deep thoughts keeping me company as I strolled along in the cool twilight air. Thanks to Kevin Mitchell (I will check out your book) and of course to Ricardo for continuing to bring us such stimulating material.
Finished listening to "Free Agents", and I must say this is one of the most thoughtful books I've read in the last couple of years. Would definitely recommend it. That's for bringing this guest on Ricardo!
There’s limited so-called free will but that doesn’t eliminate it.
The appeal to Bergson's mysticism is misguided. The best way to answer the rewinding argument is to state clearly that a recreation of a past state will recreate the organism's potential to choose between equally possible (but limited) range alternatives. In other words, saying that a single choice is necessary just because the system is in the same state is begging the question. It assumes that instantaneous states can not include causal powers of a divergent kind (ones that can initiate different chains of events.)
Lol f the haters, Mitchell rules
He offers literally nothing new to the conversation while spending great efforts to argue that he does.
Kevin Mitchell still is missing some points about free will. You can't control a deterministic outcome in the brain or a random one. He thinks people can do top-down processing, but he doesn't really differentiate between the top-down and bottom-up processing in the brain. He also doesn't understand what people mean by top-down processing. We are talking about using the mental to cause a change in the brain without the brain first, causing the mental. This would mean that you could just think and cause your brain to change without the brain, causing your thinking in the first place.
Mitchell mentioned epiphenomenon and criticizes it. I don't know if he has heard of Jaegwon Kim's causal exclusion
argument where Kim challenges non-reductive physicalism. The argument is hard for me to explain briefly but I think it a good argument against Mitchell and his non-reductive view. The mental is only mental because of it supervenience base Physical. The argument is longer than that but I think it's a good argument against non-reductive physical view held by Mitchell. Kim's argument makes sense to me.
The other problem is that what about if I asked anyone with the acception of some people with a different shaped brain then average. Weather or not they could memorize a 100 digit number chosen by me and if they could only read the number over twice before being asked to recite the number without being able to see the number. If you can't do that then what's constraining you from doing that. Maby Mitchell would like to answer that. For me the answer is simple it my brain restricting me from that.
And what about a good memory of an experience or a really terrible memory of an experience. Why isn't it that I can't just get rid of these memories by simply thinking and using mental causation to do so. Say it's good memory from going camping with friends. Why can't I get rid of this good memory just through thoughts. If I had free will, shouldn't I be able to do this. Maybe Mitchell could answer why I can't do this. If I can't do this, isn't that an example of me not having free will. If we have free will, shouldn't we be able to get rid of memories good ones, and bad ones at our choosing. Maybe sometime this memory will disappear but it won't be because of my choosing.
Then there's a point about where intent comes from that Mitchell and others speaking about this topic like to avoid answering. I don't know why they don't answer it.
Final point I would like to mention is that the way you are mentally speaking is not consciously choosen by you. In order to consciously choose the way you are mentally you would have to be first meantly speaking in order to do that.
Also this idea that you have degrees of freedom or agency is basically admitting you don't have free will because you didn't choose your degrees of freedom, and it's ridiculous to think you did. Like when and how did you choose your degrees of freedom. If you admitt that someone can't choose their bad luck in getting something like schizophrenia then how can you admitt that someone can choose their good luck or luck somewhere in between. It looks like it's all statistical chances that you didn't choose nor did you choose the outcome of those statistical chances.
Also if consousneness is the result of random brain processes then you should get thoughts that appear randomly like " monkeys, blue, bubble gum, like I". These thoughts should appear more often which clearly they don't.
-Particles ARE deterministic (It's why the standard model of particle physics works) and our brains are made of particles.
-Some say that free will must include the idea that we could have chosen otherwise… but those are just words because we didn’t.
-You can do what you want but you can’t choose what you want. (Paraphrasing Schopenhauer)
-To do other than what you want is to want something else more.
-Agency is the ability to choose and act but it doesn’t explain why we make any specific choice.
-90% of our actions are driven by unconscious motivations and that is not controlled and therefore not free.
-We are only aware of a tiny fraction of the information we absorb so we aren't making conscious choices about that.
-Neurologists have learned that we make decisions before we are consciously aware of them. If it isn’t a conscious choice it can’t be free.
-Any choice made that is not based on external factors and based on who we have become to make such a choice would be irrational.
-What will convince you to make a specific decision? You won’t know until it happens and then you become aware of it. It does the convincing TO you.
Basically What they call it the physical world is cycle one which built within cycle two (existence itself).
there’s no gods, no religious souls,….etc
Everything is governed by science and only science, but that doesn’t mean that this existence must be easy peasy for the irrationals to grasp!
science needs real rational intelligent human entities.
How evolution gave us fairy tales...
Can the irrational apes challenge human mind even if they collected all the brains of all the apes in one gigantic brain of one ape?!
Of course that is impossible!
they can bounce as much as they can, but that will never work.
His definition of free will is problematic. To define free will as "making choices" is just tautological.
then why do anti-compatibilists tend to say that people don't make choices they just think they do?
@@onlynormalpersonthey are defining choices differently. That is transparently all there is to it.
Ok but then Kevin's statement isn't tautological@@pookz3067
Kevin J. Mitchell has to do with the British.
12:15 goal of persistence! that needs entity!
Information! for data to become information must pass through process to become information!
Value and meaning too ! It must be a new hidden gods not Science!
12:00 goal need entity to pursue that goal!
is it evolution?!
Is their god who makes all plans, goals,….etc for living beings !
11:30 processes!
where did processes come from?! miracles such as natural selection?!
they only run forward through inventing new imaginary gods to fill the ancient gods with new imaginary gods.
Who's funding this guy? We know how stress affects the neurodevelopment of poor children - ADHD, depression, personality disorders - all these affect future decision-making. We know what social injustice looks like. He sounds like a republican attempt to save "individual responsibility".
I think his position from 1:29:00 is pretty liberal. It's not necessarily leftist since he basically says he's okay with the legal system, (as someone with anarchist sensibilities I'm willing to go further), but he advocates staying away from absolutist framings and embrace context which I don't think is very Republican.
ADHD is not caused by stress. It's a genetic disorder.
@@BUSeixas11 aren't most genetic disorders epigenetic?
@@onlynormalpersonnot sure what you mean by this. Genes get expressed (or not), and genetic disorders are by definition a change in expression of the gene. They don’t have to involve epigenetics in cases where the function of the protein has changed (e.g., sickle cell anemia).
It sounds to me that you are projecting your owm motivated thinking on Mitchell.