Free Will: Daniel Dennett et al
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 май 2018
- Discussion about free will at the Moving Naturalism Forward workshop, October 2012. Participants include Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Terrence Deacon, Simon DeDeo, Daniel Dennett, Owen Flangan, Rebecca Goldstein, Janna Levin, David Poeppel, Massimo Pigliucci, Nicholas Pritzker, Alex Rosenberg, Don Ross, and Steven Weinberg.
Visit www.preposterousuniverse.com/... for more information. 
Наука
Interesting ideas from Dennett, but you may want to put it on 1.5 speed
what i have to ask when anyone says we have free will is "explain how that works?"
A very brief blurb describing what naturalism is would be nice in the description.
Dear Sean would you read carefully ST, I, Q 2, A 3... there is also a translation in English if you do not understand the Latin language...
recognising that free will is an illusion does indeed have to reflect on
how we treat criminals, just as cutting a tumour out of someone's brain
changes them from a serial killer to an empath if you are a criminal
and there is no free will then you are as much a victim as your victim. i
agree we have to separate criminals from criminal activity, and at
present the only way to do that is incarceration, but the important part
is separating PUNISHMENT from criminality. the religious love the idea
of free will because they love judgement, retribution and punishment,
there is no need for heaven or hell if there is no free will - god made
you do the bad as well as the good basically. bur it would mean we have
to be a more compassionate society, that treats the wicked as humanely
as the victim.
i wonder what society would look like after a hundred years of everyone acknowledging there is no free will...
Whether they have free will or not, criminals should always be treated with some respect. No one needs to suffer merely for the sake of punishment. Punishment only makes moral sense if one can be rehabilitated from it. I think free will remains a useful concept, and it reveals something that is true about reality, but it is not fully what we thought it was. We are still agents who deliberate, anticipate outcomes, etc. even if these actions are caused by prior circumstances. It is possible to have the best of both worlds. We can acknowledge that we DO have control over our live, and treat criminals as individuals who were given an unfortunate set of circumstances.
~ The Singularity Is Still Here ~
Does the universe have free will?
If the universe is alive and conscious through us and its other creatures, whether here or on other planets-- and all entangled in realtime, far faster than light-- are those conversations, in a very real sense, conversations of the universe with and within itself?
If the universe has free will, then do we if we are the universe?
What is a though, a dream? Where do they go? How can they be quantified?
What can determinism mean in the fundamental context of infinity and realtime entanglement across distances that may not actually be distant at all, but in the same place, within a singularity?
------
1. If there is uncertainty, then one cannot say with certainty that we don't have free will.
2. There is uncertainty. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
3. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that we don't have free will.
I disagree with Dennett. By accepting free will, you accept non scientific and irrational thinking. By denying it, you force rationality. A simple example is how people judge criminals. Punishment is irrational, but we still have to do something to solve the problem.
theres no problem unless there is "will"
My point is that Dennett says there is no true free will but there is still a kind of free will. It is equivalent of saying that the fact someone understand he has no free will is not important and therefore we can use the same term to designate something else. It is important that people know they don't have free will. It is important for people to be rational... It doesn't change everything, but it changes important things, therefore, we should use another term to designate whatever he means. And it is not clear in this talk what he means exactly. What are we going to use to designate true free will so everybody understand the right and most important meaning of it...?
to me... if we had free will, then we could fly. we have a will. carroll calls this an emergent property of the universe and i agree. All of are particles have created something called a will. We do not know the future, we have to make a choice.
The universe chooses for you. You have an impression of having choices but you don't have any in reality. Emerging free will is absolute bs. You have a consciousness but your consciousness has nothing to do with your choices. You are not an actor in the movie but only a spectator with a consciousness emerging from your brain and your senses, which are causally connected to the universe.
saying the universe chooses for you is placing your own human experiences onto nature... people choose. the universe does not. the universe is and does. also the idea of being a spectator isnt true either. if you think one cannot even choose, one surely cannot spectate.
Sometimes Dennett behave like a cheap business enterprise consultant giving a cliche motivational lecture
dennett is so wonderful and humane an exceptional force for good in the world.
All he does is dodge, redefine and obfuscate because he thinks society would crumble if we all acknowledged the truth. You won't get a straight answer from that philosopher.
Couldn’t agree more