Meaning in Life & the Illusion of Free Will (Derk Pereboom)

Are human actions freely chosen? Can we deserve blame and praise for what we do? The common sense answer to both of these questions is yes. But this answer is threatened by the fact that our best scientific theories support the view that factors beyond our control produce all of our actions. Derk Pereboom sets out an argument that free will of the sort required for deserved blame and praise is indeed ruled out, but that this does not undermine the core elements of morality, value and meaning in life.
This talk was given by Derk Pereboom in 2010 at the University of Alabama as part of the philosophy today lecture series. Pereboom's research areas are in free will and moral responsibility, philosophy of mind, history of modern philosophy and philosophy of religion.
00:00 Problem of Free Will
29:03 Life without Free Will
#philosophy #freewill #determinism

[@nickruderman6009]

Derk was my teacher back in college days. Great guy with a terrific sense of humor, broad range of knowledge, big heart, sensitive, open-minded, and very kind. His philosophy is very carefully worked out, and provocative, causing almost anyone to think deeply. His position at the time I studied under him was called Hard Incompatibilism. His critique of the prison industrial complex that is America is super relevant, even if the freewill debate isn't your cup of jenever.

[@writersinnacademia2076]

Very interesting.

[@henriquecardoso45]

Good lecture.
I take it as the Professor from Israel. I rejoice by ignoring the problem of free will just as solipsism. (Although Husserl's view on solipsism really helped to deal with it)

[@jolssoni2499]

Based Badaboom.

[@languagegame410]

👍👍

[@quidam6184]

Good lecture. I'm always uncomfortable when I watch a lecture that argue against Free Will, but it's always worth it. That being said, I'm planning to read Pereboom's book, and I hope the arguments in it will be better than this. His case against compatibilism is really weak; I think there is plenty of difference between Case 1 and Case2. Also, I don't think he presented Robert Kane's view correctly, I think Robert Kane would agree that a simple two-step model of free will is not enough (he thinks the kind of Epicurean atomic swerve is not enough), which is why he articulate a much more complex view. Granted, I only know Kane through Dennett, so I might be wrong. Finally, as a leftist, a lot of ideas about prison abolition and redistribution of resources get a lot more easy to argue in favor of if free will doesn't exist (I still believe these ideas to be true even if free will is true though.)

[@exalted_kitharode]

Why are leftist ideas more easy to argue for and not some crazy social darwinist genocide politics for example?

[@jamespaternoster7354]

I find Derks argument to be very compelling having read behave by Robert Saplosky and many articles on Scandinavian judiciary reform and a book called “the science of fate” by Hannah critchlow the area which people call free will is so small and shrinking even for its already weak defence of existence!Determinism is so overwhelming in every facet of existence that it cannot be nothing but massively influential on our behaviour and therefore our human notions of “free will”

[@Cybervue]

Monism explains everything.

[@stockpotentate4371]

Free will the spaghetti monster

[@Brooder85]

I want to see a man on charges for raping and killing a child and then use 'Causal determinism' as his defense ans see how that goes.

[@jamespaternoster7354]

For murder he’d need to be incarcerated for public safety! It Still doesn’t change the reality of determinism nor the fact that mainly vengeance based justice is ineffective and due to determinism morally weakened!
just as praise for a persons achievements is also not anywhere near as strong due to deterministic truth and so metaphysical luck potentially but nothing authored truly by the agent

[@philosophicsblog]

@@jamespaternoster7354 Disagree. Besides that @Kvasir's argument is an appeal to emotion rather than logic, that a person did X in the past has little bearing on doing X in the future. This is a logical fallacy. It's not that one couldn't X couldn't be done again; it's that there is nothing in and of the act itself to suggest this future outcome.
It's like the legal language on a prospectus: 'Please remember that past performance may not be indicative of future results.'

[@jamespaternoster7354]

@@philosophicsblog each case should be assessed on neuroscience and psychology based evidence and rehabilitation focused directional policy combined with public safety on a FAR FAR more individual level! As for past and future the past doesn’t always correlate to the future if that’s your point I agree it still doesn’t effect or change the reality of casual determinism in any way

[@jamespaternoster7354]

@@philosophicsblog any person who is Physically a danger to the others like violence or assault or extreme anger issues must be kept away from society if no cure is yet available it doesn’t change deterministic environmental and subsequent biological outcomes

[@philosophicsblog]

@@jamespaternoster7354 I agree in principle, but you are treading into Hume's forbidden 'ought to is' territory. Neuroscience is nowhere near mature enough to do this and psychology is near pseudoscience, what I call 'para-science'. I'm sure there is too much nuance to settle this on a social media platform, but in a nutshell, I'd consider this to be nothing more than wishful thinking. For reference, I like Pereboom's idea in general, but I am partial to Galen Strawson's (and Robert Sapolsky's) line of argumentation.

[@user-gk2tp1cc1l]

Why does this guy say “eh” after every sentence

[@MIKE-313]

I think this is what old people do.

[@stockpotentate4371]

He was casually determined to do so

[@clyde6003]

He’s grew up in Canada.

[@larrycarter3765]

Walk up & down why don't you?