Free Will Debate: Daniel Dennett vs. Gregg Caruso
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2021
- The concept of free will is profoundly important to our self-understanding, our interpersonal relationships, and our moral and legal practices. If it turns out that no one is ever free and morally responsible, what would that mean for society, morality, meaning, and the law? Just Deserts introduces the concepts central to the debate about free will and moral responsibility by way of an entertaining, rigorous, and sometimes heated philosophical dialogue between two leading thinkers.
SUPPORT THE PODCAST
If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a donation. Your patronage will ensure that sound scientific viewpoints are heard around the world.
www.skeptic.com/donate/
SPONSOR
The Great Courses Plus
thegreatcoursesplus.com/shermer
#michaelshermer
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and TuneIn.
www.skeptic.com/michael-sherm... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Dan is concerned about having rules with penalties. Well, we can do that for consequential reasons. And we can only punish those who are eligible for punishment according to the rules. No need to add they deserve it. They were, in fact, just unlucky to be predetermined to break the rules. And, come on that's OBVIOUS . The resistance only comes from not wanting to accept it
Well put🤙🤙
Feel like this is too common from compatibalists. Rather than providing actually new provoking arguments and examples against hard determinism, they provide examples where it is harder to notice that there is no free will, because the brain is complicated.
@@stoopidapples1596 the weird thing about "compatibalists" is that if you listen to what they say, they dont ACTUALLY believe in free will. They just have a hard on for that term, "free will", and needs to re-define it so it can still be used, just because.
What a surprise to hear Dennett out himself as an essentialist on moral responsibility (isn't it yet another artifact of biological evolution?).
He divides people into those who are clearly not in control of themselves (due to e.g. dementia or other disabilities) and those with a high degree of control, granting moral responsibility only to the latter category, and proposing that only high-control individuals get punished.
Obviously this faculty of 'control' can take on a range of values, but merely looking at an individual's outward behavior it's impossible to tell their degree of control (e.g. a highly intelligent individual might be actively faking dementia, or even just appear impaired; the opposite is arguably rarer but not excluded in principle). Therefore, it would be a mistake to exclude (apparent) low-control perpetrators from punishment, even though they appear not to be susceptible to deterrence, rehabilitation, etc. No one is ever fully in control of themselves.
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet I agree. I think the fact that knowing another person's mind, the circumstances at the time of a crime, as well as, the amount of 'control' one can exhibit is next to impossible to be truly certain of their level of responsibility.
The conditions of our evolved psychology as a primate are still far from understood. Homo sapiens were not singular, aren't genetical isolated from other hominids (we all contain a portion of integrated Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon/Denisovan DNA) and we lived as hunter-gatherers for far longer than we've lived an agrarian lifestyle.
Our motivations are more complicated and less 'controlled' than I think Dan wants to admit. Our choices seem less our own and more the myriad conditions a mind goes through that accumulates patterns and is capable of determining future outcomes. Your conscious mind isn't involved in much of that neural activity, so who is making this choice, and is your sense of free will and choice just that, a mental perception evolved to promote rapid action and raise your survival chances while living in small, tribal communities, less violent and more analytical than our primate cousins? Isn't a life's total sensory input and shared experiences what motivates our decisions, and would we choose differently had we lived a different life? No, we are never in total control.
Here from Robert Sapolsky’s book. This debate was referenced in a footnote.
Wow
Sapolsky’s seems to be entirely focused on pushing a morality justified by facts of biology. There’s no grounds that the world he wants is good.
Daniel's beard has obviously developed free will during this pandemic.
😂😂😂😂😂
So has mine!
Second that.
Gregg had no choice but to wear those glasses... but he should still be punished.
They don't disagree on determinism and free will. It's just about how we justify the penalties for crimes and praise for accomplishment.
@1:48:12 "So much of this turns on just what we mean by these words." Welcome to philosophy, Michael.
Bad definitions are just about the only reason some of these discussions still go on. If clear definitions of words like God, Free Will, or Atheist were laid out and agreed on, these discussions would end quite soon.
@@TheFuzzician Spoken like a true fuzzician!
What I'm unclear about is: What is the will free from? If not cause and effect, then what?
I think Dan admits that there's nothing free from causality, no ghost in the machine, etc, but he'll then start talking about degrees of freedom and being free from coercion.
Why not cause and effect.. in essence, free from itself actually. Will is born, a result of causes and conditions, dependent on other factors to exist. There is only one freedom, and that is the emptiness that permeates everything, the substrate for matter. Free from the illusion of separation, that there is some kind of distinct entity which is it's own agent among other free agents.. that can not exist, for when truly examined, there can only be one, in ultimate reality.
degree of control over our actions.. so if we're drunk then we might not have much control over how we can control our limbs to play football, whereas if we are not drunk, we can control our limbs better, we have more freedom to. do as we wish or to act on intention that requires coordination. Or as the day nears the end, or we've absorbed lots of unwanted noise or stress, our "will power" is more drained., we have less freedom over our choices. If somebody has a tumour that affects their personality it's outside of their control.. they might have urges that they can't control.
That depends on how you formulate causality. If you see it as billiard balls, all the way down, in a series of events, then free will cannot exist. If you say that entities exist, and act according to their nature, then if free will is part of the nature of human consciousness then we can have free will, and a decision made can itself be a cause.
This comment section is the best example of r/whoosh I’ve ever seen
Thanks Michael for putting this together. I would love to see more conversations like this. Dr. Caruso is a true gentleman philosopher notice how he deferred the opening to Dr. Dennett. I wish all of you great health particularly Dr. Dennett - thank you for your contributions to our understanding.
I wish Caruso would refrain from saying "Dan's view is this....." instead of Point to Dan and asking 'Why don't you frame your view on this.." but otherwise it was a good conversation. Pitty Dan's audio was so disjointed. I've been looking forward to hearing from him again for a long time.
Well put
Sometimes I wonder if Dan Dennett is just playing dumb.
He often does.
He is; whether he’s playing or not is immaterial.
@@jessewallace12able No he doesn't.
No. It's just that most people are just too dumb to understand his arguments or to understand compatibilism.
@@dorothysay8327 Oh I see. When a highly intelligent philosopher doesn't agree with you (and most people's) views, it's because he is dumb. Except when he agrees with you (on religion, consciousness and other stuff), then all of a sudden he is great. Gotcha.
More of this kinda stuff! Thanks!
Been following shermers channel for a long time. This is some of the best content I’ve seen anywhere on line
Is it really...
@@Jordan-cj5xz yes
To Dan: Maya could not have "controlled" otherwise.
Controllers don't cause events.
Controllers are constraints that are placed on a system that shape the probability of what kind of events can occur.
Constraints limit the possible states a system can encounter; a semipermeable membrane controls the probability that certain intracellular catalytic events will occur.
Dan treats "control" like it's the proximate source of an action at the end a causal chain. Event A happens leading to Event B, then just add a pinch of "control" and.. presto! We get an Event C that is worthy of praise or blame.
Controls don't cause events, they shape the probability that particular events will occur.
What does any of this have to do with attributing praise or blame to an individal? Praise and blame is a useful fiction for social cohesion / cooperation. Isn't it a category error to then go looking under the hood of the organism for "blame-worthy / praise-worthy stuff"?
This was great !! Thank you :)
Thanks a lot, guys
One of the more overlooked parts of the Charles Whitman example. The quote is from Robert Sapolsky
"Did Whitman's tumor 'cause' his violence? Probably not in a strict 'amygdaloid tumor = murderer' sense, as he had risk factors that interacted with his neurological issues. Whitman grew up being beaten by his father and watching his mother and siblings experience the same. This choirboy Eagle Scout had repeatedly physically abused his wife and had been court-martialed as a Marine for physically threatening another soldier. And, perhaps indicative of a thread running through the family, his brother was murdered at age twenty-four during a bar fight."
Totally different perspective than what they teach about him in college. Thanks for that.
Sir, We NEED More Debates
This. Too many podcasts have turned into echo chambers. The only way to get to any kind of truth is through differing perspectives brought to the same table. Else it's just masturbatory entertainment (which is what most podcasts are these days.)
How can Dan say the self is an illusion, but you have the ability to choose. Who is choosing???
Love this. Shermer looks like an intrigued friend listening to his two best friends debate. He truly looks like he's loving it.
Please do more debates like this!
I didn't really expect this conversation to be this interesting.
Dan keeps saying he wants to live in a world with free will. Well, many people want to live in a world where Jesus exists or there is an afterlife. It strikes me as strange for a serious philosopher to answer the question of "Does X exist?" with "I don't want to live in a world were X doesn't exist."
Atheists need free will.
@@things_leftunsaid Glad to see people standing up to Dan. So many people I see just agree without hashing out the issues with what he's saying. And it's not that we need to put criminals in prison, we can put them anywhere so long as it's somewhere they can't harm others. I've spent many years not accepting we have free will but it doesn't really bother me. I'm still me and I'm still going to do what I do. Just when I want to try to change a problem behaviour I'll attempt to look at potential causes & address those rather than rely on some magical free ability to simply "choose not to" next time.
It's frustrating. It's simply not possible that you don't believe that you are a rational agent that is accountable for your own actions. If you decide to rape the people I love and care about, I will want you to be punished, if the state has given up it's responsibility to do so, I will take it upon myself to ensure justice, or revenge, is enacted upon you. If you are aware that sometimes you get uncontrollable urges to rape, then you need to have yourself scheduled in an asylum. I think therefore I am. If your empirical claims start showing that you don't really exist, throw them out and start again, because doubting your own existence doesn't make a lick of sense.
@@wormalism Wanting people that have harmed us or those we love to be punished regardless of what the truth is about free will, and then taking it upon ourselves to punish them as though they had free will even if they don't, is vengeance, not justice. Claiming that one will want vengeance against people that have wronged them even if there is no free will does not in any way actually demonstrate that there is free will. Yeah, I too might give in to the emotions I'm feeling at that moment and seek vengeance despite what I have rationally deduced about free will, but so what? People act irrationally out of emotion all the time. The whole "would you want to punish someone that hurt you?" gotcha question is an appeal to emotion, which is a logical fallacy precisely because it is irrelevant to actually demonstrating whether or not the conclusion of an argument is true.
@@things_leftunsaid fearful and correct view. I guess you have never met a psychopath? Attempts at teaching them empathy have made them much much better at raping and killing. So, ahh, don't do that! The only strategy that has shown much success is for the psychopath to want to avoid punishment and therefore choosing not to engage in behaviour that will lead to them being punished.
No. Most people who are abused do not become psychopaths themselves. There's a slight correlation, but that's irrelevant, and is more reason to punish abusers to stop them from abusing too many people and creating more psychopaths! Moderating state power, and fear of it being corrupted to be used against political adversaries is the reason to be against harsh punishments. I agree with Dan Dennett that obviously some people truly aren't responsible, like schizophrenics who are having an episode, or children that have been trained to be soldiers etcetera.
I really like a lot of dennett his work, but I think I side with Gregg Caruso here. I think his free will skeptic view can preserve the things we are worried about losing, and throw out the notions based on the outdated libertarian notion of free will. interesting debate. I ordered the book.
Nicely put
I loved Dr. Daniel Dennett, very sad to hear about his passing, I would have loved to meet him, he was my absolute favorite, an intellectual giant, a legend, true sage, heard he was also very kind gentle person, huge loss to civilization, I will watch tons of his lectures in the next few weeks in his memory, I made a playlist of his lectures and interviews for myself to work through, listening to Dr Dennett lectures would be my idea of Heaven 2:05:16
Writing my bachelor thesis on the topic of reactive attitudes. I'm very grateful to the three of you for this very insightful discussion.
Prettt reactive how Kapoor changed to kupper
I have always been sceptical about modern legal systems' retaining the ancient idea of societies' or communities' 'right to retribution,' being just a fancy word for vengeance. Given a system of laws, based in reason and on such notions as proportionality, it seems [unscientific] to include 'prevailing emotion' in any sentencing decision, it seems contradictory and half-arsed. Yet we do and for what it is worth it seems Caruso's main point is distaste for that form of punishment but Now i do hear Shermer with his John and Jane. I hope you got all this sorted out in your thesis! 😃
Gregg Caruso is guiding his thinking towards a conclusion he may have predetermined: he wants to reduce sentences. I am a determinist, but more with Sam Harris.
A fascinating discussion and many thanks for hosting it!
These discussions continue and these brilliant minds collide, but each time, they speak past each other and seem to live in different realities where the possibility of actually understanding the other seems firmly impossible.
The reality of free will is a fiction. But it’s a fiction that is just as real as you are.
As far as I can tell, we are trapped in this conscious experience we share. We are chained to the unavoidable truth of choice and as a result free will.
Real or not, we have to face the consciousness we think we have.
This is the best conversation I have ever seen live
You must not get out much...🙄
Daniël Dennett losing a debate with someone who has way to much patience with his bullshit.
Try his "debate" with Sam Harris about the subject, he doesn't hold back.
@@hauntedhose lol why are you commenting negatively on every comment that praises this conversation? You must not get out much... 🤔
@@ryrez4478 define “out”
@@hauntedhose define "define"
I really don't understand how "could have done otherwise" and "determinism" are compatible. They can't be, by definition. It seems like Daniel's argument is always "I don't want to live in a world...". If determinism is true, then whatever happens can't have happened otherwise.
Philosophers sometimes make a distinction between COUNTERFACTUAL-HYPOTHETICAL could-have-done-otherwise and ACTUAL-FACTUAL could-have-done-otherwise. If determinism is true (such that everything I do now is guaranteed by the remote past before my birth), I do not have the actual ability to do otherwise but still the counterfactual ability: had the causal chain been different I would have done otherwise.
Dennett, in effect, is giving something like the following compatibilist account of the ability to do otherwise: S has the ability to do otherwise than what he does at T1 if and only if it is the case that S would have done otherwise at T1 had S tried to do otherwise at T1.
Let me give an everyday example to make clear the compatibilist sentiment here. Imagine it is the case that, even though it is determined that I do not lift the pen at T1, I would have lifted it had I tried. If what we just imagined is true, that means that I have the ability to do otherwise even if determinism is true. The question is, though, is what we just imagined true? It definitely is. Even if it has been determined that I do not lift the pen, it is nevertheless the case that I would have lifted it had I tried. I would not have been able to FLY AWAY with it, but I surely would have been able to lift it. For although I am not the sort of creature who can fly, I AM the sort of creature that can lift or not lift pens. Compatibilists conclude, therefore, that we can have the ability to do otherwise even if all our actions are guaranteed by the remote past that we do not have the ability to change.
Now, cards on the table--I am not a compatilbilist. (In fact, I defend both hard determinism and hard incompatibilism across two academic articles: "A Rationalist Defense of Determinism" (Theoria, 2020) and "Concerning the Resilience of Galen Strawson's Basic Argument" (Philosophical Studies, 2011).)
I would respond to the above compatibilist line of reasoning as follows. If determinism is true and all of S’s actions are guaranteed by the remote past, then S would have tried to do otherwise at T1 only if it were guaranteed by the remote past that he would tried to do otherwise. In effect, if determinism is true and all of S’s actions are guaranteed by the remote past, such that it has been guaranteed that S does NOT try to do otherwise than what he does, then S does not have the actual / factual ability to do otherwise. But it is the factual / actual ability to do otherwise, not the hypothetical / counterfactual ability to do otherwise (the all-things-considered ability to do otherwise rather than the abstract ability to do otherwise), that matters when it comes to moral freedom, the sort of freedom required for moral responsibility.
Isn't "could have done otherwise" just pure speculation? Anyone can say "things could have been done otherwise", but there's no way of proving it.
How do you know you couldn't have done otherwise, since you can't go back in time?
@@TerryUniGeezerPetersonUntil i have a time-machine i can use to check If I could've done otherwise, i didn't do otherwise.
@@TerryUniGeezerPeterson If determinism is true, then nothing could have been otherwise.
We can't prove this other than to show that nature obeys deterministic laws.
Society is responsible for the corruption of the cycling industry, but not personal decision making? How does that work?
These brilliant fellows' use of Trump as an example to support each of their positions doesn't seem to support either of their positions. Each assumes the audience here is aware of and believes the NY Times, WashPo, MSNBC, HuffPo, etc. version of Trump, his actions, and what legal consequences should ensue. It undercuts their credibility, in my opinion.
Daniel Dennett says he has hold the same position since the 80s. I know he means that as a positive trait, but I think it rather shows he has not been able to adapt to this discussion, which has changed a lot since then.
You can't first just say
1. there's no free will and then 2. declare "we still have the free will worth having"
Even a child could see that doesn't make sense.
If you are weighing up an important decision, and then after the choice is made you look for the free will, you won't find it in the decision making. The choice you made was when you chose to think about the problem. After that point, your decision was determined by your adherence to that process, combined with your knowledge and the influences of some other previous decisions you have made. Most people are looking in the wrong place for free will, that is why they don't see it.
It's pretty hard listening to this to really find the difference between consequentialism (and retributivism in practice in present time. Both seem to agree punishment is pragmatic in terms of protection of society by the wrongdoer or other potential wrongdoers by example (deterrance), at least in the short term. I didn't get very enlightened on whether the justification is retribution versus protection of society has any practical implications. I think Dr. Caruso was attempting to go there but we didn't get very far, instead getting very tangled in definitions.
I think what is being alluded to here is other alternatives to punishment such as medical, psychological, or technological alternatives to punishment. I wish this was discussed further in the debate as it seems the only reason the general question could matter. What does the consequentialist think about a magic nanobot that removes a serial killer's will to murder again? What does the retributivist think? It's actually not so clear to me that even consequentialist would argue to remove all punishment with such a device (deterrence doesn't disappear with post-incident treatment), and a discussion on that topic seems far more interesting. How much and how effective a technology would it take for the consequentialist to remove punishment? At what point and when is lack of moral desert affect policy?
I was hoping they'd move forward with the discussion to these, to me, more salient points you provided. Defining free will seems to only get you so far, but expertise is the only avenue that truly transforms systems as horrific as the penal system in America.
On top of being the most populated, per capita, the differentiation between white and blue collar crimes, yet none for non-violent criminality in America's justice system makes expert opinion on reform all the more important. Fleshing out how we move forward, and to what degree should retribution and rehabilitation play a roll, felt more important than defining ourselves, but this was a debate on free will. This conversation seemed hours away from even beginning to discuss technology's role in future societal safety and punishment. Would love to see that as the topic, from an ethical and societal stand-point.
One thing to always remember, is that it's all included.
You aren't allowed to cut any scenes out of this ultimate Movie.
Also praise for good behavior and some sort of punishment or correction for bad behavior, is also all included and very much important in this deterministic path we are on, and in.
Free-will is result of ones evaluation of possibilities. It YOUR evaluation, free from will of others, and free from natural laws. It's not precise, it's not perfect, it's personal and free. If others force you do something, then you had no free will in that particular case.
I’ve heard it argued that given determinism, our WILL is not free and our ability to reason and control ourselves is based entirely on luck BUT, once we HAVE the ability then we can be held morally responsible in the basic dessert sense. I think that ultimately it depends on WHERE we as a society want to draw the distinction and IF that’s even possible. I mean, at which precise moment (and not an arbitrary, culturally constructed age) does one possess the ability to control their actions ENOUGH to be held morally responsible?
Well said, there is a lot of gray area here, and we need to stop, think, and decide when a person is or is not morally accountable.
I wanna hold Greg morally responsible for his glasses' game. That's a sharp look.
I would argue that positive moral responsibility, especially in that case, can have more lenient criteria than in any case of negative moral responsibility. However, I'd say this only on consequential, not desert-based, basis: I'd hope that praising Caruso for his glasses' game would encourage him to keep it up.
I think he looks like every young Hollywood director and producer was trying to look twenty years ago.
Here are the points made by each participant and my evaluation of them:
- Daniel Dennett:
- He defends compatibilism, the view that free will and determinism are compatible.
- He argues that free will is a natural phenomenon that evolved in humans and other animals, and that it is not a metaphysical mystery or a gift from God.
- He defines free will as the ability to act according to one's reasons and values, without being coerced or manipulated by external forces.
- He claims that we are morally responsible for our actions, as long as we have the capacity to reflect on our motives and control our impulses.
- He supports a consequentialist approach to legal punishment, which aims to deter crime, rehabilitate offenders, and protect society, rather than to exact retribution or desert.
- He criticizes free will skepticism as a self-defeating and dangerous position, that undermines our sense of agency, dignity, and moral obligation.
- He challenges the arguments of Caruso based on empirical evidence, logical consistency, and practical implications.
- **Evaluation**: Dennett presents a coherent and plausible account of free will, that is consistent with naturalism, science, and common sense. He also raises some valid objections to free will skepticism, and defends the value and importance of free will for human life and society. However, he may be accused of watering down the concept of free will, by ignoring the role of luck and randomness in human behavior, and by dismissing the intuitive notion of alternative possibilities or could-have-done-otherwise.
- Gregg Caruso:
- He advocates free will skepticism, the view that free will and moral responsibility are illusions.
- He argues that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, and that there is no evidence for the existence of free will in the natural world.
- He defines free will as the ability to act otherwise in the same circumstances, and to be the ultimate source or originator of one's actions.
- He denies that we are morally responsible for our actions, as they are ultimately the result of factors beyond our control, such as genes, environment, and luck.
- He supports a public health-quarantine model of legal punishment, which aims to prevent harm, treat offenders, and restore justice, rather than to assign blame or desert.
- He argues that free will skepticism is a liberating and beneficial position, that fosters compassion, empathy, and social justice.
- He defends the arguments of free will skepticism based on empirical evidence, logical consistency, and practical implications.
- **Evaluation**: Caruso presents a radical and challenging account of free will, that is consistent with naturalism, science, and logic. He also offers some compelling arguments for free will skepticism, and proposes an alternative and humane model of legal punishment. However, he may be accused of ignoring the psychological and social reality of free will, by dismissing the role of reasons and values in human behavior, and by undermining the sense of agency, dignity, and moral obligation.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 10/2/2023
Magnificent discussion gentlemen. Mr. Russo, you’re points are fascinating,and I have been a non-free will determinist and agree with much of what you say-bu😢 as a ling time appreciator of Dan Dennett, I was schooled today by the nuance of his argument-which made me think of The Apology. And dude (Mr. Caruso), I humbly say that it seems you tend toward incessant speech; perhaps you need to make your points concise out of no other consideration than to allow air to be given to your interlocutors. Mister Shermer, of course Trump is a sociopath-and he is on the spectrum… but your thought experiment about the philanderer; fantastic but it’s missing one point: The man who cheats on his wife doesn’t love his wife. Some will likely argue with that, but it’s because we haven’t discussed love. Love is not just a feeling of affection weather week or intense weather transient or long-term it’s a practice. The floundering husband didn’t love his wife enough to be inspired not just do it here, but to be inspired naturally follow the precepts of the practice of love. Therefore one infidelity should equal divorce. Because he’ll do it again - which will prove he doesn’t love her. Think about it: not transgressing in that way again because of a punishment as you so eloquently spoke of (and I did love the example)- That’s not love. That’s obeying the law. This indicates utilitarian interest in staying in the relationship not an organic one.
Determinism vs Free Will: Consequential justification and punishment are a great conversation piece. Michael Shermer, Gregg Caruso and Daniel Dennett, 2:06:07 Morality! Thank you for the recommendation Michael Schermer just dessert from Daniel Dennett.
I finally understand Dan’s position. When I listen to a lots of discussions between smart people who have civil disagreements I find a lot of the disagreement that comes into play when macro things are applied micro things, or visa versa. Here Greg’s concern seems to be how we hold individuals responsible who break societal rules and Dan’s concern seems to be preserving societal rules by retaining individual responsibility. I do agree with Greg that I can hold Dan’s “compatabilist” view and yet be a free will sceptic, which I am.
I think the disagreement between compatibilism and incompatibilism can be boiled down to just definitions. We both see the universe as operating the same way, we just disagree on what the word free will means. If we say free will is "the ability to act on our desires without external influences preventing us", then yes free will is absolutely compatible with Determinism. I don't, however, see how changing this definition makes moral responsibility compatible with Determinism. How can you hold the view that everything we do is the product of prior causes we have no control over, and yet hold people responsible? It's still all luck. Do you mean holding people responsible is a necessary lie to preserve social cohesion, or do you actually believe people are responsible for their actions? Genuinely interested, not trying to put words in your mouth
It should be said that I also don't think we need to hold people responsible to punish, imprison them, etc. Although I'm sure you've heard that idea from incompatibilists before
Dan is clearly saying free will is an instrumental lie in absence of reliable better options. He also says people will ever feel the need for retribution, so we better accept to not make victims suffer even more.
There's no point beyond fear and preferences in Dan's argument
@@connorjennings5852 by 'acting on our desires' do you mean 'acting in accordance with our desires' or 'acting to change our desires'? In the first case, if we always end up doing what we most desire (just because we can), it doesn't look like we'd have any other option (i.e. freedom); in the other sense, it's not obvious that we have that freedom to change what we desire in the first place (wouldn't this acting derive from yet other desires?)
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet I mean something like "I desired to eat this apple, so I ate it". Dan says I did this of my own free will, in the sense that I wasn't forced to eat it. I don't believe it's possible to change our desires. If I could I would desire to be a homeless person, because it would be a lot easier to achieve than current life goals
We're all just vessels for ideas to fight for control of. Whether they're the ideas innate to us that we were born with, or the ones that battle for our attention in society. And we have a small discriminator called 'choice' that lets us divert them in one direction or the other. But it doesn't let us fully control them. We're mostly helpless against them, as we need them to live.
Haven't watched it yet because it's late and I need to sleep, but I did start it. Was discussing free will earlier this evening so I found it interesting to stumble upon this when it was 7 minutes old.
It's always a delight when things of this sort occur.
I am struggling to find a reason to care about this question. Can anyone tell me how the knowledge of whether I have "free will" or not is helpful?
Gregg stands out among philosophers who publish in this area (even philosophers such as myself) in that he shows the practical relevance of this debate on public policy and the like. If no one has moral freedom (the sort of freedom required for moral responsibility), and btw there are powerful arguments for the claim that no one has moral freedom--if, in other words, nothing we do is ULTIMATELY up to us, then it seems best to shift from a retributive model of punishment to what we might call a "restorative model." The focus would be instead on "fixing" the woman who is a threat to society or at least cutting off her chances to continue to be a threat, but without the cruel measures that would be justified if her actions really were ultimately up to her.
So, in short, many people care about this question as a pure theoretical matter--like finding out a solution to a longstanding paradox in math. But the question does have a lot of practical relevance, and that is Gregg's more unique contribution to the debate.
@@maistvanjr1
I suppose I may agree at least partially with Gregg then. I see no relevance to my life to have a knowledge of this question. If I have no free will, I can't act upon the knowledge, if I do have free will I always have and there is no reason to act upon the knowledge.
As far as public policy, I have very little confidence that this questions possible solutions should be relied upon as a basis for public policy. I can't foresee a strong enough solution at this time to give me confidence.
I can tell you how it personally makes a diffrence to me. As someone brought up in a very religious home I was constantly being made to feel that I should have (and could have) done otherwise. I was a liberal free thinker in a conservative christian household. Not to mention I had ADHD and my parents were very organized, structured individuals. Nothing I did ever made anyone happy to say the least. The message that I should have done otherwise morphed (in my mind) into the message that I should have been otherwise. What was wrong with me? Why couldn't I get it together? Over the years I became burried with shame. Then one day it hit me. If who we are is determined (by our genetics and environment) than I could have never been otherwise. I could have never done otherwise. Who I am was written in the stars, so to speak. And that's okay. My parents could not have been or done otherwise either. We were all just doing the best we could.
That moment, I was finally given permission to accept and forgive...myself and everyone.
@@chewyjello1
I get that an in an overall sense that would help you deal with the failure of your parents to understand your needs. Clearly there are dangers associated with a Christian upbringing. I was lucky to not have that. I understand your point of view and you have my sympathy as do all people brought up in a religious household. But mostly I have admiration for those that can shake those bonds and think for themselves. My wife is one. She had other issues such as Dyslexia and parents that were very ill equipped to handle it. So you have my admiration for breaking out of it.
I am really more concerned about a day to day process and how this question does not help in any way for decision making. If choice is an illusion, we still have live like we have it and virtually EVERYONE does. We have no other choice. It's just a big fucking nonsensical circle to me.
@@MusicGunn Thank you for the kind words. :) And yes, I get what you are saying. Even when I try to keep it in the forefront of my mind, it seems to be impossible not to slip back into old thought patterns. I think the benefit of reliquishing libertarian free will is mostly social rather than in day to day decision making. There are times when it has helped me not give in to moral anger or not to blame the victim. There are many more times that I've caught myself doing these things as if I was clueless lol. But when I do remember that its all a big illusion, I think it makes me a better person. I think it can also help releive anxiety (like performance anxiety or anxiety over an upcoming confrontation with someone). When I remember that what will happen will happen...and Im just along for the ride...I can breathe again!
On the flip side there is the temptation to give into nihilism or feelings of helplessness. People need to feel like they have control over their lives to an extent. In a way I have given up on the idea of control and I've replaced it with hope and gratitude. Yet if you were to ask me why I should have hope for the future...I can't really give a rational reason. It's something I'm still working out. Maybe there is not a rational reason. Maybe hope is just needed for survival, and that's as good a reason as any other.
Good convo Sherm. I do get the impression Mr Caruso has a different/additional agenda other than academia, selling books and philosophy.
You have to ‘take’ responsibility for a reason. It’s an effort. Because free will isn’t ‘free’. It requires work. Thought work. Emotional work etc.
Free will is incompatible with determinism because we could not have done otherwise without a different past prior to the choice.
In other words we are fated to select the option that we do.
The debate only goes on because people don't want to accept that.
Sure free will can be redefined but then it is NOT the free will ordinarily believed in.
The question of freewill can be equated to the question of whether or not your landlord is a vegetarian or a meat eater? It only effects you if your landlord decides he wants to eat you.
Thanks for your efforts to bring sanity to humanity.
Dennet was once a giant, now unclear and in contortions. At least, his ecplanations are.
When was Dennett a giant? He has lost every debate that he has ever been in.
@@TBOTSS very true.. funnily enough when he speaks to actual philosophers in a conference when he thinks others aren't listening, he is better For example th-cam.com/video/7Ob4c_iLuTw/w-d-xo.html though granted it's not a debate there in that conference clip.
@@boliusabol822 Thanks for the link - sounds interesting.
@@TBOTSS While I saw Alex Rosenberg who denies free will, play close attention to Dennett at times, I just saw a related link where Dennett gets absolutely destroyed from the same event, in this video clip showing Jerry Coyne giving a great presentation with slides and quotes from Dennett showing problems with Dennett's position. Dennett couldn't wait for it to stop! Very entertaining stuff th-cam.com/video/CiZAlG-BhwA/w-d-xo.html
Greg scored highest in this discussion if word count and interruptions are the metrics.
yeah I found it a bit annoying
It is fascinating how an apparently normal human brain can organize it's perception as to fit any set of implanted concepts to the exclusion of all conflicting verifiable facts.
Scarry, but interesting.
It's truly amazing to see that Dennett simply cannot grasp what determinism is. FFS your feelings do not trump facts. Somebody unleash Sabine on him ASAP
"we look around we see people changing all the time" Sweet Jesus, this is a Philosopher, and _that_ is his argument? Come Armageddon, come
I think THE problem with Dan's reasoning is that he conflates "control" with "causes for events". A more refined explanation is that control = "constraints that are placed on a system that shape the probability of what events can occur."
Dan treats "control" as though it were the proximate cause of an event at the end of a casual chain. It's not. Controls are not causes, they are constraints.
This can be a tricky concept to grasp. For example, does newtons law of gravity "cause" an attractive force to occur between two masses?
Moving further on. If I break the law, no I don't think I deserve to be punished. That doesn't mean I disagree with rules with penalties. It's just if I'm on the losing end of this I just am unlucky that I was determined to behave like that.
One thing I think that is important is the question of once a person is aware that something they did or did not do has x effect on the world, to what degree can the average person who is aware that they must make a change in their behavior or thoughts actually make that change as they continue their lives? In other words, to what degree do people actually have the will to do otherwise over time? As an example: if a drug addict knows that in order to live a good life they must quit their drug habit, and they do want to quit, should it be expected of the average person that they can in fact accomplish that goal by their own effort? also, what is a reasonable period of time with which to allow their will to bring such a thing to fruition?
Obviously some people will be naturally better at this than others, but its a question that seems to matter no matter what your position on free will is, and especially if you are a determinist or compatiblist. Knowing the answer to this question would, i think, make choosing the strongest option between these different isms a lot easier for many people.
I think there are systems in other countries that display how rehabilitation and education, even later in life, can help people adjust and see what is better for themselves within society. Societal, financial, physiological and psychological influences need to be taken into account when looking at crime and anti-social behavior. Our instinct for retribution and its justifications would have been a more earnest discussion related to free will.
I wish Mr Caruso could present his argument in a slightly less complicated way, but all in all I mostly agree with him, except that I do propose that we have a POTENTIAL for Free Will: We have laws for retribution and restitution, but ultimately even consequential positions are held to be for good purpose, so ultimately we are doing anything because we think its good or necessary. This indicates a forward thinking view because it settles an injustice from this point on, thus in a way of purpose it would be better to prevent the causes that lead to that injustice in the first place, and we must question what is Truly bad as opposed to just a biased perception. I have written a book: Free Will is an Activity (Michael A. Perez). If we would analyze why we do anything or why we we consider anything to be truly bad or truly good, we will find that we begin to approach an Ideal Standard. Seeking that Ideal Standard which is based in Genuine Love and the unceasing Search for Truth, both of which cannot be compelled, that is Free Will. Our motivation to make a better society is based in both Determinism as mere attempt to facilitate survival, comfort and proliferation, but can be based in Free Will as an effort toward Truth, the exercise of Real Love, and Meaning in Life. Mr Shermer I will send you a copy of my book. 🙂
The reason that the free will debate is so enduring and fractured is due to what I see as a reliance on a method of "proving" that contains an element of free will in order to operate. Person A makes the statement "human volition does not exist", presented with evidence, in an attempt to convince person B that free will doesn't exist. But, if our minds are purely determined, everything they do is as a result of prior material causes. Therefore, our belief or not in free will is determined too. How do we know that we are "reasoning" if we didn't choose to reason? The whole concept of reason rests upon being able to tell if you are reasoning, but if we are determined we can't know that. In fact, we can't know anything at all, and we certainly couldn't make any arguments about free will.
Presupposed in all of these philosopher's arguments, is the idea of volition that allows us to use reason. The choice to think or not.
Listening to Greg to long will make a man crazy. Blah etc etc
Gee. I was a compatibilist until I discovered that the view is mainstream. I'll reconsider ...
Dennett: the most important philosopher. His 1984 book, Elbow Room, is very good about free will.
Criticism of higher education or intellectuals are woven in this debate. These people articulate in intellectual jibbersh without any concept of our electoral values.
I came here to see what Sapolsky is talking about in his new book DETERMINED.
After two hours, I'm still waiting for a substantive disagreement. Dennett and Caruso seem to be fixated on a distinction without a difference.
Finally, a real comment.
"The issue about punishment is not the Kantian retributive desire to even the eternal score in Heaven or something like that; it's to maintain respect for the law."
Dan first needs to show that exacting punishment actually does this. Recidivism rates suggest otherwise. An interesting question would be to ask how these two models would _treat_ prisoners. Once imprisoned, the offender no longer poses a threat to society, regardless of whether they are daily beaten and degraded or allowed to roam freely within a luxury resort.
Edit: A lot of clarification happens toward the end of the video. It seems Dennett is not arguing for retributive justice but rather exemplary justice. Recidivism rates are irrelevant if the "respect for the law" which Dan talks about is the respect held by potential _future_ offenders, reducing the likelihood of them following through.
An extremist utilitarian approach, if it wanted to include exemplary justice, might be to manufacture the perception of harsh punishment despite secretly maximising the utility of prisoners.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how free will can exist at all. Anything I do is based on a few conditions.
1) my personal history (anything that has happened to me since I was born till that moment)
2) the environment around me (what happens in my life and in the world)
3) my state of mind at that time
Now if I decided I will not be going to work today. and I got a call from my boss saying that I'm fired. If I could go back to the moment of decision when I decided not to go to work but without any knowledge of what will happen. I would still do the same thing over and over no matter how many times I am given the opportunity. Because the 3 points that I mentioned would be the same each time.
There is a counter-argument about quantum mechanic uncertainty, but even if the chances of me doing the thing I did were only 5% and I could have done otherwise. It would not be a parameter that I could have changed. So it does not help free will.
The same reasoning can be applied to any and all choices I have made in my entire life.
My conclusion would then be that if I am free to choose from multiple choices but I am able to only choose one, then that is the illusion of free will and not the real deal.
I think that this has all the implications that Gregg Caruso was talking about.
As for the punishment part. It needs change but does not need to be discarded. If I am a maniac, I should be put in jail to prevent myself from hurting other people, and If I did something bad, I should also be punished but not because I deserve it but because that will force me to choose a different option next time because the punishment will be part of my personal history now and while the next time it won't be a real choice, as none of them really are, the chances that I will repeat similar transgression will be lower due to that experience.
An example (saw it at the world science festival a long time ago)
Rick gets a few alcoholic drinks and decides to drive his car home from the pub. He can't control his car and hits the tree.
Martin gets a few alcoholic drinks and decides to drive his car home from the pub. He cants control his car and hits the tree. But there was a 6 years old child between the car and the tree and the child dies.
Is Martin more guilty than Rick and should he be punished more?
Didn't they commit the same crime?
To me, Rick was as guilty as Martin, just had much more luck. Should Martin really have harsher punishment because he was unlucky?
My fix for this would be that they both are treated the same way, but that the punishment would be higher as drinking and driving is a risk to society.
And for the sake of this argument, I actually think that after this Martin will have a much lower chance of doing this again than Rick as his experience was much more traumatic.
I mostly agree but what was missing from this video was a discussion about punishment in more detail. Punishment can only ever give us temporary compliance. It pains me that these people who are the top of their subject matter haven't bothered to look into the likes of Alfie Kohn - Punished by Rewards or the great documentary - Punishment - A Failed Social Experiment. They provide excellent counter points to Dennett's arguments and put forward the case for completely rethinking punishment.
Part of not accepting free will needs to include these changes. The same way we need to get rid of words like choose & deserve. Just describe the action being taken or that might happen. They didn't "choose" to order chicken over beef. They ordered chicken. Beef may have been on the menu but it was never really an option.
Our language really doesn't help us & if Dan wants to keep using it because "reasons" then I think they need to outweigh the benefits of a society realising that we should be addressing causes rather than hoping people somehow "choose" differently in future.
try telling that to the mother of the child who died due to the drunk driver. we arent gonna even consider the loss of your childs life in determining the punishment for the man who killed him cuz it was just bad luck your kid was standing there.
@@forsaken841 This isn't a good argument. What we want to happen when angry and emotional doesn't make it the best course of action for ourselves or society.
@@DavidSmith-oy4of its about justice, buddy. yes sometimes the same act can have different outcomes. if the act is illegal, the outcome should still have bearing on the punishment of the act.
@@forsaken841 But justice for an angry victim or member of public will be different to someone who may see or be aware of more detailed factors in a case, & by going with what the public or victim wants may result in further harm later.
The fact is we need to deal with lots of problem behaviours but to do requires understanding & in some cases great compassion. Being angry & demanding punishment does nothing to solve these issues & actually muddies the waters & stands in the way of progress.
Should we blame DD for his egregious case of TDS or should we accept that MSM took away all his objectivity and therefore freewill?
?? MSM??
I just bought the book, seems like the only way to figure this conversation out :)
it sounds like the debaters are still trying to figure it out
SHERM, you're fidgeting much less. Kudos.
Video starts: 5:03
Although I can sympathize with the desire and arguments to want 'free will' for moral culpability, still it is irrelevant to whether we have it or not. I've never been convinced by any of the neurology studies that I've seen that we don't have it. All the studies, THAT I'VE SEEN, seem to not consider what the effects of how anticipation can influence their tests.
Yes, the game of monopoly and the game of real life are very different. One is trivial, meaningless and mostly down to luck...
We don't have free will; we have "free" consequences
Respect for the law, or fear of the punishment by those who claim to create and judge the law?
Free will and responsibility is an explanation to origin and solution for anything without changing anything.
Also, the main belief of free will and responsibility is that humans are rational beings, almost denying irrationality in the name of the logical choice, and yet the free will belief is based on affective and subjective perspective.
Responsibility and deservingness are irrelevant.
The only worthy consideration is whether an intervention changes behavior.
Hey first. This never happens. Always love content from Dennett.
Love listening to you Dan and especially Gregg. Dan, a tip from your friend Yoo...the barber is also your friend.
What a great debate. The best yet anywhere in my judgment.
It need not be complicated. To my mind, a succinct and clear definition of "free will" is: At any micro moment in my timeline, I could have chosen to do otherwise than I actually did think, speak, feel, do."
Without a clear definition to start with, people can go on for many more years arguing or befuddling, as has happened and are still doing today. Today almost every neuroscientist knows that consciousness and all mental activities are the result of what the brain does. And what the brain does, is operate on chemistry. At the molecular level. And at the molecular level determinism rules. As it does even in chaos events.
Quantum indeterminacy or quarks are not relevant here. Silly. For those who want to introduce non-material causes influencing the brain, dualism is as close to dead as to make no difference. Demonstrate a non-material reality and how it works. Philosophers have had over a thousand years to demonstrate one. We are obviously not talking about logic or math and other abstract things, which are often trivially introduced as non-material entities. We agree those are real in our minds and affect choices.
Thinkers such as Caruso or Sam Harris point out rightly that from moment to moment from our birth, we are the outcome of our genes and every moment prior to the present. And our every present moment in the future. How we feel or think about our self and choices has no bearing on the reality of the threatening idea that we cannot do otherwise than what is going on inside us at every micromoment before we decide or act. Hence we cannot do otherwise than what we actually do. Thus no free will.
This can cause an existential funk as it did for William James and myself years ago. But you get through it and go on with life, love, marveling at nature, and all the things we humans do. Sabine Hossenfelder says rightly, "Enjoy your ride."
I disagree about what you said. In my opinion your position (determinism) takes away important parts of human existence. It has a de-humanizang effect (to others, but even on yourself) because if people have no choice, basically they are like robots. Another problem is that in your worldview you cannot really love (a world you used in your comment): what's the meaning of love, if your predetermined to do it? You don't really choose to love, so it has no meaning. And there a lot of others problems that the absence of free will involve. So, basically in my opinion it's impossibile to "enjoy the ride" if you think that you have not at least a little bit of free will.
How does one demonstrate a non-material reality?
Input - Output.
Why would we have any public policy?
We don’t have free will. We have an active will.
It’s enough.
why isn't Dan using a reasonable microphone. I'm done listening, it's too bad.
Came here to learn more about why people hate D. Dennett so much.
Can we please get over Donald Trump?
On desert Gregg defines it as deserved with no forward looking application, so somebody really can deserve punishment just because of the fact they did it. Even if they were ultimately caused to do it by circumstances not of their choosing. Dan disagrees, I don't think he gives any good reason for that.
He’s saying there are sufficient degrees of freedom for functional adults to make choices in their behavior that we don’t need to point to natural causes as something independent of the person to deflect blame. Supposing your internal physics causes “you” to behave in a certain way, when we say “you chose” your behavior we are saying the physical adult represents all those internal processes. There is no independent self to point blame at. Tumors & other physical factors that influence behavior are mitigating only to the extent it separates someone from normal behavior. The baseline biological variability that creates the normal distribution of behavior creates the social norms.
@@chemquests
We need to be clear about these degrees of freedom. Always it's about how the blameworthy person could have done what he should have done. If we take determinism seriously as we should then the answer is he could have been predetermined to select the option he should have from since befote he was born. The fact he wasn't is something 100% out of his control.
@@stephenlawrence4821 Determinism doesn’t mean all our future behaviors are set at birth; it means we are equipped to respond to our uncertain environment with evolutionarily selected capabilities. We know how citizens are treated impacts the behavior of other members of society and sometimes the individual in question. Regardless of “blameworthiness”, the malleability of behavior implies some level of freedom to change outcomes, as beings capable of learning we can respond to a changing environment (perhaps as automatons). He has said before he uses the term as an engineer would in talking about our natural ability to respond to our environment in a variety of ways and it’s these degrees of freedom (like how many directions you can bend your elbow) that constrain your responses. There’s a range of possible behaviors and we can nudge most individuals to societally beneficial behaviors by modifying the environment to include rewards & punishments. It’s less about blame & more about creating the optimal environment for behavioral outcomes. If you remove punishment, you’ll just change the calculus on compliance.
@@chemquests
Yes, determinism does mean all our futures are set at birth. Dennett is saying free will is compatible with that. But since almost nobody understands they imagine he's redefining determinism to fit with the free will they believe in rather than redefining free will to fit with determinism.
It's a tragedy that he's unintentionally misled so many people.
@@stephenlawrence4821 Determinism means your behavior is determined by natural, physical causes. That’s different than all behavior set at birth (a debate for another time). I’m a determinist in the sense that our genetics & conditioning create a repertoire of responses. Dennett describes free will as being this range of responses (degrees of freedom) which are created & triggered by physical means. One doesn’t have absolute freedom to do anything but there’s some finite range of possibilities (perhaps this is what you’re referring to as changing determinism). Sam Harris memorably took issue with Dennett redefining free will to make it fit with determinism. Of course he did but to retain the practical value of having some concept to preserve personal responsibility.
Morality clearly is variable. It has changed over time and place throughout all of human history. It is nothing real, just a set of reasonings, often to say something is immoral because you wouldn't want it happening to you. But "want" has no meaning without free will. It just "is" and "will be."
So, Gregg says we should abolish reciprocity.
I didn't get that from what he said.
If no one was there at the big bang, then how can determinism exist? If observation collapses the wave function, retrocausally, then it's all good, free will is there and it's fine. Me as a Boltzmann super brain in all directions of time. "So there was someone there and it was all individual beings, in all directions of space time."
wat
Touché. I reckon if I am a God, and reality is only mine, I have free will. But what created me? I reckon if we are all gods, cannot have free will.. and we can't all be gods anyways. And if we aren't all gods, we don't have free will. As there must be a creator.
_What would a population of 8 billion people profit from the non existence of free will?_ _WHO profits from that discussion, are those who speculate, debate, and wright books about it._ _Those debate the existence of non existence of free will are also atheists, who follow Lenin’s teachings. Lenin said: Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism._
People who claimed African slaves weren't fully human somehow managed to have sex with them and produce live offspring. Somehow they were worth 3/5ths of a person for counting political representation. Somehow they had laws that punished slaves, yet no such laws that punished any other farm animals or tools/property. How sad to pretend this was all pre-determined and without choice; your life must be miserable to be without choices, without a life lived in nothing but determinism, where all good and evil is nothing but the result of physics, where a mass murder is no more a problem than storms.
It sounds like Dan's concerns about potential negative societal outcomes from people getting the wrong idea do a lot of work in motivating his view. His arguments seem much more oriented in pragmatism than about what's actually true. Sorry Dan, I admire much of your work but this area just reeks of sophistry.
But if people get the wrong idea out of "no free will" then perhaps we haven't captured what they mean by "free will" within our intellectual net.
@@ChollieD How does that follow?
@@jsuth1111 Not sure I could be any clearer. There's a definition problem here, as the discussion makes clear. When you invoke people "getting the wrong idea", I think we ought to open the possibility that what ordinary people mean by "free will" isn't being adequately expressed in the argument. Maybe all they mean by free will is that people make coercion-free decisions, regardless of whether or not those decisions arise completely out of prior causes and conditions (i.e., where they're at on the Libertarian-to-Compatibilist axis). First and foremost, this notion of "free will" is an everyman's tool, and the philosopher that wants to argue meaningfully about it needs to do more than just define what s/he means. They also need to grapple with what it means in common usage, and how much of that public meaning (or meanings if ordinary people use it in different contexts) is really captured within their argument. Because I don't think that people consider deeply whence it arises, whether or not there is a ghost in the machine, and so the public notion of free will may not be strongly predicated on spirits or souls that are more than metaphor. Does that help?
@@ChollieD
I appreciate the response. I believe the Compatibilist sentiment you've expressed here ultimately isn't useful and is misleading with respect to the ethical implications that really matter. To the previous comment, the reason I don't think it follows is that people "getting the wrong idea" doesn't require a concept of free will. If we randomly polled people to solve a basic arithmetic problem, such as Daniel Kahneman's Bat and Ball Problem, based on his research, we would expect a significant proportion to get it wrong. And we aren't tempted to invoke the concept of free will as it doesn't add anything. On the contrary, there are underlying mechanisms that explain this odd fact that is at least to some degree understood.
@@jsuth1111 Thank you. All models are wrong, though, including both free will and any other improved model with more descriptive/predictive power. I would simply say that the question of whether or not someone had a choice when they do something bad--the underlying model being that they might have been free to do otherwise--is extremely useful, as it goes to their state of mind and therefore, whether they'll do it again. The difference between the world you're living in when someone knocks you down by accident vs. the world when they do it on purpose is, in the moment you're sprawling out on the floor, pretty damn substantial! Isn't it?
In the case where they did it on purpose, YES of course there's another more fundamental model to be had _in principle._ Something is wrong with their brain or their environment or their assumptions about you that could be changed so that they aren't violent anymore. But in the meantime, in real time, your immediate problem is whether they meant to do it, whether they chose to do it, or not. You need to assess what they will do next in order to _choose_ an appropriate response. The higher-resolution model, where we don't actually make agentic decisions that are not totally explained by prior causes and conditions, isn't helpful in the moment.
A loose analogy: Lisa Randall (Harvard physicist) talks about Newtonian mechanics as "middle world", meaning the scales of millimeters to thousands of kilometers and life-sustaining energy states, where we have an intuitive grasp. This middle world is bracketed on both sides by other more comprehensive models: at larger scales, we need Einstein; at smaller scales, we need Schrödinger. But most of the time, for (for example) groundwater dorks like me, Newton works fine, and the extra detail of relativity or quanta are irrelevant to the decisions that I make.
It seems to me either I am the God (rather than one god among gods, which I dont think can exist) or there is a God and I exist in that creator's paradigm. The latter is no free will, the former can have free will but doesn't seem can exist given the question of what created me, with the only explanation I'm a Boltzmann Brain. But in that case, my choices are the product of the Big Bang, aka determined.
So for me, I'm determinist. I also think this is a simulation. Perhaps the universe is a thing within another physical universe with what would amount to unimaginably different physical laws. A meddling simulator could leave room for the idea of free will, though it seems.
Thin metal frames vs thick ass plastic. I think we know who wins here.
Thin metal frames with thin mental frameworks
Had to
Respect to dan
I dig the green goggles. It's like he has x-ray vision.
Introduction:
Our neighbors couldn’t have done otherwise (of their own accord) because we are all subject to logic and to the idea of time and to the logical dichotomy that: every 'event' must be either: caused- or- not.
When an 'idea' is already internally logically incoherent (like the idea of a 'square-circle'), then there's no need to search for it in the physical world.
As conscious beings we obviously can’t obtain “absolute knowledge” but this subject holds the same standard for knowledge we use for any & all other urgent moral practical issues. If someone is saving a life or entering data into excel for a cure for cancer, no one stops just to argue that '7=7 isn't absolute knowledge.'
********
Any idea of 'a cause' is also an idea in terms of an 'event', because the ‘idea’ of any 'cause' takes 'time'.
Everything here is in terms of 'events'; a process.
There’s no static, unmoving, beyond-time 'self' that creats the events within the universe. the 'self' is also a process.
And our neighbors don’t have the ability to manifest a “first cause”; The fabric of our world is woven via the idea of causality.
An idea of an indeterministic event can only either be one of the following:
1. via an idea of true randomness
2. via an idea of some specific real-probability.
3. only seems indeterministic to us due to lack of potential human knowledge, and so really via the idea of determinism/causality.
this is a logical trichotomy of ideas.
And none of these logical-options give any of our neighbors the ability of CHDO (Could Have Done Otherwise) of their own accord.
The Main Point:
Both Compatibilists like Dennett and Incompatibilists like Sapolsky agree that everything is determined (with or without acausal events - this is not of importance)
And they both want to make the world a more just place regarding social circumstances and equal opportunity for children.
But for doing so its critical to specifically teach that our neighbors could not have done otherwise. Not being clear on this or understanding that its actual knowledge of the only epistemological standard that humanity has, is hindering us.
For example, it’s already difficult enough to help the greatly suffering as they are also naturally irritable and difficult, so in order to much better succeed one needs to be fully grounded by the knowledge that at every moment this neighbor could not be doing otherwise.
Or if a police officer needs to arrest a violent person who's hitting them and spitting on them, the officer needs to really understand the logic behind "can not be doing otherwise"
When we don't teach it thoroughly, we get a world that’s on emotional steroids, instead of us being grounded by our rational and its efficient forward looking consequential method.
This knowledge needs to be grounded and firm, otherwise in challenging situations when we witness an immoral act being committed we will continue, as throughout history to be inefficiently swept by our emotions and by our baboon-like instincts to achieve the immediate relief of our distress by venting via violence that at times is even towards people that are just “passing by”.
Professor Sapolsky has found and researched this behavior in baboons in the wild and it’s also what we see everyday when a “Chef yells at a waiter that yells at the customer”.
The world is spiraling into uncontrollable anger and vengeance between ‘neighbors’ because we aren’t filling in a this dark void with the the grounding knowledge/rational and forward looking consequential perspective based on the the building blocks of 'thought' itself: the idea of causality.
Another terrible problem with our belief in the fallacy of free will is how it makes us all somewhat comfortable with social inequality. Where luck and luck determines who we were conceived to be. One baby born into abuse and heroine addiction and another baby born with a spoon of gold, and where society de facto has negligible effect to shift the track each baby is causally going down. And luck and luck alone has each of us standing in each of our shoes at this moment.
I personally don’t understand why there is so much emphasis and talk about the judicial's system need to acknowledge “could not have done otherwise”
when the utmost crucial and urgent need for its effect is on our atrocious social construct of inequality. Because we would be treating the root problem instead of fumbling with its symptoms. And it would be preventative to potential judicial-system encounters.
Not being clear regarding this (because instead Compatibilists Professors and Incompatibilist Professors have focused the debate mainly on the semantic of the term free will) is costing human suffering.
Compatibilists must not be aware that our “baboon-like” propensity to naturally and quickly slip towards emotions like rage, violent behavior and social inequalities, is fueled and maintained by our lack of rationale, ie this specific knowledge that our neighbor could not have done otherwise.
And its causing seventyfold more immorality and violence (which in itself also maintains the inequalities), than any hypothetical future harm that compatibilists fear.
I personally don't think compatibilism is logical. Either the word is deterministic or it's not. If it isn't I have no idea how that would work. I understand the concept of free will but I cannot imagine any practical process or mechanism for it.
Morality is the wisdom of society over time. The law is not about whether people actually deserve praise or punishment in the cosmic sense but changing behavior in a positive way. The punishment should not just fit the crime it should fit the criminal.
Free will is a mechanism installed by the functionaries who were given license to control a society or organization, such as Religions, Business, Governance. to offer deterministic control to keep order. Where does an individual reside in a controlled physical environment? Within himself with his ideas.
.
Deservingness of sanctions and responsibility, as concepts, are not helpful in improving the criminal justice practices of communities. Punishment and reward are not powerful ways to improve behaviors in societies.
What matters are cognitive-emotional-behavioral methods to train people to get their underlying needs or interests met in a ways that fit the groups moral code. Healthier human beings engage in better behavior.
So, per Dennett, the noble lie is that people have control over their behavior?
O.J., The Houston Astros...Justice is not the norm. Injustice is the norm. The word desert is corrupted beyond repair. We need a new word.