Compatibilism: Crash Course Philosophy #25
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 มิ.ย. 2024
- As we continue explore free will, today Hank considers a middle ground between hard determinism and libertarian free will: compatibilism. This view seeks to find ways that our internally motivated actions can be understood as free in a deterministic world. We’ll also cover Frankfurt Cases and Patricia Churchland’s rejection of the free-or-not-free dichotomy and her focus on the amount of control we have over our actions.
--
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
www.squarespace.com/crashcourse
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashc. .
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
![บุกร้านไอศกรีม VJ วุ้นเส้น !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g549nEhKZdc/mqdefault.jpg)
Finally, SOMEONE is proud of my abilities to not pee randomly.
😂😂😂
Sure, I'll just pause the stream and continue pissing
+
+
+
"The more control we have, the more responsibility we have."
So, what you're saying is, with great power...
... Comes a great electricity bill?
Incorrect. "Responsibility/duty/obligation" is a myth, it never exists outside the imagination. If you see me drowning you can just watch me do so, the universe has no opinion about it or about you.
@@Mansplainer2099-jy8ps you must be fun at parties
@Sir Jazziejeff You're only maybe the fiftieth stranger on the Internet to tell me that which leaves me to inform you that nothing "must be" anything.
@@Mansplainer2099-jy8ps Yikes lmao
"A puppet is free so long as he loves his strings."
Who said that?
Sam Harris
Metal Junior said it
It means that it does not matter from where your impulses actually come; as long as you are aware of their existence.
The impulses may come from the puppet´s master; but the puppet should not care WHO is its *current* master; but rather that the _strings_ work as they should; allowing it to move properly to acomplish their porpouse [to be an active/responsive puppet, in order to entertain and perhaps even make someone happy].
Understanding and accepting the strings as an integral part of your own self is the difference between hating yourself for what you are, instead of loving yourself for who you are [in the case of the puppet, technically speaking both terms are "the what"; but the meaning is different on each approach to the problem].
+Argamis (SilverComet) Can you choose your strings? Consider that.
"History doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes."
Mark Twain.
The question of free will gives me an existential crisis every time I think about it.
Because it is a stupid question. Free will is a vague ill-defined notion.
More like Deterministic Crisis
you worry too much.
How can you be so sure you know enough about free will that you have an existential crisis?
Used to have that but after a while I became a determinist. Like I was *really* anxious because I really wanted to have Free Will... not ever being truly free is a horrible thing to think about at first but you will learn to live with it as if nothing had happened.
However when eventually you accept it, you will realize you kind of knew it all along. :)
“We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings.”
Dr. Manhattan
"I suppose I have no choice but to believe in free will" --Christopher Hitchens
This philosophical approach filled me with determination.
...
...
*Frown*
...
its actually spelled "determinism"
And so you went on to do the things you wanted to
+Jotaku27 Nice Undertale reference.
Love this
The theme music sounds so promising I feel like I'm getting smarter every minute.
I'm more Compatibilist, I am tired of arguing with people who are so dichotomist, thanks for producing this video
So Sam Harris brings up an interesting point about the brain tumor case. If we admit that the man was not responsible for his actions because the brain tumor brought about a change in his neurochemistry such that he had no control over his actions, then what is the difference between the tumor causing that neurochemistry to manifest, and that neurochemistry simply appearing naturally in an individual due to genes and other prior causes? On the face of it, it would seem that the two cases are identical. Both would result in the exact same brain state, causing the exact same actions. Thoughts?
philosophically, it's obvious there is no difference, it seems to me we are poetically tragic zombies who think they have control over their actions while simply riding alongside the deeper brain. In court this explanation will never work.
You are correct I think, in that we still need a system of deterrents. Part of the chain of prior causes that determine your actions will be what happened to the other people that commit the crime your brain is predisposed for. That highlights one problem with this point of view that I don't have a ready answer for. In a sense, a pedophile is simply incredibly unlucky to have been born with the brain of a pedophile (Sam uses the example of a murderer when he gives this talk). So the logic of hating that person for being unlucky enough to have been born with the brain of a pedo seems to go away (that is not to say that you can't hate the person who victimised you specifically. but it is how we should view the world in our more dispassionate moments). The question becomes then, how do we deal with these people? Obviously we can't just let them go around hurting innocent people, but in some sense they are also a victim, a victim of their own physiology. If we could "cure" people of their desire to harm others, would that be ethical?
Well point is that we do not really know what are the causes of sexual behaviour exactly. We know it is not genes. If it was then yes, every anti-social sexual behaviour would be called a mental disease and people would not be held responsible. In the case of the tumour this dilemma does not exist. We know that a very deterministic medical factor caused this and thus considered the person not responsible for his actions. On a healthy brain it is not clear cut how much control you have over your natural tendencies.
We also know that what we actually have naturally is a tendency not a compulsion that is uncontrollable. If you are what psychology understands as mentally healthy you always can have some control over it. Thus we assign blame not on the action not the tendency itself.
So even if the anti-social tendency´s existence cannot be controlled we do assign some blame on how you act upon it. If you surrender and act upon it without any effort to ask for professional help or to resist it. So the we assign blame. perpetrator always has some responsibility on his action.
And i personally disagree with the court not judging things in terms of philosophy. Courts uphold justice and what justice is a philosophical question. I would not consider it justice to hold paedophiles responsible for example if eventually it is proven scientifically that paedophilia is a disease. I would want them in therapy. And that is a philosophical argument.
Interesting thoughts. That last part also has another interesting consequence. If pedophelia were a disease, and we sent pedos to therapy instead of prison, would that not encourage more initial pedo behaviour? They might think "Well I can get away with it for a little while and when i'm caught they will just send me to therapy anyway".
Same thing with murderers. If it's just a disease of the brain, we would have to have some way of identifying it BEFORE they commit their first act.
Aziraphale686
Well i am speaking hypothetically. I do not think that scientific data suggest it is a mental deceases.
But hypothetical speaking if it is a disease no it will not encourage it. As a disease only the people suffering from it would act upon it. It is like saying that we encourage schizophrenic behaviour because we recognize it as a disease.
And recognizing it early is an issue indeed. As it is a issue with any other mental decease. You cannot recognize it most of the times before the respective behaviour emerges. Thus, as with every mental disease, you need to have a system that recognizes it before it becomes hurtful to other people. And of course such a system is always best effort. Some case will slip through the cracks before we can prevent bad things from happening. But this is a practical situation that we all have to accept to live with. We can only do our best to prevent it but no system can be 100% full proof.
Me watching this video: oh my god yes there is a third option I was so concerned
Compatibilism is like realizing that deterministic factors control literally everything, but being unwilling to admit it.
It *is* a scary thought that everything is determined and we still want to somehow justify us blaming someone for something. If we would say that person had no other choice, giving blame becomes a lot more nuanced and a lot harder to argue (not impossible but also not as simple).
+Rififi50 When you say "no other choice", you are referring to to fatalism, not determinism. Of course people could have made a different choice, but that didn't happen for whatever reason in each circumstance. In my opinion, the word choice is too hard. It isn't like people tick a box with true or false when they make a decision. People often do things without even spelling the words in their head (intuition).
No, it is exactly not. Compatibalists can be, and usually are, Determinists. They know what that means. They just think that Determinism doesn't preclude freewill.
Thomas Prout
Yeah, exactly what I said. ~_^
Velexia Ombra No, it isn't. Compatabilists do (or can) recognise that everything is determined. You have misrepresented the view.
learning to control one's automatic reactions to outside events and internal prompts is a noble endeavor to take on.
I feel like I’m a hard determinist striving to believe in soft determinism. After all, determinism seems so comfortable when you think about it. Being in control of all your actions all of the time is taxing.
But maybe I’m determined to feel that way?
Bane: "Do You Feel In Charge?"
I think the hard determinist idea that all actions have a cause, *even internal ones we can't pinpoint*, is indeed hard to refute but nevertheless a bit of a cop-out. How can we truly know it if we can't truly pinpoint? I like Patricia Churchland's idea that free will comes in degrees and we should focus on HOW MUCH control we have, because it seems to account for the complexities that entail decision-making, determined or not.
It is a fallacy to say that free will depends on being impossible to physically trace or predict. That's like "God of the Gaps" but applied to free will. If scientists did map the entire brain onto a deterministic model would you feel any less free? I wouldn't... Nothing changed... we are still freely choosing whether to do this or that; just because it was fated doesn't mean it wasn't our choice. People trying to come up with a magical version of free will always end up with something that doesn't even grant extra freedom. Example: The ability to do actions with no prior cause. Uh, how is that free if you're not doing what you want (based on reasons?) That's why compatibilism makes sense.
Degrees of freedom is a theft of an engineering term and it makes no sense in the free will discussion.
YESSSS PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE !!
Also, Patricia Chrchland's view really seems the only tenable one here: knowing if we are "really" free is a badly formulated question because that "real freedom" there doesn't really relate to our experiences, either individually or socially. So it is indeed a question of how much we have, or think we have, or think others have, and ultimately agree through a constructed usage of language that we have control over what happens.
Great stuff, great stuff.
ugh, finally! after all this work and all these years someone recognizes my efforts! thanks for the praise concerning my ability to hold my bladder. no one seems to care or notice, but its good to feel appreciated!
every time I hear about free will vs determinism I always start doing random things to try to convince myself my actions are free willed... damnit Hank
MY GOSH, the smirk before he said both! He knows what he's doing!
This series does a splendid job of demonstrating why it is so odd that I was given a B.S. degree for studying philosophy. In the other, science based, series, knowledge is slowly built upon leading to a better and more complete understanding of the field. With philosophy people just play tennis with ideas. Maybe someone comes up with a new kind of racket or a new way to hit the ball (two handed backhand, say), but that doesn't resolve anything.
These episodes are great ! Thanks so much people of +CrashCourse!
Hank Green is a spectacular host. Great material great delivery great humor. I enjoy these very much.
Crash Course philosophy is the best. Thanks for putting this together.
Compatibilism seems to rely upon an argument of special pleading. It effectively says : All things are determined, we are not responsible for actions which were determined, EXCEPT if the proximate determining factor was 'internal' (but still determined). The only way to avoid this issue is to accept that there is some form of internal agency which operates independently of physical determinism. This would make compatibilism incompatible with monist materialism.
Thank you. I agree. Well, I'm not read in monist materialism, but I can agree outside of that.
Or one could just reject physical determinism altogether
@@davidwilliams6966 Always nice to get a reply this long after a comment. It gives one a prod to revisit earlier think (not that I've ever really resolved my views in this area completely) :)
To your point, rejection of physical determinism (for me at least) is more than a little difficult. Given the plethora of demonstrable empirical phenomena which science has identified (and continues to identify), and the consistency with which those phenomena have been shown to operate, physical determinism seems to hold a pretty strong position of credibility. At best I might (and do indeed try to) hold a sceptical position. That is to say that whilst I believe that physical determinism is a fact, I'm prepared to allow that it might not be. I'd still need some pretty solid evidence and argument to switch my position though.
All of this leads me to the point of still not being able to reconcile all of my apparent beliefs and continuing to try to resolve the conflicts. I suspect I may never achieve this, but the exercise is stimulating and I think educational and good for intellectual growth. Until it becomes so debilitating that I can't function (unlikely), then I see no need to commit totally to one direction or the other just for the sake of any 'easy' life ;)
@@dmartin1650 so when you say that you mean for instance Na + Cl makes tablesalt, observed acceleration due to gravity, etc, but isn't that quantitatively if not qualitatively different than a formula predicting human behavior.
@@davidwilliams6966 If 'formula predicting human behaviour' is shorthand for a deterministic system where the outcomes are completely and exclusively determined by the initial state and the operation of the system (whether or not ether is fully known), then your table salt analogy (or many other simple system analogies) is not qualitatively different (it's still a deterministic system), but it is quantitatively different in the degree of complexity by a huge amount. I often hear people cite so called 'chaotic' systems as being somehow non-deterministic and representing quite simple examples of non-determinism, however that's a mistake. Chaotic systems are fully deterministic, they just often exceed our capability to measure and calculate to the necessary degree of precision and/or accuracy.
To answer your question, I am watching this freely and has been watching since the beginning of summer even though I'm not taking a philosophy class or will not do so in the near future. You just make philosophy entertaining for me :D
Crash Course Philosophy & Crash Course Astronomy are by far my favorite series!
So far this is the best video on the topic. I'd add that another thing in favor of compatibilism is that the universe is a quantum universe, therefore some of its features are not determinined, which could mean that you can behave otherwise, but the question would be, how free are you anyway to choose otherwise? How much control do you really have? Maybe the answer is like knowing where the electron is going to be
So my conclusion after this is that hard determinism is something that, whether we like it or not, is inherently true about how the universe functions.
Compatibilism, however, allows us to maintain our ideas and applications of morality by dividing the determiners as internal and external. The fact that one's actions are determined is ultimately irrelevant, and the classification of the determiner is what we make our decisions based on.
Compatibilism isn't required if we subscribe to Utilitarianism. That is, if we assign responsibility and reward/punishment not on the basis of the cause of the action but on the consequences then we can build a society compatible with a deterministic world view.
I don't think compatiblism renders determinism irrelevant, rather it allows us to make modifications to our system of morality. For example, acknowledging determinism, we also have to acknowledge the extent to which things like environment have an effect on the people we become. In the west, we value equality of opportunity, but if we believe in determinism, inequality of environment is inherently inequality of outcome. Also, if we accept determinism, there for accepting that humans have no real moral responsibility, why would we make things like prison retribution-based rather than rehab-based? Analyzing our system through the lense of determinism would force us to modify alot, I believe
it sounds familiar to nihilism being the basic truth, existentialism & optimistic nihilism being ways to deal with that
SPKTR
To respond to only one aspect of your comment - Knowledge of retribution plays a large role in any deterministic system. That is to say that knowing a possible outcome of a 'decision' is retribution provides a large modification of possible behaviour.
I think both rehabilitation and retribution are important elements of a justice system, although I would argue that rehabilitation is both more important and useful to prevent undesired outcomes.
seanocd true, there are crimes that probably warrant more retributionary punishment to act a deterrent. I can concede that
this is a really superb series - thank you
I always watch this videos after my philosophyclass to clear some things up and their are really good!
Boy, I sure am proud of being able to control my bladder. Hank has enforced this pride.
The whole idea of "responsibility" is completely non-physical. It presumes the concept of free will. In reality, the important thing to do in the case of someone harming someone else isn't to "hold them responsible", whatever that means. The important thing to do is to do what you can to prevent that harm from happening again. The two ways of doing this are negative reinforcement on the person that did it, as well as telling the tale of warning about that negative reinforcement to others who might feel compelled to harm someone in the same way in the future. Its the prevention of harm in the future that is important, not the punishment for past deeds, tho they're intrinsically linked.
Ideas are mental is not a bold statement, but it doesn't follow that they are non-physical. Also, it is not a problem that we simply take a concept to exist, even if we disagree what its properties are. You have ignored the point. The question is not about how we should act in relation to particular actions, but rather concerns the nature of actions
I haven't ignored "the point", I commented on one of the many points made in this video. You have ignored *my* point, which is strange since you're replying to my comment, and have instead decided to tell me that I'm discussing the wrong topic. Thanks for the wisdom buddy.
I didn't ignore your point, just suggested it is irrelevant; it wasn't commenting on the video at all or positing anything contentious. Your first two claims were plain dumb.
No. I was only responding to your sarcasm and salt.
Ah, now I see it. When you project your attitude onto my words, you read sarcasm and salt. From my point of view, none of what I said is sarcastic or salty. I'm not trying to say this video is wrong and terrible, which is clearly what you seem to have read between the lines of my comments. Give people the benefit of the doubt and maybe you won't get into these fun arguments rooted in misunderstanding.
NEVER STOP MAKING THESE PHILOSOPHY VIDSSSSS PLZZZZ
can't believe this is episode 25 already! I'm really enjoying this series, as it's something that was never even touched on in school, I have so much to think about and reevaluate O_O
Saying that we have free will because of quantum mechanics is like saying a Dragons and Dungeons character has free will because the dice are random.
jokes on you, hank, I don't take philosophy classes! i just really like you, HAHA!
Excellent video to explain deep philosophies in lucid manner. All your videos are really good.
I think about this every day. Thanks for making this video! Now I have a name for it.
This is a fantastic series, it's sort of blowing my mind but in a very good way! Thank you for making it and keep up the good work :)
Compatabilism sounds closer to truth than the other two possibilities.
Your choices are essentially free, but no matter what your choices are always going to be influenced by a number of different factors.
***** Explain please
***** By the way, if quantum physics shows there is no hard determinism and that some things are just random, we still have no free will, because we can't act uppon the random outcomes
***** Didn't get your comment when I wrote that, so I understood your point before you explained I guess? x) Anyways I agree with you
I don't think though, that the brain is a quantum mechanical system, and so there shouldn't be any actions in the brain determined by quantum mechanics.
quantum mechanics is deeply rooted in statistical probability, and all experiments we did so far seems to corroborate the fact that quantum effect CANNOT be determined in this "deterministic" view of the universe. You can only understand the CHANCES a quantum effect have to give a certain result and they are NOT determined by previous actions but only by those coinflips that occur without a cause that can make even the most improbable of events happen.
Think about it like this, in a deterministic universe, if you trow several spheres into a flat wall, that will NOT suffer permanent deformations no matter the force of the impact, you CAN predict its path with 100% reliability, even if you trow millions of spheres at that wall, having the same conditions and no variable (like wind for exaple). But when you sutdy a quantum effect you suddenly realize that 10% of those balls (for exple) are doing vastly diferent paths despite the identical conditions, there will even be the eventual sphere that will "suddenly" teleport to the other side of the wall and continue in a straight line so no matter how much you "determine" the path it will take, there will always be those 10% of times that will go wildly against your prediction no matter what
Dear Hank, this Avicenna and Ghazali has a wonderful and influential discussion on the issues of compatibilism and hard determinism
Loved the video guys! Keep up the hard work.
They could if they so "desired" :)
Seems like soft determinsm is just another belief that humans are special in some way
How come? What about it could not also be applied to an animal?
The video specificaly stated that humans do have free will under some conditions. It did not say that organisms have free will under some conditions.
Kaja Trijsburg
That could just be rhetorical. Maybe he said human, because most people ask the question: 'Do *I* have free will?' rather than 'Do living things have free will?' I didn't hear him say that it was exclusive to humans, to be honest.
The decision of what to eat, where to go, who to befriend. Or of whether or not to jump off that diving board. These are things most creatures are capable of.
I don't understand why people keep saying that this is just a way to say that humans are special. A cat can just as easily make decisions. So can a chimpanzee and a caterpillar, though each creature does it on their own terms.
So again. What about it could not also be applied to an animal?
BlueUncia
I agree, if you where to accept that humans have free will, you'd have to accept that animals have free will too.
The question then becomes, where do you draw the line? You could use that exact reasoning to argue that bacteria have free will, or that a tree has a choice.
Most do not accept that anything but humans can poses free will, hence the frequent question: what makes humans special?
+Kaja Trijsburg intelligence. But not special, just better in one aspect, no more different than a tiger is better than us in the aspect of speed. Intelligence is just another trait like speed, but comes with the delusion that it is somewhat special from all attributes that organisms evolve to gain for survival. But no different in actuality. This is what i believe.
very interesting stuff... this is why people should have more classes of philosophy in school. I am of the opinion that it really forces you to think, to pick between choices and not just stick with your choice blindly but to defend it and give reasons why, and possible change your view when presented with new info. I really like the example if the brain tumor patient. It's a thought provoking question.
Awesome video as always. Hard determinism ftw
This reminded me of one great prayer: 'Let me understand what I have and what has me.'
As a caregiver, I love Patricia Churchlands view, because the amount of control my clients have over their lives directly influences how free they feel.
Soft determinism seems correct, though it's important to remember that trough the quesrioning of the validity of our choices we should remember that on the level of reality in wich they exist they are fully valid, and it's best not to assume a lack of responsibility over the happenings of the world, because in a sense, we definetly do control what we do
rlly appreciate this channel this guy is awesome!
This has been a disturbing and thereby thought-provoking series. Thanks, Crash Course!
This segment certainly did make me have to reconsider how I view morality as someone who kinda believes in a superposition of hard determinism and compatibilism, but ultimately my consequentialism told me that the fact that you can change someone's behavior to be more helpful to the world and themself isn't affected by whether they are free or not.
Consider this thinking from when I was learning retail management (I know, it seemed like a good idea at the time) I had bad supervisors who'd say "Everything is your fault" and my best supervisor, who was actually the store manager, would say "Nothing is your fault, everything is your responsibility"
uma ótima aula, parabéns
I'm a fan of your work. Good job!
Thank you so much, you literally taught me in 10 minutes, what my teacher failed to babble about over the course of a month. #truth
Hey Hank,
Thanks so much for doing this! When I was in my Junior Year of College, I took a required philosophy course and even though I found compatibilism fascinating, I had a really hard time differentiating it from determinism.
This has explained so much; thank you.
As a Speech-Language Pathology student, I'm really excited for the new unit!
great channel, your doing the lords work mr green
Life is a rollercoaster ride along our World Line of four-dimensional space. We think we are driving that rollercoaster. The point of a rollercoaster is not to drive but to enjoy, most ideally, without detracting from the enjoyment of the rest of the passengers.
This makes me think about my actions/avoidance due to panic attacks and anxiety and how much of it is free will. Or if it's only free will when I fight what is natural (avoidance of anxiety inducing situations)
I congratulate myself every time. Thank you.
This is such a brilliant series! Must share! Wait, is my sharing imposing my thoughts on others? Whatever.
I like to think that these internal and external factors affect the probabilities of us doing something, but we still ultimately have the possibility, no matter how small, of taking an alternative route.
I love this approach.
This has got to be one of the most interesting series, I may still know nothing about philosophy but each time I learn more about humanity,
Philosophy of language
I'm learning this is class so this is fun to watch.
fascinating. I definitely believe more in soft determinism, and feel like I and others always have. Because it seems like common sense, which you actually made me doubt last episode.
Just before watching it, I was just thinking about something I have struggled with for a long time, and how there has been a conflict between internal and external factors with how I associate with this thing. This video has really made me think.
The thing with this metaphysical question (and most of them in all honesty) is that it is asking a question about our reality which we can't answer because it demands we step outside our reality in order to answer it, which we can't do. Ultimately the Free Will/Determinism question needs to remain an open question until we have more information, and I think we'll never reach a point when we have this information
omg yas im so pumped for the philosophy of language
I regularly come back to these two videos. I'm a hard determinist surrounded by libertarian free will-ers. Whenever the topic of free will comes up, everyone's always aghast that I don't believe it exists.
The conversation will inevitably boil down to "I have an internal belief system and make choices" versus "yes, but your beliefs are shaped by external factors, like upbringing, the media you consume, your life experiences, etc". And then we kind of get stuck there because I can only envision one factor that shapes decisions that isn't deterministic, and that's pure random chance (which defeats free choice anyways), and they can't envision a world that lies entirely out of our control.
The problem I keep running into is that, so often, the free will argument comes down to "but it just FEELS right", and my brain can't wrap around that as a satisfactory answer. Maybe it's my brain being too clinical and analytic, but the idea that determinism is wrong because we don't like the implications and that libertarian free will is right because we get warm fuzzies from what that implies just sits so wrong with me. It goes against reason just for our own selfish comfort.
I would love to hear better arguments in favor of will and choice, and I keep coming back to determinism videos to see if ageing or new perspectives will change my mind, but I end up just as hard of a determinist as ever.
On the example of the diving board and compatabilism's ability to make exceptions:
Of course the Mongol is the exception...
I have one response which can likely be copied over to every single crash course philosophy video without losing its meaning:
IT'S COMPLICATED!
EVERYTHING IS COMPLICATED!
+
+
+
Uh... Why is every comment a "+" sign? Am I the only person who is seeing this?
It's a proposal from Hank Green (the host of Crash Course Philosophy) to improve the comment section. The comments that get the most reactions go to the top of the page, more than when a comment gets a bunch of likes. And because of this, trolls, or people with not so very nice or controversial messages go to the top. (They tend to get a lot of replies) The idea is that, if you see a comment that you like, and want to see more of, you could reply with a '+', and that could make the comment section a bit more welcoming.
Maybe this explains all the '+' you've been seeing. If not, I hope someone else can explain, English is not my first language.
Hi Crash Course! Awesome educational videos!!
I always watch your video and they help me!
They are easy and fun to learn!!
Thank you very much for making this channel!!
I really mean it.
Have an awesome day!
P.S. keep up the good hard work!
these videos are so helpful.
You can fight human nature, but you'll almost definitely lose everytime.
I love this series so much, I just wish Hank could be my philosophy teacher!
He is
Incompatibilism is just nonsense.
Thank you for all the wonderful work! Just adding here about the Stoic Chrysippus on compatibilism and Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, book 3, is very useful on these matters. Yet not nearly as fun :)
These videos are great!!!
I've thought about this some time ago, and came up with some sort of thought experiment. To start, if the universe is tottaly deterministic then it would be theoretically possible(by knowing the states and properties of all the particles in the universe, and all the forces acting upon them) to build a machine that could tell us the future.
Now imagine that one smartass goes and makes the machine show him what his action will be 5 minutes from now, but he's intention, from the start, is to do the exact opposite of what the machine tells him.
So in this case what predictions will the machine do? It can determine the intentions of the person that is asking it, so it knows that he will do the exact opposite. It can't not make a prediction, that will mean either that the universe is not deterministic or that the person will do noting, in which case he can do anything. Will it enter an infinite loop? Wouldn't that confirm some sort of free will?
I guess but even if it does confirm some sort of free will, those conditions have not and by the looks of it, logically, will not take place any time in our reality. I mean how does it event make sense that a true crystal ball can exist?
A viewer of the crystal ball would see their future and know what option not to take in order to test it, I don't know it just doesn't make sense.
It's relevancy can only be confirmed if a case can be made that future clairvoyance is truly logically possible.
When he sees the current time in the machine and reaches the timeline in the machine where he is looking at the machine, the machine will show him doing the opposite of what the machine shows him in the machine. In that way if he has to do the opposite, he will have to obey the machine. Idk if this makes sense.
More importantly, I think us, with our tiny brains trying to comprehend a machine so infinitely complex is a fatal exercise.
When the machine makes the prediction it's under the current circumstances which is that the person doesn't know the future yet. When the person becomes aware of the future it changes the circumstances so you need a new prediction for that
Wow great thought experiment! I think this machine would just read 'error' in this circumstance because it would work out that it could give no correct 'prediction', because whatever it 'predicts' could be made not to happen by the person who was shown it.
In that case I would jusy say that your machine is garbage. If it can't predict something as simple as that you may want to prove it wrong, then it is a stupid machine.
The gap of time between a situation causing my reaction on it and my actual reaction is very small; but it becomes more flexible if I start notice it and try to practice my free will (choosing my reaction on situation). So, more I practice free will, more free will I get. If I never care about it, the gap of time becomes very rigid , then reactions look determined.
I agree! I'm currently trying to teach 4 year olds to take a breath before screaming and hitting each other. And we always give them choices. I used to think I didn't want to accept responsibility for certain actions that felt hard for me to chance but accepting that responsibility has been so freeing and has helped me feel empowered to make changes. It's depressing to feel trapped or helpless. Our actions are highly influenced but we always have a choice.
I'm in a PHIL class and this is helping me so much ty
I like the idea that my internal choices are free even with impulses, for instance, when I'm hungry and I want a snack my body is telling me to get a bag of chips, but I don't HAVE to act on the impulse, it doesn't mater how strong the impulse is, I am still responsible for my action of acting on it or not.
Let's talk about coercion and culpability ethics, for example if we are pressured into an agreement with no reasonable alternative that affects our education, financial well being, and future happiness. Also on a different note once we make too many bad decisions our capacity to do good or choose the right can be greatly diminished. I would argue that these individuals would be less free although they were accountable for the series of choices that led to this point. It can be very difficult to break this bad choice downward spiral without assistance. Props to addiction recovery programs and good organizations that help people become more free, so they can have joy in their lives! This is what true religion is all about.
Well, when you looks at laws of quantum mechanics it turns out that determinism is actually impossible to stand for. Small events (like an atom disintegrate or not, a particle passing through an obstacle or not, etc) are truly random, with no determination at all in it. Butterfly effect leads into thinking that these small random changes prevents determination to rules any action. The more complex objects and chains of actions are, the more probablitiy to escape from determinism is high, and this explain why our brain may be truly unpredictable when a falling ball is not. And from there, couldnt unpredicability be the basis of free will?
Thanks god for these videos because I'm so lost in Philosophy. I have to choose my view of free will and write a paper. Thank you for this!!!
I can really relate to this video since something bad happened with me. These points are fairly decent.
I was most convinced of compatiblism by the inverse of the Frankfurt case. Imagine a mad-scientist puts a device in your head that indemeninalistically makes you vote for either candidate. Clearly you could of done otherwise, but clearly your action was not free. So, it seems determinism and indeterminism are entirely irrelevant to moral responsibility. The only thing that matters is how much the person identifies with the causes: was it my reasons, my soul, my personality that made me do it. The tumor than becomes clear because people do not identify with their tumors.
There are some interesting things brought up in this video, but one implication that I disagree with. I am generally a hard determinist when it comes to the question of free will, but in regards to decision making, I agree that it could be called free will because there are so many factors in what makes a person make a particular choice that we cannot possibly nail down every single one. In the same way that something may have a small chance (one in a billion, for example), but be so negligible that that the chance of success is called zero, I believe that we can call that a free choice.
I, however, disagree with the implication that hard determinism means that there should be no consequences to our actions (on account of them not being free). After all, consequences themselves (or rather, the threat of consequences) can be determining factors in of themselves. Someone feeling mild pedophilic urges may be better suited not to act on them if society (via known consequences reinforcing taboo) helps them feel as though those actions should not be acted upon.
Oh my god, this saved my grade. Thank you! Thank you!
I love you Hank and I love crash course.
Do crash course sociology please!
Hehe
"What happened, happened and couldn't have happened in any other way". Morpheus
Prove it
Who's to say that everything hasn't already happened? Or isn't still happening in totality? Everything that ever is, was or will be happens now, there is no other way for events to occur than in the present.
@@seanbell69 The universe does seem pretty deterministic, although when we add quantum mechanics to it, then a small of amount of randomness is added too. This does make the future impossible to predict with perfect accuracy.
@@seanbell69 , although my comment was intended with humor, when I read your comment you shut my mouth. But there's one thing that doesn't leave me in peace. Is the concept of potencial destroyed by deterministic philpsophy? Why would one struggle or bother with studying/training if at the end all is determined? Just in case? Don't you have a choice between persevering or giving up? Specially when you believe that all is determined. The only thing you can do is to hope that you are the chosen one and put the work anyway towards your disires.
Good video Crash Course.
For all practical purposes, Churchland's vision is enabling us to grade consequences according to the level of responsibility for one's determined behavior. Putting everything into two categories is philosophically entertaining, but reality is always a lot more nuanced, and so must be our reactions to crimes.
I think our actions are determined, but we should still punish and rehabilitate law breakers in an attempt to determine that others won't commit the same crime and that that person won't commit it again.
You claim you believe that we live in a determined world, yet still suggest that we have control over whether we hold others accountable or whether we punish people, and that a criminal's actions can be determined by our efforts. We cannot "attempt" to deter criminals from crime if the world is purely determined, either we will punisb or we won't, and they will commit crime or they won't. There is no choice involved, no "attempt" you can actually make.
+Josh Cottle yeah I see where you are coming from, however if someone who may commit a crime sees the punishment for doing so, wouldn't you say that the punishment plays a part in determining what that potential criminal will do?
The legal system can also be viewed as one of the inputs that will determine the behavior of potential criminals. So, while it is true that it can be argued that "justice" is not really an option, law enforcment is still useful.
+Josh Cottle he means that punishment is a factor that determines the actions of potential criminals. It is a simple cost-benefit calculation. In this sense, punishment is beneficial as it is a factor determining if a person would commit a crime. It isn't free will that guides them, it is a set of reasons, the punishment is a reason against committing a crime.
+Josh Cottle but doesn't this viewpoint claim count as factors? By watching the video, his genes and experiences determined him to decide on this, those are internal factors. And by writing he may influence others and cause his words to be external factors. Thus, there is potential for these factors to take result and deter criminals, albeit small. So, whilst he was always going to comment, and had no choice in it, it was still an attempt to deter criminals.
I feel this leading into a discussion of virtues next...
Nope the next is language and free will
+Hiromi Jafari they already covered free will
philosophy has pretty much ALWAYS been about virtue.
If anything, it's shocking how little we've talked about it so far.
weesh ful
Well, in philosophy the discussion of virtues plays in to the evaluation of free will and responsibility.
When we, as a society, choose to honor or punish someone's for actions they took, a shortcut to avoid the free-will debate is to instead focus on the virtues they either did or did not exhibit.
Determinism makes sense if you ignore that out side influence can change how you think. For example (a highly simplified one) I read a book that resulted in me being more aware of my thoughts and actions to the degree of I often changed the expected outcome to certain situations (basically the normal cause and effect was intentionally altered by applying new information to the situation). Without the book that I read, my actions would probably remained unchanged, there for determinism would have rather accurately described my behaviour, but books can have unpredictable effect on ones behaviour depending on its content, and whether or not you are determined to accept, integrate and apply new information to your thought processes.
I shed a tear when he mentioned PBS Game Show in the end credits :'(