00:00 Introduction 01:00 What has Daniel learnt since they last spoke about free will? 11:47 Is free will an illussion? 23:32 Free will and moral responsibility
18:00 “are you able to [do / decide] otherwise” ... is not answered by Dennett’s description of “control” ... the regression either stops at ‘you can freely change what you want’ or ‘changes in what you want are themselves determined’. Dennett’s compatibilism doesn’t (in this interview) address the underlying question of choosing or not choosing our wants . To me that is the key question to be answered ... but I can’t see how that can be tested given the arrow of time.
Let me try to channel Dennett. His answer to the “but I couldn’t have done otherwise” point is, “eh “so what? You have all the freedom worth having as an agent and controller thanks to evolution by natural selection and you need to just let go of the fantasy of some magical, uncaused form of freedom because nothing would even really make sense if that was the case. You might not like that answer but, well, the universe is under no obligation to fulfill your fantasies. Go read more Darwin and stay responsible for whatever you decide to do.”
I appreciate the reply but not sure why the concern. I’ve been following Daniel Dennett since at least 1982 with the publication of The Mind’s I, a collection of essays exploring paradoxes and topics other philosophers tended to avoid at the time. My comment stands, because I don’t think Dennett’s concept of control over decisions answers the deterministic claims of most naturalists and scientists like Sapolsky. Sapolsky and Dennett recently discussed the issues involved (stackexchange and youtube) at more depth than was reached here. As a respecter of science, I don’t have any stake in how the issue is eventually settled. As a respecter of philosophy the scientific outcome will make a significant difference, imo.
Prof. Daniel Dennett is most influential living philosopher who actively changing our understanding of ourselves and our world. Thank you dr. Lawrence Kuhn for interview with him.
The difference in the degree's of freedom we enjoy compared to others is determined. Moral responsibility like all inventions can be tweaked to remove retribution and still function
Who in human's world, began the phrase, "free will"? Who said that the concept of "free" must accompany the concept of "will"? Can will be applicable without it being free itself?
What Dennett seems to me to be saying is that, sure, the future is determined, but that once organisms like humans evolve that are capable of making choices, those choices become part of what determines the future. The only thing is that he never seems to say it in quite those words, I'm not sure why. If one accepts his take on this, I don't think the "one can't choose what one wants" argument contradicts his case. If one's present self is capable of making choices based on what one currently wants, all the past incarnations of one's self presumably had the same ability, and the choices one made in the past combine (together with events driven by (deterministic) "randomness", i.e. events that one didn't have complete control over) to shape what one currently wants.
It's like listening to somebody who himself has no idea about what he's trying to explain. It reminds me of ''progression happens one funeral at a time''.
I can't help thinking Dennett here is arguing systems that have a degree of self control, eg a governor on a steam engine, cruise control in a car, or a fully autonomous vehicle have a degree of free will.
We all act as though we have free will because we in fact do have free will. Everyday we reason, problem solve and conduct conversations. All of these mental activities require the ability to direct our thoughts. The ability to direct our thoughts is clearly an act of free will. If it is not, I do not know what is. When we reason or analyze something or engage in problem solving it is nearly always the case that there is a mental intention to achieve an end goal that appears in our subjective conscious experience first. And then, following this initial mental intention, thoughts arise subsequently and sequentially that enable us to achieve that end. So, what we have is a phenomenon where the thoughts related to the end precede the thoughts related to the means to that end. This is an example of Aristotle's Final Causes and it is definitive proof that we have free will. To claim otherwise is to ascribe to molecules a capability that they can not possibly have--foresight. Stated in more detail: From a Materialist perspective, at time0 you have a series of neuronal components that somehow act together to produce a thought that you want to think through and solve a new problem at work let's say. seem to affirm this intention in your conscious mind (which is an act of free will). Then, according to Materialists, your brain continuously and subsequently arranges a massive collection of neuronal components in the brain in such a way that they just happen to produce a sequence of mental thoughts that are coherent with, and purposive to, the mental event--the initial intention--that occurred previously at time0. How would the initial neuronal actions that occurred at time0 which produced the mental intention, just happen to "know" that the subsequent series of neuronal events would produce a stream of mental events that resolved the intention that you had previously affirmed in your consciousness? Such a phenomenon could not be attributed to random chance. A Materialist would have to theorize that there was some kind of programmatic control that orchestrated the entire sequence of neuronal events. But this is a new problem that we are reasoning thru (like most problem solving...by definition). So how would such a program just happen to be in place with a novel future purpose?...where did it come from? This putative program would have to have a cause. It would have to have been produced by another series of neuronal actions; another program. But where did that program come from? An infinite regress of causes is unavoidable. And how would these putative programs exercise control over a vast collection of neurons? Such a thing would be impossibly complex. This is to say nothing about the intractable problem of how consciousness and the contents of consciousness could be produced by physical events in the first place. People who deny free will ironically make use of this facility of mind everyday. This facility was used here to produce this video. Yet people are too blinded by Ideology to recognize and accept it. The conclusion: Some form of dualism must be true.
@@Jaroen66 It's maybe the biggest question of all time. It's not about me or my actions at all, or even about humanity or all of life. It's a bigger question than that.
@@bozo5632 The future is fixed in macroscopic level, so there's no free will But that doesn't mean you can't change your life. You can voluntarily change the path you take. Just determinism saying, it is predetermined including the change you have in your life.
Sure, I agree that I'm "autonomous and free" as long as all the goings on in my head are...determined...uh...by me...wait a second...so much for that. There's a lot of semantic gymnastics here by Dennet, sadly. 10:57 - 11:10 This feels like desperately holding on to something semi-religious in order to feel better about one's place in the world. I think we as humans tend to have too much pride in ourselves. It reminds me when I talk to some religious people and they say, "We're not animals, we're special," when I tell them, "Humans are animals." The problem seems to be that they can't fathom having meaning without such beliefs or they can't bear a life without such meaning at all. This is why they continue to believe such things; it serves a function for them. It's a question of finding something to replace it or accepting that no such meaning exists as we may want it to. Until then, perspectives on such matters won't change. There needs to exist something either material or immaterial that determines us to act for true free will to exist. As for the immaterial, I'm not religious, so I'm out. As for the material, I only see either deterministic or indeterministic processes that act on my body to create my inner "choice" to do something, neither of which are "me freely choosing" but rather "the universe impinging itself upon my body in such a way which compels me to 'choose' A or B". I may have an inner monologue about "this or that", but what caused that inner onologue in the first place was not "me", but rather the multitude or reality working on me to spit out an action as a function. I am the universe solving itself. I am the actor in a film watching itself. Also, I don't take the bad faith ideas that if there is no free will, "Then I'll simply live a horrible life and kill, rape, and steal because nothing matters." I'd agree that you're not freely choosing to do that, but using the lack of belief in free will to act in such a way is not rational; there are people who believe in free will and act in that way. There being no free will doesn't mean individuals cannot be held "responsible", because that's all we have to conserve some modicum of society. If someone randomly murders someone and doesn't have a strategically-placed brain tumor or other medical emergency that directly causes it, yes, they should be sequestered in prison or what have you, whether there's free will or not. Show me the material or process within my body that acts outside of determinism in order to create action (either overt or covert) and I'll agree that we have the capacity for free will. Until then...I have no problem stating that we have no free will other than "the kind that people care about" (I can eat McDonald's or not, I can "figure out" whether "I" want to do "A or B" or not, that kind of superficial "freedom" which I don't consider real freedom at all). This is not to say that there is indeed no freedom as I mean it, but there just hasn't been any good evidence for it. To be clear, I'm agnostic on its existence as I am god's existence: If it exists, I'll probably never be able to know, but I'll continue to live life as though it pracically doesn't because I feel like I'm lying to myself less. Just because something makes you warm, fuzzy, and comforted doesn't make it true. To all the people who can't stand to see the world as I do lest they go insane, continue on your merry way. It isn't very comforting to see the world as I do, but I feel closer to truth than I would otherwise. Peace.
You can always choose not to. Intellectuals will always call the existence of God a religion or Dogma instead of an absolute fact of the reality they exist in and they will never admit they build this on a lack of experience, never calling it a bias. Because they are simply too smart to have a bias.
@@williamesselman3102 If you can actually read what I said and provide me with something a bit more thought-provoking, I'll respond accordingly. Currently, other than replying in this way, I'll ignore you.
Free will is not the ability to do otherwise despite determinism, but the power of counterfactual reasoning that employs us with the ability to choose from a system of options that is bigger than any consistent system of options, namely because we can reason counterfactually. If you can contradict yourself, you can prove anything. If reality is consistent, the set of things provable about reality is smaller than the set of things provable from a contradiction, given enough time and computational power. So, humans are able to access that advantage of counterfactual reasoning to make decisions informed both by the past and by predictions about the future. The better the predictive power, the better one can steer through the available options, a proper subset of which is the actual state of affairs. Humans exist at the present, and time seems to flow, given our consciousness. So, if time flows, we flow with it. So, we exist at the present, and have the power to choose among options based off of the past about the future, that at least for us hasn’t happened yet. So, we have the power to influence the path of the present we’re in into the place it always had to have in the greater timeline.
I think this is a category error, Dennet conceded that control is caused, consciousness is caused to Dennet, but the subjective feeling of control is where he locates ‘free will’. Autonomous to the degree that human brains are able to control themselves, in response to stimuli. All that still exists within a deterministic framework. There’s no intention basically, in the difference between the Boulder and the skier. Anyway, that’s what I gathered. As in the human brain, it’s generation of a subjective field of experience; internally is unique to the degree of complexity and so on. I’d argue, his definition of ‘control’ is the important distinction, it’s impossible to know; but arguably a raccoon’s Brain has less refined control, a less perfect Union between intention and outcome. All still within a deterministic framework.
Dennett mentioned the Hobbesian view of our primitive existences being short, nasty and brutish. But Hobbes incorrectly imagined that in prehistoric times it was total warfare with every man against every man. Hobbes knew that people act in their own self-interest and, so, needed powerful state institutions to keep them in line. There was no such thing in our prehistoric existence so Hobbes figured it must have been total anarchy. But it was never like that. Our species formed groups. Hunter gatherers and then tribes. The leviathan that kept people in line was the nature of things. The directives of human nature, our instincts, drives and appetites subject to the conditions of the natural world. Number one directive is survival. Everyone has the instinct to survive and that instinct rather than causing total warfare was the reason that groups and tribes were formed. Because it was common knowledge that the best way to survive in the wild was to be part of a group. It is self-interest, then, that forms collective-interest. The tribe was greater than individual members because it served their self-interest. So, self-interest/collective-interest forms a dynamic that is fundamental to every social system that ever was and ever will be. Today we are still directed by a survival instinct. We don't necessarily think in terms of survival so let's just say we all want to go on living. That is not a matter of free will. And, just like in prehistoric times that self-interest forms collectives as a means to benefit that self-interest. So, in order to go on living today it is in our self-interest to make money. In order to do that we find a job. That means we become part of a business, a collective, and we contribute to the profitability (survivability) of that collective and we are rewarded with a pay check to support our self-interest in survival. That is all determined but it comes from an autonomous state of being. So, I would say that we do not have free will but our will is free, autonomous. And that autonomy is why we feel we have free will.
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice, but if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fear or kindness that could kill, I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose freewill." Freewill by Rush
"Invisible airwaves crackle with life Bright antennae bristle with the energy Emotional feedback on timeless wavelength Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free" ... Haha, "Rock on!"
The discussion on free will by Dennet was unconvincing with a very vague and hand waving discussion of ‘control’. What Dennet calls a ‘controlled event’ and an ‘uncontrolled event’ (or random event) are just distinguished by the fact that the former can be deduced from the present and the latter cannot (due to incomplete information). However, both are equally predetermined and the random event is no less contingent than the ‘controlled’ one. In a deterministic world there is no fundamental difference between the future and the past. Both are fully determined and can be inferred to by the present. If Dennets concussion was correct, then we could 'control' the past by remembering it (we have the information to infer the past from the present), whereas the past we don’t remember would be ‘uncontrolled’ (we lack the information to infer it from the present), which obviously makes no sense.
I think I know what the problem is here. We are attempting to make sense of free will without understanding the foundations. In my view, the pre-requisite to speaking intelligently about free will is an understanding of consciousness. In simple terms, if there was a robot with no consciousness, then the question about free will would never arise - who asks if a toaster has free will? However, once there is consciousness, then and only then, does the question of free will have relevance. We have no clue ***whatsoever*** about how to solve the “hard problem of consciousness” so until we do, we’re just not equipped to address free will.
Some people say we don't really have any free will and some people say we do have free will but who is right and who is wrong? I think many people think they know the answer but personally I don't think anybody really knows and ultimately it just comes down to what you believe or what you want to believe. When we don't know the truth I think we often have the option of choosing for ourselves to a certain degree what we want to believe. Our beliefs can often play a big role in our lives and determine the quality of our lives. Our beliefs can sometimes make our lives easier or they can make them harder depending on which way we go.
I like Dan Dennet a lot, and I think I can see where he's going with this but... to my mind, he doesn't quite get there. In my view, the future IS predetermined by countless logical decisions made by the laws of nature since the moment of the big bang. That doesn't preclude humans from having the perception of free will.(and for all intents and purposes we do). I believe that every action we take, is the logical result of many events and logical decisions, conspiring to create that final action. As an engineer who was involved in safety and health, there ARE NO ACCIDENTS. Everything happens for a reason or as is more likely, reasons, plural.
I'm actually amazed by how big some of the contradictions in Dennett's views are. He literally first admits that the universe is deterministic, he even says that there's no way to change the future, and then he says that we still have the freedom to decide whether to do A or B (or C, etc - depending on the amount of "degrees of freedom" that we possess) at any moment. Imagine that we somehow looked into the future and found out that a train, that at our present moment is about to leave the station, is going to arrive 40 minutes late at its destination. We learn that the reason for the delay is the fact that the young conductor, being on his first shift without his supervisor, was very hesitant about going full speed. So then we look at the events in real time and the train actually arrives late, just as we knew it was going to happen because we saw the future and because we live in a deterministic universe where you can't change the future. How on Earth could you then say that the conductor could've acted otherwise and arrived on time at the destination? What happened, happened. All "ifs" and "could'ves" don't mean anything in an absolute sense. Either that, or Dennett actually believes we live in a universe where the future is not determined.
Everyone is missing his point. You do have the freedom to choose what to do. Otherwise, you wouldn't bother thinking about what to do and would just let whatever happen. The freedom to choose what to do is what determines what you end up doing. Even if the decision-making is predetermined at the macro level, it still must happen, in order for the future to play out as determined. So worrying about it and arguing about it doesn't matter. I don't understand why scientific-based people feel the undying need to say everything is purely determined and there is no free will whatsoever. It's like people want to have an excuse for not doing what they should've done yesterday because they simply couldn't have. But the very ability of being able to look in the past to help dictate the future aids in guiding you to make proper decisions going forward. We don't go around saying time is not real, do we? We aren't arguing whether time does or does not exist. Even though time clearly does not exist, time is purely an invented concept by humans to help organize and understand things within society and the universe. Time is very important as a concept and is needed within our society to function. Yet we don't sit around and argue the existence of time as a materialistic thing that exists in some way, and preach about how the world would function better if we did away with the illusion of time. Sure you can say time can be measured and used in mathematical formulas, but all of these things are also just concepts to aid humans in understanding how things work. At the bare bones of everything, not much is REAL, and for most things, language helps to describe and explain things in a bigger picture. We dont start teaching humans by going from the smallest observable thing that everything is made out of, do we? The argument that society would function better if we dropped the illusion of free will is absolutely insane to me. One, I dont think it is possible for humans to live life 24/7 without the illusion of free will (it would be like living your whole life while manually breathing and not letting your body automatically breath). Two, imagine being someone who is in a horrible spot in life, broke, poor, no family, bad neighborhood, and you start being told nothing is your fault and you are just determined to be in your situation so don't feel bad, but you also have no control or free will to get out of your decision and whatever happens, happens. Do you honestly think this would help that person get motivated to do what's needed to have a chance or do you think they will fall into a pit of hopelessness? Or do you think it just doesn't even matter because it was already determined and happened anyway? Seems like a lack of responsibility for ones actions.
I think it is inhuman to say the understanding of no free will makes you more empathetic towards humans in bad situations or who make bad decisions in life. It's like saying you'd be more understanding of dumb people because they we're born with a lower IQ than you. But lets not kid ourselves, people who think like this, who believe in IQ as the determining factor of intelligence, seldom reflect and feel bad for those less fortunate for having low IQ, no, the instead are happy and feel lucky that they were blessed with a high IQ. I feel the same goes for people who openly accept and constantly acknowledge the lack of free will, they must be in a good spot in life or want to void themselves of past mistakes and are just kidding themselves into believing its for a human reason. If anything it makes those less fortunate feel worse and hopeless, and those more fortunate feel lucky and unstoppable. Because if we look at life like a hard determinists claims to, you are more likely to end up, statistically, in a good situation if youre in a good situation already, and in a worse situation if youre in a worse situation already. And looking at life this way, does no good for those in rough spots in life or are in deep struggle. But no one looks at this topic from the perspective of humans who are struggling, no, instead we talk about free will and the lack there of, as a reason to explain why sucky/less fortunate people, suck in society, so we shouldn't blame them for their actions. It really seems more like people who have this take are just disregarding the lives and futures of those who are in bad situations because it's writing them off as just unfortunate and very unlikely to make it out of the struggle. And while that may be true, it doesnt seem very empathic or humanizing to me. Do you think if all of society noticed the illusion of free will, then we'd just start helping out the less fortunate because its not there fault? I think as a society we all mostly already know/agree that these people born in unfortunate circumstances is not at the fault of their own? We do not need this complex topic and debate of semantics and back and forth to understand/see that. I truly believe if we all accepted free will as an illusion, those who are fortunate would just be happy they got lucky and those unfortunate would be hopeless given their situation, and life would go on. I dont believe it would have a positive impact on society what so ever. If you truly are hard deterministic, you would understand that personality and how you feel towards people will not be greatly changed at all, especially not by noticing all of your achievements and struggles were predetermined. It may hit your ego a bit, but its not going to suddenly make a person want to do better for the less fortunate who otherwise wouldnt have.
And I am saying all of this as someone who does not really believe in free will and as someone who believes in genetic IQ. I believe thinking/knowing these things impacts the quality of life of those who arent as fortunate. And going around writing books and doing talks all over the internet is doing a great disservice to humans who are in these bad positions. Regardless of if they are determined or more likely to be in a crap spot their whole life given their circumstances, doesn't mean they have to live their life in hopelessness and sadness due to the knowledge of the illusion of free will. I just sit here as someone who is confused by why people push this topic so hard and it has become so increasingly popular over the years. There are more people struggling than not, so I feel this does no good for the human psyche, yet people love it, and are very receptive of the idea of no free will, and it confuses me as to, why? What did the illusion of free will do to you? This isnt like religion or something like that, that has greatly negatively impacted the lives of people.
Dennett is making a case for having "will" rather than "free will" imo... This confusion is apparent when he is talking about voluntary and involuntary actions.
In German phil. there are the two words Willensfreiheit (freedom of will) and Handlungsfreiheit (freedom of action). And often thinkers try to sell us FW as a subset of FA. Like you say, it makes much more sense to talk of: FW = no, but Will = yes, and FA = yes.
I agree with Sam Harris on nearly everything, but in regards to Freewill the Compatibilist and/or "Emergent" position seems more reasonable then saying we don't have free will. People who say we don't have free will are just reasoning from the perspective of Laplace's Demon.
I also did get to that point that free will is the ability of an agent to influence however small a course of actions, the control Dennett is talking about. After the tricky bit is to establish if when the agent intents to influence a course of actions whether the intention is determined or not. If so we are back to square one. Is it all about intentionality after all?
I appreciate Dennett's pragmatism when it comes to free will, seeing it as an every-day functionality of conscious beings. I also see Kuhn's frustration with the seeming having-it-both-ways of Dennett parsing out 'control' as a way to maintain free will in a deterministic universe. A hard Determinist would simply say all the thoughts and moves you call 'control' are determined. There are no 'agents' or 'agency' in determinism. Everything from inanimate matter to conscious beings are the same- completely pre-determined.
A reason to be an incompatibilist is that people are incompatibilists about free will. I agree with what Dan Dennett says but what he leaves aside is what belief in free will, as ordinarily understood is doing. If we are compatibilists we should take it seriously that the person being punished for breaking the moral code is just unfortunate to have been determined to do it. He could have selected a different option but he would have needed a different past prior to the choice to have done so. What harm does denying that do? I think that's what we need a lot more work on.
Laws of physics and evolution require our consciousness our very identity to be involved in decision making. We are determined by the laws of physics but by identity we are involved in decision making.
If someone offers me 3 choices of soda, how can "the laws of physics" possibly determine how I'll decide to react? Determinists don't understand 'art' and 'self-awareness' well, and wise Indeterminists understand they aren't obligated in any way to explain their freedom to skeptics. ;)
Deterministic [in philosophy] means predicted but does not mean controlled. The individual is the agent which has control based upon the circumstances at hand. Both the circumstances and the individual's decisions may be predictable, but are not caused from afar. The individual's freely willed decision is the cause, even though with enough information it is a predictable decision. The individual is free to make a different decision but they don't because, in the circumstances at hand, they don't want to. :) pip
The problem with free will is the definition of "free". If it is either deterministic or random, it doesn't sound free. But if you are a naturalist, those are the only two options. If you are not, well, then you still have a definition problem. Where do your decisions ultimately come from? God? Spirits? In either case, it's not you. So in this regard i would be with Dan, totally free isn't what you need, you just need a good measure of unpredictability to feel free.
We can not control our own life. For this reason, we can only exist within and co-create within this pre-established matrix. To be truly able to control our own life each of us would need to be able to create our own Universe.
Dan Dennett says there are thousands of things we can do. But, of course, the problem is we are predetermined to do a particular one of them, assuming determinism. So how could we do any of the thousands of other things? I think the best answer for the purposes of understanding this topic is to say we might have been predetermined to do any one of them. And here we see the lack of control. Let's say A is a good choice and B is a bad choice. If I'm predetermined to make choice A I will make choice A. And if I'm predetermined to make choice B I will make choice B. It is a matter of luck or fate or whatever you want to call it, which choice I'm predetermined to make. What people are deluded about on mass is that there is some way of overcoming this. Dan says we shouldn't worry about that because we have the control that matters. I agree about the control that matters. But we should be much more concerned about the fact almost everybody is deluded about being fated to make the choice we make. What harm is that doing?
I'm still utterly confused by Dennett no matter how much I try. To me its like he says the answer if we have free will is "yes/no, but no but yes but no but yes, etc".
Kant called compatibilism a "wretched subterfuge" and "petty word-jugglery." It is essentially saying "Yes, you're determined to do x, but that doesn't matter." Of course it matters, that's the entire point. How can it not matter?
@@fvhaudsilhvdfs He's kinda all over the place, always mixing real world practical notions (like the feeling we are in control) with absolute notions like indeterminacy. And the rest of the time its just examples of things like drones (which are controlled by us, but the chain of causes goes right down to quantum scales again).
Thing is... a lot of people in this day and age, are pure materialists or not, and it seems like they have very clear and a "strong" yes or no. The reality is that its very complicated. Dennet is trying to combine a materialist view, with what we perceive in our life... i agree its messy, but its a truly unique point of view, and as such, worth of attention, reactions to his views are always very interesting. I agree with him, though, that many philosophers are taking this matter way too far, and from a practical point of view, its not that important... it leads to a very narrow path down the line.
I really enjoyed this YT CTT chat. Dennet challenges my thinking. So, isn't it like playing a game of chess which has predetermined rules (determinism) that we can't break but there are many ways to apply the rules (free will). So, we operate within a system? Or we have the ability to influence a system with determined rules? I liked the skier down the hill example compared to a rolling boulder. Both follow the determined rules (falling down the slope) but one has skills to negotiate the encounter?
So are you saying that everything in the universe is caused but that your choices are wholly irrational? If so then it stands to reason, and if not then it stands to reason.
This conversation about free will and control is particularly topical and important when we think about cult mind control and the likes of QAnon. We need to think hard about this and teach our kids how to keep their own control and free will. Often I have disagreed with Mr Dennett’s position but that is because his position gets distorted and simplified by those who disagree with him and thereby looses it’s subtlety.
@@eddiebrown192 - don’t be stupid, it’s a TH-cam comment 2 sentences long, there is mind control all over the place, in North Korea, evangelical Christians, Scientology, the unification church, ISIS, Putin’s Russia, the Chinese started it all in the 50s and are still at it, the list is endless. The fact that you will draw such unwarranted conclusions from a TH-cam comment shows the poor quality of your thinking. You should try and up your cognitive game because that kind of poor quality thinking puts you at risk of being manipulated.
@@quentinkumba6746 all those examples but you singled out one . That says something . No matter how you try to back track now . BLM is more authoritarian , anti free speech , group think , cancel culture extremists than Qanon . But you singled out Qanon .
@@eddiebrown192 - I pick QAnon because I have a personal connection with them as the mother of my child is a follower of them and it has ruined her life and estranged her from her family and her daughter. Amongst other things she believes that Michell Obama is a man and that everyone called Rothschild should be executed, men, women and children. I have no connection with either BLM or antifa. You think you are so clever and so able to judge me but you are utterly full of crap. BLM authoritarian? You clearly have no idea what the word means. BLM is a slogan not an organisation it has no authority and it therefore cannot be authoritarian. Whatever you think of BLM the BLM stance makes more sense than the QAnon idea of space lasers starting the Californian wild fires or the Vatican being run by shape shifting aliens, you have to have lost all reason and be utterly brainwashed to believe such utter bollox. And nothing I said was backtracking. I stand by everything in the original post and my subsequent post did not backtrack, it added to it. You need to get yourself a dictionary to help you understand what words mean. Start with ‘authoritarian’ and ‘backtracking’. I am not a fool, I know what your objection is, you see my name ‘Kumba’ and you think I’m black and that’s a problem for you. I get it.
You got that right. It's all about the core of freewill. Yes is got a part nessassary to a fine tuning. But not possible to act on your reality. His to get smooth vibrationel and Lights mouvement and imobility but the vibration it's the holy core of all in are univers, (all) and Lights always act on (all) and Lights give the way that all as to be a lived and conected. It's a about to look whant happen Now into are mother Earth. All what happen is Human who is responsable. Look at the last 2000 years it's all explaning what is going on now. Univers was in a immobility mode as now so différents mouvements and vibrations are moving fast and the Lights will be to shows that the best road is about Love emphaty love. IT is the human freewill will change everything or nothing but is a hard and destructive road as we will go if change are still not happen. This is so easy to understand. The show today show to us an invité who speak to bring fear to make people fear and get darkness into all people whatching that kind of crap who this bad personne what juste all go the same way without open kindess it's all about get the rumor Grow, the fear, the paranoïa , the way is sitting as is the divine one, trying to convince that all the dramatic even now is possible to be my only fault. He is the real définition of rumor. As he site on is trône and keep go on try to convince all of you are pupetts. The closer to true is way out the responsability about the ethic, and a good manner of moral. People like this should not be at a piédestal with micro to grow the rumor, not true reality about all those accusations About me. Always I prone love. Always I would be here to help the best I can. When a show start to help this rumor into Time we lived now it become a contribution as the selection of people on the same Side have a voice to aliment this Dark rumor. This is because the fear of ridicoulos regarding the clic of are the rumor. This is why faith hope and courage are so powerfull. Some they dont whant accept the true because the have no faith About Them self, like that the fear Will start scare people without it. It's always about ridicule and starting dark rumor like the clic. This is very sad. Ps Time always show who you are since amitiés. Philippe Martin
I agree but then how does one know what doing good and being moral is, and that it is right. I believe that it takes an agent to know this. And by all definition humans are agents, and they're treated as such. That humans are more than predetermined automatons.. which by definition of a true Darwinan outcome ( which is a random unguided natrual process ) would not leave room for rising above determinism, because it's input output. To be determined for just what you do biologically, wouldn't have resulted thus far along down the road. And certainly would not leave ANY room to conceive of something greater than itself.
Dennett says something borderline asinine (5:59) : “think of a skier skiing down a slope. The skier is just as determined by forces as a boulder rolling down the slope but the skier’s in control, unless of course she isn’t; if she flies out of control then she’s more like a boulder.” Dennett is very confused. He clearly doesn’t understand or think about the mechanisms of neurons at all. His contemplation of physics on the human body ends at the skin; i.e., he only contemplates the body as one big object without considering any of its internal components. Are all cognitive scientists like this? Do they even study neuroscience? He has zero realization that the laws of physics apply to all of the internal structures of the human body including the organs, cells, neurons, synapses, glia, myocytes, sodium-potassium pumps, diffusional forces, hydrogen bonding, surface-to-volume ratios, Le Chatelier’s principle, enzyme kinetics, receptor-ligand binding fits, electric/concentration gradients which all mediate all of the ‘decision making’ and intricate behavioral outputs of the body. The skier is never in control at any point while skiing down a slope: all of its body is controlled by the laws of physics. He’s so delusional it’s maddening. He somehow thinks that physics stops applying to anything inside the body.
This is a great point. I am a chemist, and I have often thought about this. If I add HCl and NaOH I will get salt water every time. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. The chemistry in human brains will work according to chemical law. Various reactions occur in a brain and producea various behaviours. There is no will involved.
@@bigdaddyfilmmaker It does depend on how we want to define "will" - But that just gets into semantics. The overall truth is that human thoughts work a lot like the Plinko machine from The Price Is Right. Sensory data comes in at the top. It bounces down through the pegs, reflecting off things like genetics, past experiences, etc. The Plinko chip just follows the laws of physics. The chip can't teleport around the inside of the board to arrive at different outcomes. It's a deterministic system, and should behave the same every time given identical states and sets of inputs.
He's not deluded, he's assuming everything is determined. It's just the skier controls where she goes by wanting to go in a particular direction and having the ability to produce the desired result. All in accordance with the laws of nature.
@@stephenlawrence4821 "Wanting" is not free will. It's a deterministic event or state of matter in your brain that you experience, but that you can't alter. People keep trying to play with the words and call it 100 different things or kick the can down the road. But the end result is always the same.
I'm trying to follow this one thought: Dennett is unclear about why secret punishment might effect the outcome of human behaviors? Is he excluding information from the relevant collection of causal factors within an autonomous system? There is some assumption being made here that I don't fully see. An autonomous controller, like his downhill skier, may require information about the consequences of colliding with a rock jutting out of the snow. This information is often historically given to the autonomous controller through empirical experience, either directly (seeing the sorts of things that happen) and indirectly (hearing accounts of what sorts of things can happen), even if some deduction is required from indirect empirical accounts.
What's anticipation and adjustement? And also suppose dennett anticipated c and adjusted himself to t and he does so controllably,now the question is,is dennett the source of his adjustement,if yes,then dennett's position is libertarianism in disguise,and if the answer is no,then dennett's control doesn't make any sense,because it's not control at all.
We have a free will... but are "simple", so God can predict our next move (yup, it gets more complicated from a spiritual point of view). One way of looking at it is like this: the dream "in algorithm form" can be sped up. God can in this sped up state get a glimpse of the future. In the dream's normal speed "the soul" is present and experiences life. In fact, all matter and everything in the Universe is consciousness expressing itself in physical form. The electron experiences life circiling around the nucleus. Primitive as it may be. And again, complicated, so there actually exist people with the ability to see into the future, but, it's supposedly not a very precise ability, so, apparently its more like lucid dreams, and the POV are random people, so they don't know whose life they are experiencing. So, yeah, God threw that into the mix. I have a vivid imagination, so when I write "algorithm form" and things like that, take it with a grain of salt, in fact, take everything with a grain of salt, but I could be on to something, as might everyone sharing similar ideas. Okay, well, thread carefully, so your imortal higher soul doesn't get a headache. Then again, I've read somewhere that God favors/supports those that "take risks" or "lives life to the fullest", things like that. Well... I'm not one of those people, so, bye... peace.
If you could give a serial killer a pill that makes him or her so happy that it's impossible for them to ever kill again, would you still need to punish the Killer?
My argument isn't that we don't make choices, but that an all powerful, all knowing, God couldn't possibly give you Freewill, so I include this hypothetical God character in the argument. I think the Universe is deterministic and as I like to say, it's all included, so you can't come up with an excuse or exception, because it is all here in the Universe, and all part of the chain of causality. We do get to enjoy our success, and we also get to feel guilty of our mistakes, but this idea of determinism helps to relieve oneself of that overwhelming guilt of serious mistakes, and in no way am I saying that criminals aren't to be punished.
It is a sterile conversation. It is necessary to begin by understanding what the Being that "dwells" in our brain is about, and that it is capable of carrying out actions in "timeless and immaterial worlds. The action of the Being is what we know as “Conscious action”.
Control is only a part of the Freewill V Determinism debate. To see the bigger picture you have to recognise the dual arrow of time. This is the only way that the two concepts can be reconciled within physical laws. Why was Dirac totally against Philosophy as a valid view of reality? He was not alone in his view either.
I think it is just a mind-experiment to think that determinism is even an option. The entire universe is full of uncontrolled variables. And no matter how good you get at measuring and controlling variables, you can always divide your smallest measurement in half and still have outcomes that are only deterministic to the level of the variable nature of the variables involved. Each neuron is controlled not only by the strength of the electrical impulse, but is also shaded by any number of chemical interactions. Every one of these things create variability and it's kind of a wonder we can claw coherent thought out of that level of variability. Determinism depends upon the thought experiment that we can measure and control all variability and I think that is just an untenable position.
Take A Moment Proffeser, my fellow Ape. Am I correct in assuming that yes/no is a form of free will? Thank you for your work and, the millions of people who have heard your thoughtful look on life. Stay Safe and Stay Free ❤ No god's required
Good evening Dr Lawrence. I am your bigess Fan. Dr Lawrence very you are the Best people ,the best comment. I whant to say a big good evening. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin. 😎
in my opinion, when we talk about Freewill, we must step out of Reality, because reality is create by us in term of Value. to understand free, there are only LOGIC, which create Intelligent and all other Stuffs.
I think the basic facts about free will are known. People are deluded on mass about could have done otherwise. It's understandable they'd think that means - could in the actual circumstances with exactly the same past - But as Dennett explains, no it does not, that's just an understandable mistake. We are never really interested in circumstances precisely as they are. We have general capabilities, like we can walk, we can run and so on and what we do is think about which best to apply to produce the outcome we want. This really should be obvious to everybody by now but sadly this is not made clear by philosphers. I understand Dan Dennett wants to keep free will but in doing so the message just doesn't get across that people are deluded on mass about free will and things do change if we remove the illusion.
Right? This was particularly disappointing. It's like listening to a religious person when they tell you, "Nobody had to make God - God just always existed". I mean... "Control"? How is that not just kicking the Free Will can down the road? Is "control" a non-physical system? What part of "control" isn't entirely dependent on the physical / atomic state of my brain and the world around me - None of which I "control"?
Surely, the evidence that the universe, at its smallest possible scale, fizzes with randomness, puts paid to all beliefs in Determinism? At least as far as a fundamental principle? It has nothing to do with people’s attitudes toward it, whether they, “need to believe,” or, “prefer,” a different thing. Randomness is a thing in the universe at a fundamental level, which we cannot control. Of course we have free will. Whether we want it, or prefer it, or not.
As a biological creature, are we not at the mercy of our anatomical, physiological and psychological functions and limited by the law of physics? The only choice that the skier has is whether to go or not assuming he had overcome his fear or was excited by his Adrenalin...I could be wrong but your channel is definitely Intellectually stimulating, No debate!
There are two important aspects to this problem of FREE WILL: 1) In order to be able to decide "whose" free will, one must first define "I" particle physically. 2) Then one must separate that part of "I" necessary to control "negative" events and that necessary to enjoy "positive" events (both, of course, particle physically defined again). Then it becomes clear that causation sequences for negative control MUST be deterministically finite, while those for positive perpetuation be indeterministically infinite, for positive surprises are always welcome, and hence, all search for knowledge SHOULD be restricted to negative prevention only.
You know the philosophy is tested when you have to throw physics at it. Hail Mary’s in a sense. Then the tested philosophy makes the grab on the deflated ball in the end zone and tells the ref that’s not a touchdown! Ok then it’s incomplete philosophy? No ! Acquiescence !
It would be super to have society / civilization based on free will and moral responsibility; however this is problematic in Western civilization that has never had a choice of whether to have political central government or not. For a large part of Western history political central government has been assumed; and in the lone exception among great powers United States, there has been a choice as to what type of political central government, yet not as to whether or not to have political central government. For a civilization based on choice, it is a major concern that the choice of having central authority of political government has not been made. Which also raises the further concern of how choice is used for political central government authority which has not been chosen. In the case of political central government authority not chosen, choices are being made for other people, which some or many may consider a manipulation of choice. Choices are being made for other people through reaction to political central government authority that was not and has never been chosen. What is better or worse, to have political central government authority without choice, or to have political central government authority where choice is manipulated? Without the choice as to whether or not to have a political central government authority, all politics and central government is totalitarian and not have basis for free will and moral responsibility. In such a case the question of moral responsibility rests on bringing political central government to an end and putting choice directly under and with God
False or irrelevant distinction between determined and controlled. Everything is determined and nothing chooses anything. Everything including human organisms just happen and move around according to the forces and particles of the universe with no part of the universe being autonomous from anything. It's all just one big, constant, undulating, movement. Edit: There is no hypnotist, there is no puppeteer, except those shaped and controlled by natural forces to look as if they are hypnotizing and puppeteering. They have no choice but to look as if they are. The forces and particles of nature don't even have agency. It's just all perpetual movement.
There are five kinds of causality: 1) If you spend 1 hour cleaning your car, the final cause is a clean car. 2) In metaphysics, cause and effect occur simultaneously. Cause precedes the effect in the order of causality, not time. 3) In physics, a causal system is one where the energy is constant. 4) Understanding chaotic systems, like climate change. 5) What causes quantum mechanical phenomena. Dennett does not know what he is talking about.
His train analogy... I'm gonna disagree, we don't have thousands of ways in which we can act... We can think of it as the track in front of us is being laid down right before we pass over that bit of track, but its the track that can have thousands of ways it can turn, we still only have 1 option which is to stay on the rails. I think anyone that has conversations with Dennett leaves more confused than they were at the start.
Mr Daniel Dennett’s book “Consciousness explained” should have been titled “Consciousness explained away” as Terence McKenna used to phrase it. He and his arrogant Scientism friends Dawkins and Krauss are the limiting types that science and philosophy should leave behind in order to get anywhere closer to truth 🙂
WOW. ...... Spot on, mon ami. !!!!!!! Mind you, as regards ‘free will’ I personally do not believe for one millisecond I or anyone or anything else possesses it .... 😳
He believes in determinism yet claims that it doesn't apply to us lucky humans because we have control and free will. This is his stance, it's always been his stance and it will always be his stance
Nearly! He believes in determinism AND he claims that it DOES apply to humans YET he also claims that is compatible with being in control and having free-will.
@@BecomingAPsych What you are missing is the subtile of his Elbow Room book: Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting i.e. Free will as freedom _from_ error or what the Buddha would have called 'wisdom' because we all _think_ what we want is worth wanting but only a _wise_ person will know how to be _genuinely_ free from error therefore FW isn't an 'All or Nothing' real / bogus dichotomy, it's a question of degrees & the wiser we become the freer from error our will becomes even if it's never 100% free from error.
@@paulbrocklehurst2346 Wise words! Free-will is the ability to avoid what our unconscious minds would have have us do if left unchecked. A big part of wisdom is self-knowledge, the ability to predict what our free-running gut feelings might do. The Buddha talks of the elephant (unconscious mind) and the rider (wisdom and the conscious mind). The rider come to understand the elephant and slowly train it's habits to do the right thing. A beautiful metaphor.
if you are what you are because of what's happened in the past, and what happens in the future is determined by what you are now, then what is control if not an illusion. I don't know what Dennett's talking about and neither does he.
It's a bit strange that he critiques his critics by saying that they change the definition of Free Will to match their argument, but all he's done here is change the definition of Determinism to match his argument. It's a specious definition of Determinism, where the arbitrary "end points" of a path are determined but all of the points along the path are not? Xeno might agree, but calculus does not.
Much awaited! Appreciate Closer To Truth for bringing Prof. Dennet in.
I think Dennett has the most complete and correct view of free will of any philosopher I've heard of. Always great to hear him talk!
The universe is only deterministic if consciousness did not exist . Our consciousness is the joker in the deck .
00:00 Introduction
01:00 What has Daniel learnt since they last spoke about free will?
11:47 Is free will an illussion?
23:32 Free will and moral responsibility
7:00 to 11:00 discussion about control as a subcategory of determinism
Thank you!
18:00 “are you able to [do / decide] otherwise” ... is not answered by Dennett’s description of “control” ... the regression either stops at ‘you can freely change what you want’ or ‘changes in what you want are themselves determined’.
Dennett’s compatibilism doesn’t (in this interview) address the underlying question of choosing or not choosing our wants . To me that is the key question to be answered ... but I can’t see how that can be tested given the arrow of time.
Let me try to channel Dennett. His answer to the “but I couldn’t have done otherwise” point is, “eh “so what? You have all the freedom worth having as an agent and controller thanks to evolution by natural selection and you need to just let go of the fantasy of some magical, uncaused form of freedom because nothing would even really make sense if that was the case. You might not like that answer but, well, the universe is under no obligation to fulfill your fantasies. Go read more Darwin and stay responsible for whatever you decide to do.”
I appreciate the reply but not sure why the concern. I’ve been following Daniel Dennett since at least 1982 with the publication of The Mind’s I, a collection of essays exploring paradoxes and topics other philosophers tended to avoid at the time.
My comment stands, because I don’t think Dennett’s concept of control over decisions answers the deterministic claims of most naturalists and scientists like Sapolsky.
Sapolsky and Dennett recently discussed the issues involved (stackexchange and youtube) at more depth than was reached here. As a respecter of science, I don’t have any stake in how the issue is eventually settled. As a respecter of philosophy the scientific outcome will make a significant difference, imo.
@@KevenSandoval
th-cam.com/video/aYzFH8xqhns/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WvMzHR1MaJxFGf3l
Prof. Daniel Dennett is most influential living philosopher who actively changing our understanding of ourselves and our world. Thank you dr. Lawrence Kuhn for interview with him.
The difference in the degree's of freedom we enjoy compared to others is determined. Moral responsibility like all inventions can be tweaked to remove retribution and still function
Who in human's world, began the phrase, "free will"? Who said that the concept of "free" must accompany the concept of "will"? Can will be applicable without it being free itself?
What Dennett seems to me to be saying is that, sure, the future is determined, but that once organisms like humans evolve that are capable of making choices, those choices become part of what determines the future. The only thing is that he never seems to say it in quite those words, I'm not sure why.
If one accepts his take on this, I don't think the "one can't choose what one wants" argument contradicts his case. If one's present self is capable of making choices based on what one currently wants, all the past incarnations of one's self presumably had the same ability, and the choices one made in the past combine (together with events driven by (deterministic) "randomness", i.e. events that one didn't have complete control over) to shape what one currently wants.
It's like listening to somebody who himself has no idea about what he's trying to explain. It reminds me of ''progression happens one funeral at a time''.
He comes off as a little bit of an intellectual dick swinger.
I can't help thinking Dennett here is arguing systems that have a degree of self control, eg a governor on a steam engine, cruise control in a car, or a fully autonomous vehicle have a degree of free will.
that is precisely what he is arguing, and it is stupid as heck
Each of us: a cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete!
Love all your shows!
We all act as though we have free will because we in fact do have free will. Everyday we reason, problem solve and conduct conversations. All of these mental activities require the ability to direct our thoughts. The ability to direct our thoughts is clearly an act of free will. If it is not, I do not know what is. When we reason or analyze something or engage in problem solving it is nearly always the case that there is a mental intention to achieve an end goal that appears in our subjective conscious experience first. And then, following this initial mental intention, thoughts arise subsequently and sequentially that enable us to achieve that end. So, what we have is a phenomenon where the thoughts related to the end precede the thoughts related to the means to that end. This is an example of Aristotle's Final Causes and it is definitive proof that we have free will. To claim otherwise is to ascribe to molecules a capability that they can not possibly have--foresight.
Stated in more detail: From a Materialist perspective, at time0 you have a series of neuronal components that somehow act together to produce a thought that you want to think through and solve a new problem at work let's say.
seem to affirm this intention in your conscious mind (which is an act of free will). Then, according to Materialists, your brain continuously and subsequently arranges a massive collection of neuronal components in the brain in such a way that they just happen to produce a sequence of mental thoughts that are coherent with, and purposive to, the mental event--the initial intention--that occurred previously at time0. How would the initial neuronal actions that occurred at time0 which produced the mental intention, just happen to "know" that the subsequent series of neuronal events would produce a stream of mental events that resolved the intention that you had previously affirmed in your consciousness? Such a phenomenon could not be attributed to random chance. A Materialist would have to theorize that there was some kind of programmatic control that orchestrated the entire sequence of neuronal events. But this is a new problem that we are reasoning thru (like most problem solving...by definition). So how would such a program just happen to be in place with a novel future purpose?...where did it come from? This putative program would have to have a cause. It would have to have been produced by another series of neuronal actions; another program. But where did that program come from? An infinite regress of causes is unavoidable. And how would these putative programs exercise control over a vast collection of neurons? Such a thing would be impossibly complex. This is to say nothing about the intractable problem of how consciousness and the contents of consciousness could be produced by physical events in the first place. People who deny free will ironically make use of this facility of mind everyday. This facility was used here to produce this video. Yet people are too blinded by Ideology to recognize and accept it. The conclusion: Some form of dualism must be true.
I don't care how I feel about whether I have control, I want to know whether the future is fixed.
What if it is? Would you want to stop living because everything is inevitable anyway?
@@Jaroen66 It's maybe the biggest question of all time. It's not about me or my actions at all, or even about humanity or all of life. It's a bigger question than that.
@@bozo5632 The future is fixed in macroscopic level, so there's no free will
But that doesn't mean you can't change your life. You can voluntarily change the path you take. Just determinism saying, it is predetermined including the change you have in your life.
One of the best channel in the internet.
Btw. Cool brain paintings
Causation reigns supreme; PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION
Looking forward to this conversation at the outset!
The skiers choice is determined, Dennet is missing that.
Sure, I agree that I'm "autonomous and free" as long as all the goings on in my head are...determined...uh...by me...wait a second...so much for that. There's a lot of semantic gymnastics here by Dennet, sadly.
10:57 - 11:10
This feels like desperately holding on to something semi-religious in order to feel better about one's place in the world. I think we as humans tend to have too much pride in ourselves. It reminds me when I talk to some religious people and they say, "We're not animals, we're special," when I tell them, "Humans are animals." The problem seems to be that they can't fathom having meaning without such beliefs or they can't bear a life without such meaning at all. This is why they continue to believe such things; it serves a function for them. It's a question of finding something to replace it or accepting that no such meaning exists as we may want it to. Until then, perspectives on such matters won't change.
There needs to exist something either material or immaterial that determines us to act for true free will to exist. As for the immaterial, I'm not religious, so I'm out. As for the material, I only see either deterministic or indeterministic processes that act on my body to create my inner "choice" to do something, neither of which are "me freely choosing" but rather "the universe impinging itself upon my body in such a way which compels me to 'choose' A or B". I may have an inner monologue about "this or that", but what caused that inner onologue in the first place was not "me", but rather the multitude or reality working on me to spit out an action as a function. I am the universe solving itself. I am the actor in a film watching itself.
Also, I don't take the bad faith ideas that if there is no free will, "Then I'll simply live a horrible life and kill, rape, and steal because nothing matters." I'd agree that you're not freely choosing to do that, but using the lack of belief in free will to act in such a way is not rational; there are people who believe in free will and act in that way. There being no free will doesn't mean individuals cannot be held "responsible", because that's all we have to conserve some modicum of society. If someone randomly murders someone and doesn't have a strategically-placed brain tumor or other medical emergency that directly causes it, yes, they should be sequestered in prison or what have you, whether there's free will or not.
Show me the material or process within my body that acts outside of determinism in order to create action (either overt or covert) and I'll agree that we have the capacity for free will. Until then...I have no problem stating that we have no free will other than "the kind that people care about" (I can eat McDonald's or not, I can "figure out" whether "I" want to do "A or B" or not, that kind of superficial "freedom" which I don't consider real freedom at all).
This is not to say that there is indeed no freedom as I mean it, but there just hasn't been any good evidence for it. To be clear, I'm agnostic on its existence as I am god's existence: If it exists, I'll probably never be able to know, but I'll continue to live life as though it pracically doesn't because I feel like I'm lying to myself less. Just because something makes you warm, fuzzy, and comforted doesn't make it true. To all the people who can't stand to see the world as I do lest they go insane, continue on your merry way. It isn't very comforting to see the world as I do, but I feel closer to truth than I would otherwise.
Peace.
You can always choose not to.
Intellectuals will always call the existence of God a religion or Dogma instead of an absolute fact of the reality they exist in and they will never admit they build this on a lack of experience, never calling it a bias. Because they are simply too smart to have a bias.
@@williamesselman3102
If you can actually read what I said and provide me with something a bit more thought-provoking, I'll respond accordingly. Currently, other than replying in this way, I'll ignore you.
Free will is not the ability to do otherwise despite determinism, but the power of counterfactual reasoning that employs us with the ability to choose from a system of options that is bigger than any consistent system of options, namely because we can reason counterfactually. If you can contradict yourself, you can prove anything. If reality is consistent, the set of things provable about reality is smaller than the set of things provable from a contradiction, given enough time and computational power. So, humans are able to access that advantage of counterfactual reasoning to make decisions informed both by the past and by predictions about the future. The better the predictive power, the better one can steer through the available options, a proper subset of which is the actual state of affairs. Humans exist at the present, and time seems to flow, given our consciousness. So, if time flows, we flow with it. So, we exist at the present, and have the power to choose among options based off of the past about the future, that at least for us hasn’t happened yet. So, we have the power to influence the path of the present we’re in into the place it always had to have in the greater timeline.
I think this is a category error, Dennet conceded that control is caused, consciousness is caused to Dennet, but the subjective feeling of control is where he locates ‘free will’. Autonomous to the degree that human brains are able to control themselves, in response to stimuli. All that still exists within a deterministic framework. There’s no intention basically, in the difference between the Boulder and the skier. Anyway, that’s what I gathered. As in the human brain, it’s generation of a subjective field of experience; internally is unique to the degree of complexity and so on. I’d argue, his definition of ‘control’ is the important distinction, it’s impossible to know; but arguably a raccoon’s Brain has less refined control, a less perfect Union between intention and outcome. All still within a deterministic framework.
@@IIllytch321nonadinfinitum good, because I was going to ignore you also
Dennett mentioned the Hobbesian view of our primitive existences being short, nasty and brutish. But Hobbes incorrectly imagined that in prehistoric times it was total warfare with every man against every man. Hobbes knew that people act in their own self-interest and, so, needed powerful state institutions to keep them in line. There was no such thing in our prehistoric existence so Hobbes figured it must have been total anarchy. But it was never like that. Our species formed groups. Hunter gatherers and then tribes. The leviathan that kept people in line was the nature of things. The directives of human nature, our instincts, drives and appetites subject to the conditions of the natural world. Number one directive is survival. Everyone has the instinct to survive and that instinct rather than causing total warfare was the reason that groups and tribes were formed. Because it was common knowledge that the best way to survive in the wild was to be part of a group. It is self-interest, then, that forms collective-interest. The tribe was greater than individual members because it served their self-interest. So, self-interest/collective-interest forms a dynamic that is fundamental to every social system that ever was and ever will be. Today we are still directed by a survival instinct. We don't necessarily think in terms of survival so let's just say we all want to go on living. That is not a matter of free will. And, just like in prehistoric times that self-interest forms collectives as a means to benefit that self-interest. So, in order to go on living today it is in our self-interest to make money. In order to do that we find a job. That means we become part of a business, a collective, and we contribute to the profitability (survivability) of that collective and we are rewarded with a pay check to support our self-interest in survival. That is all determined but it comes from an autonomous state of being. So, I would say that we do not have free will but our will is free, autonomous. And that autonomy is why we feel we have free will.
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice, but if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fear or kindness that could kill, I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose freewill." Freewill by Rush
"Invisible airwaves crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle with the energy
Emotional feedback on timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free" ... Haha, "Rock on!"
The discussion on free will by Dennet was unconvincing with a very vague and hand waving discussion of ‘control’.
What Dennet calls a ‘controlled event’ and an ‘uncontrolled event’ (or random event) are just distinguished by the fact that the former can be deduced from the present and the latter cannot (due to incomplete information). However, both are equally predetermined and the random event is no less contingent than the ‘controlled’ one.
In a deterministic world there is no fundamental difference between the future and the past. Both are fully determined and can be inferred to by the present. If Dennets concussion was correct, then we could 'control' the past by remembering it (we have the information to infer the past from the present), whereas the past we don’t remember would be ‘uncontrolled’ (we lack the information to infer it from the present), which obviously makes no sense.
I think I know what the problem is here. We are attempting to make sense of free will without understanding the foundations. In my view, the pre-requisite to speaking intelligently about free will is an understanding of consciousness. In simple terms, if there was a robot with no consciousness, then the question about free will would never arise - who asks if a toaster has free will? However, once there is consciousness, then and only then, does the question of free will have relevance. We have no clue ***whatsoever*** about how to solve the “hard problem of consciousness” so until we do, we’re just not equipped to address free will.
I think this is the smartest comment I've read here so far.
Actually love this comment
Some people say we don't really have any free will and some people say we do have free will but who is right and who is wrong? I think many people think they know the answer but personally I don't think anybody really knows and ultimately it just comes down to what you believe or what you want to believe. When we don't know the truth I think we often have the option of choosing for ourselves to a certain degree what we want to believe. Our beliefs can often play a big role in our lives and determine the quality of our lives. Our beliefs can sometimes make our lives easier or they can make them harder depending on which way we go.
I like Dan Dennet a lot, and I think I can see where he's going with this but... to my mind, he doesn't quite get there. In my view, the future IS predetermined by countless logical decisions made by the laws of nature since the moment of the big bang. That doesn't preclude humans from having the perception of free will.(and for all intents and purposes we do). I believe that every action we take, is the logical result of many events and logical decisions, conspiring to create that final action. As an engineer who was involved in safety and health, there ARE NO ACCIDENTS. Everything happens for a reason or as is more likely, reasons, plural.
I'm actually amazed by how big some of the contradictions in Dennett's views are.
He literally first admits that the universe is deterministic, he even says that there's no way to change the future, and then he says that we still have the freedom to decide whether to do A or B (or C, etc - depending on the amount of "degrees of freedom" that we possess) at any moment.
Imagine that we somehow looked into the future and found out that a train, that at our present moment is about to leave the station, is going to arrive 40 minutes late at its destination. We learn that the reason for the delay is the fact that the young conductor, being on his first shift without his supervisor, was very hesitant about going full speed.
So then we look at the events in real time and the train actually arrives late, just as we knew it was going to happen because we saw the future and because we live in a deterministic universe where you can't change the future.
How on Earth could you then say that the conductor could've acted otherwise and arrived on time at the destination?
What happened, happened. All "ifs" and "could'ves" don't mean anything in an absolute sense. Either that, or Dennett actually believes we live in a universe where the future is not determined.
Everyone is missing his point. You do have the freedom to choose what to do. Otherwise, you wouldn't bother thinking about what to do and would just let whatever happen. The freedom to choose what to do is what determines what you end up doing. Even if the decision-making is predetermined at the macro level, it still must happen, in order for the future to play out as determined. So worrying about it and arguing about it doesn't matter. I don't understand why scientific-based people feel the undying need to say everything is purely determined and there is no free will whatsoever. It's like people want to have an excuse for not doing what they should've done yesterday because they simply couldn't have. But the very ability of being able to look in the past to help dictate the future aids in guiding you to make proper decisions going forward.
We don't go around saying time is not real, do we? We aren't arguing whether time does or does not exist. Even though time clearly does not exist, time is purely an invented concept by humans to help organize and understand things within society and the universe. Time is very important as a concept and is needed within our society to function. Yet we don't sit around and argue the existence of time as a materialistic thing that exists in some way, and preach about how the world would function better if we did away with the illusion of time. Sure you can say time can be measured and used in mathematical formulas, but all of these things are also just concepts to aid humans in understanding how things work. At the bare bones of everything, not much is REAL, and for most things, language helps to describe and explain things in a bigger picture. We dont start teaching humans by going from the smallest observable thing that everything is made out of, do we?
The argument that society would function better if we dropped the illusion of free will is absolutely insane to me. One, I dont think it is possible for humans to live life 24/7 without the illusion of free will (it would be like living your whole life while manually breathing and not letting your body automatically breath). Two, imagine being someone who is in a horrible spot in life, broke, poor, no family, bad neighborhood, and you start being told nothing is your fault and you are just determined to be in your situation so don't feel bad, but you also have no control or free will to get out of your decision and whatever happens, happens. Do you honestly think this would help that person get motivated to do what's needed to have a chance or do you think they will fall into a pit of hopelessness? Or do you think it just doesn't even matter because it was already determined and happened anyway? Seems like a lack of responsibility for ones actions.
I think it is inhuman to say the understanding of no free will makes you more empathetic towards humans in bad situations or who make bad decisions in life. It's like saying you'd be more understanding of dumb people because they we're born with a lower IQ than you. But lets not kid ourselves, people who think like this, who believe in IQ as the determining factor of intelligence, seldom reflect and feel bad for those less fortunate for having low IQ, no, the instead are happy and feel lucky that they were blessed with a high IQ. I feel the same goes for people who openly accept and constantly acknowledge the lack of free will, they must be in a good spot in life or want to void themselves of past mistakes and are just kidding themselves into believing its for a human reason.
If anything it makes those less fortunate feel worse and hopeless, and those more fortunate feel lucky and unstoppable. Because if we look at life like a hard determinists claims to, you are more likely to end up, statistically, in a good situation if youre in a good situation already, and in a worse situation if youre in a worse situation already. And looking at life this way, does no good for those in rough spots in life or are in deep struggle. But no one looks at this topic from the perspective of humans who are struggling, no, instead we talk about free will and the lack there of, as a reason to explain why sucky/less fortunate people, suck in society, so we shouldn't blame them for their actions. It really seems more like people who have this take are just disregarding the lives and futures of those who are in bad situations because it's writing them off as just unfortunate and very unlikely to make it out of the struggle. And while that may be true, it doesnt seem very empathic or humanizing to me. Do you think if all of society noticed the illusion of free will, then we'd just start helping out the less fortunate because its not there fault? I think as a society we all mostly already know/agree that these people born in unfortunate circumstances is not at the fault of their own? We do not need this complex topic and debate of semantics and back and forth to understand/see that. I truly believe if we all accepted free will as an illusion, those who are fortunate would just be happy they got lucky and those unfortunate would be hopeless given their situation, and life would go on. I dont believe it would have a positive impact on society what so ever.
If you truly are hard deterministic, you would understand that personality and how you feel towards people will not be greatly changed at all, especially not by noticing all of your achievements and struggles were predetermined. It may hit your ego a bit, but its not going to suddenly make a person want to do better for the less fortunate who otherwise wouldnt have.
And I am saying all of this as someone who does not really believe in free will and as someone who believes in genetic IQ. I believe thinking/knowing these things impacts the quality of life of those who arent as fortunate. And going around writing books and doing talks all over the internet is doing a great disservice to humans who are in these bad positions. Regardless of if they are determined or more likely to be in a crap spot their whole life given their circumstances, doesn't mean they have to live their life in hopelessness and sadness due to the knowledge of the illusion of free will. I just sit here as someone who is confused by why people push this topic so hard and it has become so increasingly popular over the years. There are more people struggling than not, so I feel this does no good for the human psyche, yet people love it, and are very receptive of the idea of no free will, and it confuses me as to, why? What did the illusion of free will do to you? This isnt like religion or something like that, that has greatly negatively impacted the lives of people.
I want to see someone interview Robert on this very subject.
Dennett is making a case for having "will" rather than "free will" imo... This confusion is apparent when he is talking about voluntary and involuntary actions.
In German phil. there are the two words Willensfreiheit (freedom of will) and Handlungsfreiheit (freedom of action). And often thinkers try to sell us FW as a subset of FA. Like you say, it makes much more sense to talk of: FW = no, but Will = yes, and FA = yes.
@@AtticAurel Thanks for this interesting facts about German philosophy!
I agree with Sam Harris on nearly everything, but in regards to Freewill the Compatibilist and/or "Emergent" position seems more reasonable then saying we don't have free will. People who say we don't have free will are just reasoning from the perspective of Laplace's Demon.
Follow Jesus Christ
I also did get to that point that free will is the ability of an agent to influence however small a course of actions, the control Dennett is talking about. After the tricky bit is to establish if when the agent intents to influence a course of actions whether the intention is determined or not. If so we are back to square one. Is it all about intentionality after all?
I appreciate Dennett's pragmatism when it comes to free will, seeing it as an every-day functionality of conscious beings. I also see Kuhn's frustration with the seeming having-it-both-ways of Dennett parsing out 'control' as a way to maintain free will in a deterministic universe. A hard Determinist would simply say all the thoughts and moves you call 'control' are determined. There are no 'agents' or 'agency' in determinism. Everything from inanimate matter to conscious beings are the same- completely pre-determined.
A reason to be an incompatibilist is that people are incompatibilists about free will. I agree with what Dan Dennett says but what he leaves aside is what belief in free will, as ordinarily understood is doing. If we are compatibilists we should take it seriously that the person being punished for breaking the moral code is just unfortunate to have been determined to do it. He could have selected a different option but he would have needed a different past prior to the choice to have done so. What harm does denying that do? I think that's what we need a lot more work on.
That's a nice piano behind Dennett. He probably has it convinced it's a player piano.
Using the presence of a piano to take a shot at compatibilism. I can’t say I don’t approve.
I love Dan. His idea is quite incredible.
yeah...
Awesome channel. Great conversations. Thank you.
Laws of physics and evolution require our consciousness our very identity to be involved in decision making. We are determined by the laws of physics but by identity we are involved in decision making.
If someone offers me 3 choices of soda, how can "the laws of physics" possibly determine how I'll decide to react?
Determinists don't understand 'art' and 'self-awareness' well, and wise Indeterminists understand they aren't obligated in any way to explain their freedom to skeptics. ;)
Channel of everything
Deterministic [in philosophy] means predicted but does not mean controlled. The individual is the agent which has control based upon the circumstances at hand. Both the circumstances and the individual's decisions may be predictable, but are not caused from afar. The individual's freely willed decision is the cause, even though with enough information it is a predictable decision. The individual is free to make a different decision but they don't because, in the circumstances at hand, they don't want to. :) pip
This is a great concise description of compatibilism and i really like it :)
@@Mart-Bro Hey! Thanks, Martin. ;) pip
But if the universe is deterministic they don't have a choice to do something different.
Robert is a genius guy.
The problem with free will is the definition of "free". If it is either deterministic or random, it doesn't sound free. But if you are a naturalist, those are the only two options. If you are not, well, then you still have a definition problem. Where do your decisions ultimately come from? God? Spirits? In either case, it's not you. So in this regard i would be with Dan, totally free isn't what you need, you just need a good measure of unpredictability to feel free.
We can not control our own life. For this reason, we can only exist within and co-create within this pre-established matrix.
To be truly able to control our own life each of us would need to be able to create our own Universe.
Wrong.
Thanks, Dan.
Who is controlling the controller? And then who is controlling the controller of the controller....
exactly !!
Self-help authors and meritocracy fans must love this guy.
Dan Dennett says there are thousands of things we can do. But, of course, the problem is we are predetermined to do a particular one of them, assuming determinism. So how could we do any of the thousands of other things? I think the best answer for the purposes of understanding this topic is to say we might have been predetermined to do any one of them. And here we see the lack of control. Let's say A is a good choice and B is a bad choice. If I'm predetermined to make choice A I will make choice A. And if I'm predetermined to make choice B I will make choice B. It is a matter of luck or fate or whatever you want to call it, which choice I'm predetermined to make.
What people are deluded about on mass is that there is some way of overcoming this.
Dan says we shouldn't worry about that because we have the control that matters. I agree about the control that matters.
But we should be much more concerned about the fact almost everybody is deluded about being fated to make the choice we make. What harm is that doing?
In reflection you can only recognize determinism! Freedom you can only have!!
Isn't 'control' a deterministic illusion as well?
I'm still utterly confused by Dennett no matter how much I try.
To me its like he says the answer if we have free will is "yes/no, but no but yes but no but yes, etc".
fuckin a. i like a lot of his work but his argument for free will makes 0 sense to me
Kant called compatibilism a "wretched subterfuge" and "petty word-jugglery." It is essentially saying "Yes, you're determined to do x, but that doesn't matter." Of course it matters, that's the entire point. How can it not matter?
The vicky pollard of philosphical thinkers.
@@fvhaudsilhvdfs He's kinda all over the place, always mixing real world practical notions (like the feeling we are in control) with absolute notions like indeterminacy.
And the rest of the time its just examples of things like drones (which are controlled by us, but the chain of causes goes right down to quantum scales again).
Thing is... a lot of people in this day and age, are pure materialists or not, and it seems like they have very clear and a "strong" yes or no. The reality is that its very complicated. Dennet is trying to combine a materialist view, with what we perceive in our life... i agree its messy, but its a truly unique point of view, and as such, worth of attention, reactions to his views are always very interesting. I agree with him, though, that many philosophers are taking this matter way too far, and from a practical point of view, its not that important... it leads to a very narrow path down the line.
I really enjoyed this YT CTT chat. Dennet challenges my thinking. So, isn't it like playing a game of chess which has predetermined rules (determinism) that we can't break but there are many ways to apply the rules (free will). So, we operate within a system?
Or we have the ability to influence a system with determined rules?
I liked the skier down the hill example compared to a rolling boulder. Both follow the determined rules (falling down the slope) but one has skills to negotiate the encounter?
So are you saying that everything in the universe is caused but that your choices are wholly irrational? If so then it stands to reason, and if not then it stands to reason.
This conversation about free will and control is particularly topical and important when we think about cult mind control and the likes of QAnon. We need to think hard about this and teach our kids how to keep their own control and free will.
Often I have disagreed with Mr Dennett’s position but that is because his position gets distorted and simplified by those who disagree with him and thereby looses it’s subtlety.
The fact that you only recognize one instance of mind control tells me you are controlled . Heal thyself .
@@eddiebrown192 - don’t be stupid, it’s a TH-cam comment 2 sentences long, there is mind control all over the place, in North Korea, evangelical Christians, Scientology, the unification church, ISIS, Putin’s Russia, the Chinese started it all in the 50s and are still at it, the list is endless. The fact that you will draw such unwarranted conclusions from a TH-cam comment shows the poor quality of your thinking. You should try and up your cognitive game because that kind of poor quality thinking puts you at risk of being manipulated.
@@quentinkumba6746 all those examples but you singled out one . That says something . No matter how you try to back track now . BLM is more authoritarian , anti free speech , group think , cancel culture extremists than Qanon . But you singled out Qanon .
@@eddiebrown192 - I pick QAnon because I have a personal connection with them as the mother of my child is a follower of them and it has ruined her life and estranged her from her family and her daughter. Amongst other things she believes that Michell Obama is a man and that everyone called Rothschild should be executed, men, women and children. I have no connection with either BLM or antifa.
You think you are so clever and so able to judge me but you are utterly full of crap.
BLM authoritarian? You clearly have no idea what the word means. BLM is a slogan not an organisation it has no authority and it therefore cannot be authoritarian.
Whatever you think of BLM the BLM stance makes more sense than the QAnon idea of space lasers starting the Californian wild fires or the Vatican being run by shape shifting aliens, you have to have lost all reason and be utterly brainwashed to believe such utter bollox.
And nothing I said was backtracking. I stand by everything in the original post and my subsequent post did not backtrack, it added to it. You need to get yourself a dictionary to help you understand what words mean. Start with ‘authoritarian’ and ‘backtracking’.
I am not a fool, I know what your objection is, you see my name ‘Kumba’ and you think I’m black and that’s a problem for you. I get it.
Is Dan saying that the boulder and the skiers eventually path downhill is determined because of how the structures in paths themselves are laid out?
Doing good and good morality is true freedom ***
You got that right. It's all about the core of freewill. Yes is got a part nessassary to a fine tuning. But not possible to act on your reality. His to get smooth vibrationel and Lights mouvement and imobility but the vibration it's the holy core of all in are univers, (all) and Lights always act on (all) and Lights give the way that all as to be a lived and conected. It's a about to look whant happen Now into are mother Earth. All what happen is Human who is responsable. Look at the last 2000 years it's all explaning what is going on now. Univers was in a immobility mode as now so différents mouvements and vibrations are moving fast and the Lights will be to shows that the best road is about Love emphaty love. IT is the human freewill will change everything or nothing but is a hard and destructive road as we will go if change are still not happen. This is so easy to understand. The show today show to us an invité who speak to bring fear to make people fear and get darkness into all people whatching that kind of crap who this bad personne what juste all go the same way without open kindess it's all about get the rumor Grow, the fear, the paranoïa , the way is sitting as is the divine one, trying to convince that all the dramatic even now is possible to be my only fault. He is the real définition of rumor. As he site on is trône and keep go on try to convince all of you are pupetts. The closer to true is way out the responsability about the ethic, and a good manner of moral. People like this should not be at a piédestal with micro to grow the rumor, not true reality about all those accusations About me. Always I prone love. Always I would be here to help the best I can. When a show start to help this rumor into Time we lived now it become a contribution as the selection of people on the same Side have a voice to aliment this Dark rumor. This is because the fear of ridicoulos regarding the clic of are the rumor. This is why faith hope and courage are so powerfull. Some they dont whant accept the true because the have no faith About Them self, like that the fear Will start scare people without it. It's always about ridicule and starting dark rumor like the clic. This is very sad. Ps Time always show who you are since amitiés. Philippe Martin
I agree but then how does one know what doing good and being moral is, and that it is right.
I believe that it takes an agent to know this. And by all definition humans are agents, and they're treated as such.
That humans are more than predetermined automatons.. which by definition of a true Darwinan outcome ( which is a random unguided natrual process ) would not leave room for rising above determinism, because it's input output. To be determined for just what you do biologically, wouldn't have resulted thus far along down the road.
And certainly would not leave ANY room to conceive of something greater than itself.
We still have modulation of the brain by perception. We are trained to act like A in circumstance X, and to act as B in circumstance Y.
@,
I love Daniel Denett easy understandable language,
Dennett says something borderline asinine (5:59) : “think of a skier skiing down a slope. The skier is just as determined by forces as a boulder rolling down the slope but the skier’s in control, unless of course she isn’t; if she flies out of control then she’s more like a boulder.” Dennett is very confused. He clearly doesn’t understand or think about the mechanisms of neurons at all. His contemplation of physics on the human body ends at the skin; i.e., he only contemplates the body as one big object without considering any of its internal components. Are all cognitive scientists like this? Do they even study neuroscience? He has zero realization that the laws of physics apply to all of the internal structures of the human body including the organs, cells, neurons, synapses, glia, myocytes, sodium-potassium pumps, diffusional forces, hydrogen bonding, surface-to-volume ratios, Le Chatelier’s principle, enzyme kinetics, receptor-ligand binding fits, electric/concentration gradients which all mediate all of the ‘decision making’ and intricate behavioral outputs of the body. The skier is never in control at any point while skiing down a slope: all of its body is controlled by the laws of physics. He’s so delusional it’s maddening. He somehow thinks that physics stops applying to anything inside the body.
He's basically that religious guy who says, "Well, nobody had to make God. God just always existed." OH GEE, WELL THAT ANSWERS EVERYTHING.
This is a great point. I am a chemist, and I have often thought about this. If I add HCl and NaOH I will get salt water every time. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. The chemistry in human brains will work according to chemical law. Various reactions occur in a brain and producea various behaviours. There is no will involved.
@@bigdaddyfilmmaker It does depend on how we want to define "will" - But that just gets into semantics. The overall truth is that human thoughts work a lot like the Plinko machine from The Price Is Right. Sensory data comes in at the top. It bounces down through the pegs, reflecting off things like genetics, past experiences, etc. The Plinko chip just follows the laws of physics. The chip can't teleport around the inside of the board to arrive at different outcomes. It's a deterministic system, and should behave the same every time given identical states and sets of inputs.
He's not deluded, he's assuming everything is determined. It's just the skier controls where she goes by wanting to go in a particular direction and having the ability to produce the desired result. All in accordance with the laws of nature.
@@stephenlawrence4821 "Wanting" is not free will. It's a deterministic event or state of matter in your brain that you experience, but that you can't alter. People keep trying to play with the words and call it 100 different things or kick the can down the road. But the end result is always the same.
I'm trying to follow this one thought: Dennett is unclear about why secret punishment might effect the outcome of human behaviors? Is he excluding information from the relevant collection of causal factors within an autonomous system? There is some assumption being made here that I don't fully see. An autonomous controller, like his downhill skier, may require information about the consequences of colliding with a rock jutting out of the snow. This information is often historically given to the autonomous controller through empirical experience, either directly (seeing the sorts of things that happen) and indirectly (hearing accounts of what sorts of things can happen), even if some deduction is required from indirect empirical accounts.
Kuhn should interview Sam Harris on free will to put the other side and address the weaknesses of compatibilism.
What's anticipation and adjustement?
And also suppose dennett anticipated c and adjusted himself to t and he does so controllably,now the question is,is dennett the source of his adjustement,if yes,then dennett's position is libertarianism in disguise,and if the answer is no,then dennett's control doesn't make any sense,because it's not control at all.
So, one can decide to take control or not? How is that not free will?
We have a free will... but are "simple", so God can predict our next move (yup, it gets more complicated from a spiritual point of view). One way of looking at it is like this: the dream "in algorithm form" can be sped up. God can in this sped up state get a glimpse of the future. In the dream's normal speed "the soul" is present and experiences life. In fact, all matter and everything in the Universe is consciousness expressing itself in physical form. The electron experiences life circiling around the nucleus. Primitive as it may be. And again, complicated, so there actually exist people with the ability to see into the future, but, it's supposedly not a very precise ability, so, apparently its more like lucid dreams, and the POV are random people, so they don't know whose life they are experiencing. So, yeah, God threw that into the mix.
I have a vivid imagination, so when I write "algorithm form" and things like that, take it with a grain of salt, in fact, take everything with a grain of salt, but I could be on to something, as might everyone sharing similar ideas. Okay, well, thread carefully, so your imortal higher soul doesn't get a headache. Then again, I've read somewhere that God favors/supports those that "take risks" or "lives life to the fullest", things like that. Well... I'm not one of those people, so, bye... peace.
If you could give a serial killer a pill that makes him or her so happy that it's impossible for them to ever kill again, would you still need to punish the Killer?
My argument isn't that we don't make choices, but that an all powerful, all knowing, God couldn't possibly give you Freewill, so I include this hypothetical God character in the argument.
I think the Universe is deterministic and as I like to say, it's all included, so you can't come up with an excuse or exception, because it is all here in the Universe, and all part of the chain of causality.
We do get to enjoy our success, and we also get to feel guilty of our mistakes, but this idea of determinism helps to relieve oneself of that overwhelming guilt of serious mistakes, and in no way am I saying that criminals aren't to be punished.
In simple terms does non existence of free will mean we have no choice?
can you get searle?
they are trying to catch him but he is really fast
It is a sterile conversation. It is necessary to begin by understanding what the Being that "dwells" in our brain is about, and that it is capable of carrying out actions in "timeless and immaterial worlds. The action of the Being is what we know as “Conscious action”.
"actions in timeless and immaterial worlds" -- what's that supposed to mean?
@@AtticAurel If you want to know about that, send me an email and I will send you information brand.guillermo@gmail.com
Control is only a part of the Freewill V Determinism debate. To see the bigger picture you have to recognise the dual arrow of time. This is the only way that the two concepts can be reconciled within physical laws. Why was Dirac totally against Philosophy as a valid view of reality? He was not alone in his view either.
I think it is just a mind-experiment to think that determinism is even an option. The entire universe is full of uncontrolled variables. And no matter how good you get at measuring and controlling variables, you can always divide your smallest measurement in half and still have outcomes that are only deterministic to the level of the variable nature of the variables involved. Each neuron is controlled not only by the strength of the electrical impulse, but is also shaded by any number of chemical interactions. Every one of these things create variability and it's kind of a wonder we can claw coherent thought out of that level of variability. Determinism depends upon the thought experiment that we can measure and control all variability and I think that is just an untenable position.
Take A Moment
Proffeser, my fellow Ape.
Am I correct in assuming that yes/no is a form of free will?
Thank you for your work and, the millions of people who have heard your thoughtful look on life.
Stay Safe and Stay Free ❤
No god's required
Good evening Dr Lawrence. I am your bigess Fan. Dr Lawrence very you are the Best people ,the best comment. I whant to say a big good evening. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin. 😎
in my opinion, when we talk about Freewill, we must step out of Reality, because reality is create by us in term of Value. to understand free, there are only LOGIC, which create Intelligent and all other Stuffs.
I think the basic facts about free will are known. People are deluded on mass about could have done otherwise. It's understandable they'd think that means - could in the actual circumstances with exactly the same past -
But as Dennett explains, no it does not, that's just an understandable mistake. We are never really interested in circumstances precisely as they are. We have general capabilities, like we can walk, we can run and so on and what we do is think about which best to apply to produce the outcome we want.
This really should be obvious to everybody by now but sadly this is not made clear by philosphers.
I understand Dan Dennett wants to keep free will but in doing so the message just doesn't get across that people are deluded on mass about free will and things do change if we remove the illusion.
A newly born baby has no control. The so called free will is not inborn but acquired. Hence a socially forced ability.
Dennett says we need to trust each other, but.. isn't society being based on penalties the proof that we do not have that trust?
in a freewill work wouldnt we expect a much higher sucess rate quiting drugs cigs and other harmful habitual behaviors?
I recommend an interview with Bernardo Kastrup
I don't understand why Dennett is considered such a great philosopher. The more I listen to him the less convincing he becomes.
Right? This was particularly disappointing. It's like listening to a religious person when they tell you, "Nobody had to make God - God just always existed". I mean... "Control"? How is that not just kicking the Free Will can down the road? Is "control" a non-physical system? What part of "control" isn't entirely dependent on the physical / atomic state of my brain and the world around me - None of which I "control"?
How dare you.
Nice. Determinism versus free will is too simplistic. Both are components of our lives.
Surely, the evidence that the universe, at its smallest possible scale, fizzes with randomness, puts paid to all beliefs in Determinism? At least as far as a fundamental principle? It has nothing to do with people’s attitudes toward it, whether they, “need to believe,” or, “prefer,” a different thing. Randomness is a thing in the universe at a fundamental level, which we cannot control. Of course we have free will. Whether we want it, or prefer it, or not.
As a biological creature, are we not at the mercy of our anatomical, physiological and psychological functions and limited by the law of physics? The only choice that the skier has is whether to go or not assuming he had overcome his fear or was excited by his Adrenalin...I could be wrong but your channel is definitely Intellectually stimulating, No debate!
Life is a combination of fate and free will. Yin and Yang.
He is for free will "with influences" at the end ...and i see that totally reasonable.
well yes were taking this serisuly @ old fahrt bennet
There are two important aspects to this problem of FREE WILL:
1) In order to be able to decide "whose" free will, one must first define "I" particle physically.
2) Then one must separate that part of "I" necessary to control "negative" events and that necessary to enjoy "positive" events (both, of course, particle physically defined again).
Then it becomes clear that causation sequences for negative control MUST be deterministically finite, while those for positive perpetuation be indeterministically infinite, for positive surprises are always welcome, and hence, all search for knowledge SHOULD be restricted to negative prevention only.
The only truly free will would be random. That is not at all free. Obviously a will has to depend to be sensible.
You know the philosophy is tested when you have to throw physics at it. Hail Mary’s in a sense. Then the tested philosophy makes the grab on the deflated ball in the end zone and tells the ref that’s not a touchdown! Ok then it’s incomplete philosophy? No ! Acquiescence !
It would be super to have society / civilization based on free will and moral responsibility; however this is problematic in Western civilization that has never had a choice of whether to have political central government or not. For a large part of Western history political central government has been assumed; and in the lone exception among great powers United States, there has been a choice as to what type of political central government, yet not as to whether or not to have political central government. For a civilization based on choice, it is a major concern that the choice of having central authority of political government has not been made. Which also raises the further concern of how choice is used for political central government authority which has not been chosen. In the case of political central government authority not chosen, choices are being made for other people, which some or many may consider a manipulation of choice. Choices are being made for other people through reaction to political central government authority that was not and has never been chosen. What is better or worse, to have political central government authority without choice, or to have political central government authority where choice is manipulated? Without the choice as to whether or not to have a political central government authority, all politics and central government is totalitarian and not have basis for free will and moral responsibility. In such a case the question of moral responsibility rests on bringing political central government to an end and putting choice directly under and with God
I came away from this conversation with the impression that he didn't agree with Dennette. I don't know if he did for sure, maybe I'm wrong.
Derk Pereboom's manipulation argument just blows out of the picture, Dennett's self control argument for compatibilism😌
Doesnt believe that consciousness is real but does believe that money is real...
False or irrelevant distinction between determined and controlled.
Everything is determined and nothing chooses anything.
Everything including human organisms just happen and move around according to the forces and particles of the universe with no part of the universe being autonomous from anything.
It's all just one big, constant, undulating, movement.
Edit: There is no hypnotist, there is no puppeteer, except those shaped and controlled by natural forces to look as if they are hypnotizing and puppeteering.
They have no choice but to look as if they are.
The forces and particles of nature don't even have agency.
It's just all perpetual movement.
Omg please make timestamps!!
It seems Dennett is just confusing free will with liberty (which he calls control with certain degrees of freedom)
There are five kinds of causality: 1) If you spend 1 hour cleaning your car, the final cause is a clean car. 2) In metaphysics, cause and effect occur simultaneously. Cause precedes the effect in the order of causality, not time. 3) In physics, a causal system is one where the energy is constant. 4) Understanding chaotic systems, like climate change. 5) What causes quantum mechanical phenomena. Dennett does not know what he is talking about.
His train analogy... I'm gonna disagree, we don't have thousands of ways in which we can act...
We can think of it as the track in front of us is being laid down right before we pass over that bit of track, but its the track that can have thousands of ways it can turn, we still only have 1 option which is to stay on the rails.
I think anyone that has conversations with Dennett leaves more confused than they were at the start.
Mr Daniel Dennett’s book “Consciousness explained” should have been titled “Consciousness explained away” as Terence McKenna used to phrase it. He and his arrogant Scientism friends Dawkins and Krauss are the limiting types that science and philosophy should leave behind in order to get anywhere closer to truth 🙂
WOW. ...... Spot on, mon ami. !!!!!!!
Mind you, as regards ‘free will’ I personally do not believe for one millisecond I or anyone or anything else possesses it .... 😳
5:30
He believes in determinism yet claims that it doesn't apply to us lucky humans because we have control and free will. This is his stance, it's always been his stance and it will always be his stance
And it's the rational stance to have.
Nearly! He believes in determinism AND he claims that it DOES apply to humans YET he also claims that is compatible with being in control and having free-will.
@@BecomingAPsych What you are missing is the subtile of his Elbow Room book: Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting i.e. Free will as freedom _from_ error or what the Buddha would have called 'wisdom' because we all _think_ what we want is worth wanting but only a _wise_ person will know how to be _genuinely_ free from error therefore FW isn't an 'All or Nothing' real / bogus dichotomy, it's a question of degrees & the wiser we become the freer from error our will becomes even if it's never 100% free from error.
@@paulbrocklehurst2346 Wise words! Free-will is the ability to avoid what our unconscious minds would have have us do if left unchecked. A big part of wisdom is self-knowledge, the ability to predict what our free-running gut feelings might do. The Buddha talks of the elephant (unconscious mind) and the rider (wisdom and the conscious mind). The rider come to understand the elephant and slowly train it's habits to do the right thing. A beautiful metaphor.
No, that's not his position at all. He doesn't deny that determinism applies to humans, in fact his position requires that it does.
There is no functional difference between determining and control. He invokes it to save the logocal consequence of his naturalism.
if you are what you are because of what's happened in the past, and what happens in the future is determined by what you are now, then what is control if not an illusion. I don't know what Dennett's talking about and neither does he.
It's a bit strange that he critiques his critics by saying that they change the definition of Free Will to match their argument, but all he's done here is change the definition of Determinism to match his argument. It's a specious definition of Determinism, where the arbitrary "end points" of a path are determined but all of the points along the path are not? Xeno might agree, but calculus does not.