Rethinking Free Will: New Perspectives on an Ancient Problem (Robert Kane)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.พ. 2024
- Robert Kane delivers a talk on free will back in 2010 at Holy Cross as part of a conference on neuroscience, evolution and morality.
#philosophy #freewill #determinism
A chain of determinism brought me here.
Listening to Darude - Sandstorm back in 2017 brought me here. I am still under the influence of the deterministic causes of meme consumption in the the late 2010's and will be so forever.
BASED.
@@die_schlechtere_Milchremember, memes mimic reality, not the other way around. If you keep yourself grounded away from the cancer of society you will feel so much happier for experiencing reality and not the charade.
Very nice essay.
I'm probably not doing any justice to his views, but I find his point difficult to grasp. His argument appears to hinge on the notion that our individual responsibility is not defined by the action itself -presumed to be indeterminate- but rather by the broader context, particularly the actor's internal endorsement of the action after the fact. This indeterminacy, as opposed to a form of compatibilism, seems crucial for his assertion that 'they could have done otherwise,' a point that his argument leans heavily on.
He rejects conventional compatibilism, likely due to his discomfort with determinism, opting for indeterminism as an alternative. However, this shift feels more opportunistic than rationally motivated. His argument for indeterminism still closely resembles a compatibilist stance, as most points he makes regarding broader circumstances and post-event endorsement by actors would align just as well with an argument from complete determinism. Essentially, he proposes indeterminism as an alternative, only to then distance himself from its implications as much as possible.
In essence, indeterminism serves as a magic wand he can wave to address the issues he identifies with the deterministic underpinnings of compatibilism, yet he fails to provide a convincing explanation as to how it's more than just a slight of hand.
I follow what you are saying and am largely sympathetic. He started the talk admitting that scientists speak of what is known, philosophers of the unknown. My understanding of his argument is that actions have 3 stages: the before, the during, and the after. Before, one makes decisions on the sort of person on is, the during has a lot of unconscious pre-selection based on priors, and after is taking responsibility for one's willed actions. The challenge is that from a science perspective we do not know how the brain works (self/will), what time is (causality / arrow-of-time), and the interpretation of quantum uncertainty (determinism). Until the science catches up, agree it is magic wands all around... Enjoyed the talk (or the initial conditions of the big-bang have led me to believe this).
We likely have little free will, but facing uncertainty, do the right thing.
It is my belief that we do have free will, but we choose not to use it when base impulses continue to control us. An animal reacts based on its base impulses. Humans do as well with pornography and lack of sexual self control, social media and a lack of willpower, hunger and eat disorders, thoughts and insanity, drugs and addiction, these are all examples of things humans commonly lack self awareness and self control in therefore the result is as followed. Are you a slave to your desire for instant gratification? If not, you have free will.
Fabulous❤
We make choices all the time, as have no choice but to make them. And we're accountable, first of all before ourselves, as regards whatever we choose, that is, as regards whether or not that is good for us, whereas the rules made by the state - of by any church - end up being just instances of this good, which we are taught do adopt as long as social beings. None of this, notwithstanding, entails our being free in the sense preached in the doctrine of free will. Quite the opposite.
okay
1
I don’t believe in any religion, or any of the superstitious beings they worship. God determined that I would be an atheist long before I was born (6000 years ago to be specific).
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook
😂@@mz4637
You just believe that God doesn't exists. That's a faith too. There were many who believed that, take Stalin and Mao for example.
@@zbyszeks3657 A religion? If so, it’s one without buildings to not believe in, without books containing the necessary dogma, no priests or nuns, no parishes or bishops, and no bones to pray to for special favors. There are no organizations that group people according to the form of their non-belief. We don’t burn anybody at the stake, don’t shun other people who don’t disbelieve the same way we disbelieve, and there are no wars fought over differences in disbelief. Of course there is a down side in that we don’t go to heaven after we die to pick out our 69 virgins, and aren’t guaranteed a start time at one of the rumored golf courses up there - we get that all taken care of before we die.
@@Reach41 Thank you for your kind answer. The thing is: We don't know if God exists or not and we can't prove it. So... every position about it, aka God exists or God doesn't exists is an act of faith.
So atheism is an act of faith, cause it can't prove its claim on scientific basis. Atheists are believers :) Just in opposite way :)
This “free will” concept doesn’t make any sense at all, it’s just pure gibberish. I disagree with the people arguing for it, and I disagree with the people arguing against it. I don’t take any side in the debate, because there’s nothing there to debate. It’s just a fundamentally incoherent concept. We should just get rid of it and stop debating it.
we got a genius over here fellas
🤡
This seems like a reactionary statement from you. If you enjoy philosophy then you will enjoy all topics and appreciate the value in knowledge. The idea of free will may inspire the next best doctors and philosophers. Abandonment of anything is always a tragic tale.
@ludviglidstrom6924
You sound rather certain it should be abandoned as a topic of discussion.
Suppose "free will debates" ascended in popularity for the next five years.
What would the detriment be ?
Is it just boring ? An appalling waste of time ? Dangerous ? I don't get it.
You owe us the necessary premises for such extreme conclusion. Without it, your statement at it's current form is but a clear example of appeal to personal incredulity fallacy.