Alfred Mele - Is Free Will an Illusion?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ธ.ค. 2022
- Some philosophers and scientists claim that because every event is determined by prior events, including every event in our brains, free will cannot be real. What are the arguments and evidence? Key is the Libet experiment, which seems to show that our brains have already made a decision-we see electrical activity-before we are conscious of making the decision.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on free will: bit.ly/3WAL0ZZ
Alfred Remen Mele is an American philosopher and the William H. and Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University. He is also the past Director of the Philosophy and Science of Self-Control Project (2014-2017) and the Big Questions in Free Will Project (2010-2013). Mele is the author of thirteen books and over 250 articles.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
The most dangerous part about this discussion is that it can lead to people falling into fatalism, i.e. "Since I don't have free will, it won't matter what I'm thinking or doing, I'm already destined to act in a certain way anyway." This can lead to all kinds of negative behavior that harms the people thinking that way or others.
This is why having the feeling that we have free will is so important, and how it provides an evolutionary advantage over not having that believe. Falling entirely into fatalism is quite rare, outside of maybe religious believes, because the people who had a genetic disposition of doing so and not believing they are acting as free agents were thinned out from the gene pool due to being negative actors, long before we started debating the topic as humans.
At TM 7:32 Alfred Mele states that through learning a person can shape future decision making. The problem: is it not the case that it is entirely possible that learning is predetermined. In other words a learned response is dependent upon an infinite progression of previous learned responses.
What? Those "previous decisions" that result in "learning" and that this supposed defense of free will is based on were as much "free" (meaning not free at all) as the one taken into consideration now. It's all a part of an unchangeable predetermined chain.
The place of action [the body], the performer, the various senses, the many different kinds of endeavor, and ultimately the Supersoul - these are the five factors of action.
Although the place of action here refers to the body and the performer the soul, these 5 factors jointly contribute toward the success or the so called failure of any activity.
Let us look at an example of how this is true in this physical world. Let us say we are in a job. First and foremost, we have to be in the right job, but just landing in a right job is not enough. What the individual does with the given opportunity of being in the right job thru his/her various endeavors, by appropriately engaging both their perceptive as well as working senses, is entirely up to the individual. Having done all of this correctly, success is still not guaranteed as there is something beyond our control and that is the Supreme Will
- The Bhagvad Gita
@kunalrao1123 bagvad geeta 😂😂 dude how many times krishna said that i am the one who is doing everything .....even your choices are my choices.......have you heard about kag bhushundi ...that thing saw mahabharat war scene to scene seven times before it even happened. Everything was determined as hell...from the smallest to to biggest choices in the war were all supposed to happen exactly in that orderr...Alll OF IT.
This exchange gave the clearest explanation of compatibilism I have come across. I always found more in depth definitions somewhat confusing. Great video as always, thank you.
I can't tell you how many times I did something and later on asked myself, Why did I do that? I now know it was because I had no choice.
One of the clearest examination of the " free will " question
I have had the pleasure to encounter.
Thank you.that
Watch Sabine Hossenfelder's video "You don't have free will, but don't worry"
Thank you for yet another interesting video.
He's closer to those involved in machine learning, data science, and economists. The "random walk" does have a role to play in "exploring the state space". In reinforcement learning, it's the "exploration vs. exploitation" tradeoff. This help[s in the overall "optimization" objective. Randomness does play a positive role, in achieving this objective, in a more resilient and robust way.
Having said this, there a various views that are mixed up, first coming from physics (e.g. determinism, or inherent randomness, quantum physics), and what is meant by "free will" (agency? choice?), in human scale experience. For the latter, things are never completely free. Nor are they totally random. Each human being makes choices that would enhance their happiness, their value system, or in the context of psychological, and biological needs. And from the choices, both good and bad, they learn along the way. The libertarian or compatabilist would be somewhat along these lines.
When I'm playing solitaire, I feel like I'm winning or losing even though I'm merely laying the cards as they dictate. I think this is equivalent to the oft-mentioned illusion of free will.
Sure, but even in Solitaire, if you have more than one choice of action with your card. The main aspect that enables you to choose a said action, is free will. Acting like a poor person doesnt have free will because he lacks the level of options a rich person has. Wouldnt really be a valid argument, in my view.
Reflection is key in a world which contains almost none. Unfortunately, most people cannot see beyond the physical version. Yet the other three mirrors (mental, psychological, spiritual) are of far greater importance to confront.
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In Time, all points converge: hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the Universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
Interesting word... Solitaire...
@@waldwassermann If only Incel was a card game. :D /jk
That is an excellent analogy.
I wonder why some philosophers decide we have no free will, why make that choice.
It's not a choice
@@notanemoprog What it is a fact that we have no free will or just an opinion
@@notanemoprog...that's unknown...hence an opinion. And even if it is deterministic...the pattern of variable will amount to so staggering a calculation that you might as well say we have free will.
The problem relies in fact that our perspective in general is sequential. We pull out the sequence or the event (regardless the topic) and we judge it by adding a cause and effect. But if we broaden the sequence bit by bit, and up to the big bang, we’ll figure there’s nothing causing anything to happen. Ever. So, no free will, we’re just a part of a bigger event, like a speck of dust in the barn.
Compatibilism is just accepting determinism and yet playing with words to deny it. His own fixing of randomnes by learning doesn't take away the randomnes, or if it does then reintroduce the deterministic decision making.
He doesn't need to deny randomness. Rather the randomness of any given decision biases future decisions in certain ways. Some of these biases-"good decisions" - influence the form of the future self in such a way that the spectrum of possibilities of deciding are more determined by the internal rather than external states of that self.
My brother doesn't believe in free will. He has no choice in that. I believe in free will. I have no choice in that.
So; you don't really believe in free will, since you believe you have no choice in it.
I found this was far better than I expected it to be, based on the video title (and my impressions from previous vidoes in this series I've watched). My immediate response to the title was:
Wrong question. The question should be, what is, in anything, 'free will', or rather, more modestly stated, what might 'free will' possibly be. That is, I think we may have misconceptions, or naive suppositions, about the nature of 'free will' which are significantly illusory, or at least do not well correspond to a rational analysis of evidence, but that does not mean that there does not exist some real phenomena underlying our belief in the existence of free will. (And to be thorough, one would have to consider the possible significance of the situation where that existence was real, yet still not impactful or capable of altering the course of future events.)
Anyway, I won't attempt to deliver a serious attempt at elucidation on the subject here, even though I think I could, but will say only that, I think,
in order to get a proper grasp of the question and issue, it is necessary, or at least helpful, to at least somewhat delve into currently dominant presumptions about time and causality. More specifically, the "deterministic" as well as the "deterministic up to random probability" outlooks both implicitly assume (either that the future is already determined/"written", or that) the future causally depends on the past (and/ or, present, the 'or' here to cover the position that basically, the past is comprehensively summerized within the present, and what ever has not "found its way into the present" can have no influence on the future. ). That is, there is a strong implicit assumption here about the nature of the past, future and their relation to one another.
Specifically, it is assumed that the future does not somehow causally contribute to the determination of the present or past. If, however, the future was somehow being simulatneously constructed, as some virtual and probablistic cloud of alternate future realities, and explored, in a fashion somewhat analogous to how most modern chess programs explore a depth limitted "look ahead tree", - except that here I am suggesting that we should consider here the possibility that this "exploration" of "future potentiality" actually plays an instrumental role in determining the unfolding of the present while being yet a largely unobserved and unrecognized phenomena, yet unaccounted for by our physics and theory of the evolution of the quantum wave dynamics and the associated collapsing process.
In a rather obvious sense, "free will" suggests that some "virtual exploration of the future" can have a causal influence on the determination of the present and the unfolding of the future developments. And understanding how such a process is, or might, in fact be possible, is, I think, key to understanding the nature of (human) free-will.
BTW, I am not claiming here that some form of, e.g. quantum mechanical, time reversibibility needs to be present in any adequate understanding of the mechanism of free-will, but only that I think it may be helpful to suppose that, at the "cutting edge of unfolding reality" and in the determination of the present out of a multiplicity of possible "alternatives" (and maybe, analogously, in the quantum collapse of the wave function),
it may be helpful to consider the line between past and future to be somewhat blurred, (and that there may be some effective "thickness" associated with any "time-slice", probably one which out to relativistically widen, in a sense compatible with relativistic simultaneity, as spatial separation grows. Of course this seems to suggest the possibility of a great plethora of simultaneously unfolding realities, and the question of how all inconsistencies and incompatabilities between such might be resolved, or how a single coherent reality might emerge from such a plethora, is well beyond our current physics.)
Cheers, Love and God Bless
Sounds like religious faith to me... Fluffy and lots of "maybe"... There "may be" a god, but there is no evidence there is, so why base a philosophy around this?
@@silknfeathers I don't personally believe in religious faith. I have come to understand that God exists despite all of my own personal insistence on undeniable proof. Unfortunately though I don't believe I would be able to communicate this undeniable proof to you here, but only perhaps, through some much longer attempt to communicate it, which I still have some doubts would likely to be successful, and which I will not attempt here. Perhaps there ate somethings that defy communication and for which you really need to personally experience, I don't know, but I do think I understand that there are psychilogical barriers which may prevent us from perceiving or acknowledging the reality of God, and overcoming such barriers can be quite an ordeal, or at least it seemed so for me.
Like C. G. Jung once said in reply to being asked if he believed in God, I do not believe, I know. I suppose my belief in God is not, fundamentally, based on belief or religion and is not fundamentally religious in nature.
But I don't think I regard others, who do not share my understanding, with any contempt or sense of self-superiority. And it seems to me to be a little bit sad and ironic when others seem to express such contempt to others, who believe perhaps without the intellectual ability to defend their belief.
I'll grant that belief without basis seems "bad", and also that many presumably have all sorts of beliefs that do not correspond very well to anything real. But there is also a sense in which people can be fundamentally correct in the beliefs, without being able to properly defend or justify those beliefs.
And I actually have come around to the opinion that, ideally psychologically disposed, (where, for example, "the other" is psychologically recognized and emotinally embraced and loved, with about as much strength as is "the self"),
one can actually "feel" and perceive at least the presence of God's own extension and awareness, and also emotionally embrace and love God.
But God is "incomprehsible" and not a typical sonething which one can feel one actually understands. It is I think, something a little like the intellect of some genious that you can obviously infer but which you are clearly unable to "grasp" or fathom yourself. Perhaps the situation might be roughly analogous to a mouse's "musing" that a man is most likely capable of thinking.
I think this "inconceivability" is one of the reason it is so possible to "train" men out of their, perhaps innate apprehension of God's existence. Still, I have also come under the impression that, were are "non-believer" to be actually confronted with God's presence, and God also wished that his presence be revealed to that man (or woman), then, (it is my expectation that) that human individual would nonetheless somehow immediately recognize God, as if, perhaps, such a recognition would emerge spontaneously simply somehow as a result of our own human morphological construction, a kin to something like a chemical reaction, having very little to do with human personality, pre-supposition, belief or pre-disposition. Or rather, at least, (based only on personal experience, but unfortunately, I know of no scholarly citation which might back up my own impression) I expect that such may well be the case.
On the otherhand, I also tend to suppose that simply coming to the awareness of God's reality seemed to pose for me some, possibly sanity threatening, existential crisis, so, um, I don't know and I guess perhaps one must be sonehow "readied" before being safely exposed to God's presence.
I talk, of course, from personal experience alone, and I make no claim or pretense of being "authoritative". I think I prefer obscurity to notoriety, and I think perhaps "coming to understand" might be a "personal journey" and also something that might well be best left to more capable "hands" than my own. Which leads me to question what I am doing in writing all this, lol. Whatever I guess. All the best.
@@tommackling "I have come to understand that God exists despite all of my own personal insistence on undeniable proof. " Like I said... fluff... oh, and esoteric nonsense...
There's a free will so far as we're above the nature as human beings, or have the self-consciousness, the knowledge of authenticity/falsehood, and the ability to predict the result of our actions, but considering that our mind is limited, so part of our actions is controlled by the so called "fate", or more precisely the higher beings, depending on how mature we're as individuals, and how much we're still tied to our instinct, which is directly controlled by the specific group-spirits to whom we originally belong, or to whom we give up our consciousness.
Maybe there is no such thing as complete independent probability, like in the case of the dice. If the dice are shaped every time, maybe small deformations are similar, then there is a dependency just like we have dependency in the thoughts we have had previously.
Yes, I was thinking this, too … ie, practically speaking, you cannot roll a dice (certainly not on any solid surface) without somewhat ‘denting’/deforming it, at some level … … …
Obviously all outcomes of all throws of dice in all of history were not random at all, but predetermined
We exist in our feedback paths, some tighter than others.
Though I see very clear problems with this type of reasoning for freewill, I found it quite interesting and challenging. The argument continues as it has done for millennia.
so you think we have free will ( are ya na ... Agha majid ?! )
@@galaxyzoom3403 The weight of argument against free will is very heavy. Despite some new challenges that have been put forward regarding quantum uncertainty, fundamental randomness only adds unpredictability to the game, not freedom of will. So I'd rather say no, we don't have free will. But as I said, I think the debate is going to continue for a long time.
@@galaxyzoom3403 I should add what I think about Mele's libertarian idea of free will. I think the integration and dependency of decisions, doesn't make them free. Because what he is saying is that at the fundamental level, the decisions can be random, but in the holistic picture they are related and connected due to the mechanisms by which the so-called "agent" learns, adapts and makes new decisions. This just makes them dependent on the previous, more random decisions; Not free decisions at will! So like what we see in physics, as the micro systems get inter-connected to each other and make the macro world, things become deterministic.
Determinism can be evidenced by asking why. Root cause analysis is practical determinism.
Yes!
So, is it me, or didn't he actually make an argument against free will in the end? That because of our experiences and our learning, our decisions are not based on luck but what one might call deterministic properties of our psychology?
I feel like a problem with a lot of the arguments for free will is that they are too hung up on whether outcomes are fully deterministic or probabilistic, and then from that extrapolate the resulting implications for how we make decisions. However, either way it doesn't change that the way in which I make decisions is based on the way my experience has shaped my mind, of which much of that experience is outside "my" control - whichever definition of "I" one happens to be using.
Free will is very simple and you can get there in three steps.
First, given all the different ways to be a person, what is it to distinguish "you" vs any one else. Second, if you took all the other possible people, what is it that you would do vs them in a given situation. Third, is the action you take free of their influence. If you do what you would do without their influence, you have free will. The calculation of how exactly that comes about has no bearing on whether or not you have it, because "you" is a higher order distinction.
People who think determinism is in any way an argument against free will are essentially saying that because 2+3=5, 5 does not exist... and further, that because 2+1 = 3 and 1+1 = 2, the only number that exists is 1. But 15 is divisible by 5 and 3, but not 2. This property exists regardless of the fact that 15 is made up of 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1. Thus there is a valid distinction that is gained by elevating your perspective to the appropriate level. To see "will" and "free will" you must also pull your head out of the ground, or whatever other low-level dark place you have it, and raise it to the realm of concepts, identity, perspective and action.
Choice is a consequence of bringing perspective to bear on a situation; perspective is bringing identity to bear on reality. It is the resolution of the question "who am I?" vs an "anyman"... it is the observation that collapses you out of possibility space to a definite point of identity. You don't choose who you are... you discover it at the lower level, but once you find what "yourself" is, that identity makes choices vs another that makes others, and we are in essense a body of synergistic identities that are called to action by our ideal futures. We are the potential future interacting with their potential pasts in the virtual possibility space we have in our minds. We are intersections. All you need to see it is the three parts above. What do you care about (vs other possible people), what does this mean you do, and to what extent is it free from coercion. The fact that this identity is calculated via physics doesn't mean the identity isn't "you"... if anything it just means you're actually an instance of some combinations of ideal forms (which is where we get things like family and kinship, "one of us" etc).
@@enotdetcelfer So, your decisions / choices are determined by your current answers to 3 questions or considerations?
@@enotdetcelfer If all you wanted to say is that epiphenomena have some sort of validity anything goes, all is Real...Chess and checkers each have their own domains, dreams are real dreams in their specific domain, and so are illusions, Mickey mouse is a real cartoon. Free Will is useful as a shortcut concept to distinguish POVs, specific frames of experiencing, from subject to subject, and our own dialoguing internal subjects...while the concept steams from epistemic uncertainty until the moment an action collapses into existence, that we perceive it as an act with authorship because it happened to us, but in essence is self contradictory, will and freedom are simply 2 words that don't match together.
Compatiblism is pure bullshit, as calling freedom to what one NEEDS to do moulded since the beginning of times has nothing to do with the illusory feeling of property in our actions.
@@enotdetcelfer I like the arguments you're making but you should really refrain from being arrogant and aggressive towards those who disagree with you. Sticking to one point you made about 1 being the only number to exist, I'd argue that numbers like 2, 3, ect. only "exist" for subjective purposes. Objectively all numbers are really just a bunch of 1's. Subjectively however giving 5 1's the identity of 5 allows for better communication and understanding of mathematics. Now translating this analogy back to reality what your argument entails is absolutism. Free will being an absolute concept and you're arguing it's attainable by being mindful of the three points you made. I'm arguing against this saying that nothing is absolute except the universe and that's exactly why things exist in the first place. Absolute existence carries seemingly contradictory aspects. Materialistically in the thought experiment about the boat being replaced one piece at a time the boat is a different boat as soon as one part changes. Once all the parts have been replaced rebuilding the original boat is impossible as the last parts to be changed have undergone their own changes making them different parts themselves. This is to show that identity is constantly changing and if you can determine yourself in an absolute sense then you're becoming ignorant of the constant changes being made to you. You cannot avoid external influence on your thoughts, perception, identity and thus your actions
@@dougsmith6793 To clarify, the three questions are all that are involved in distinguishing between identities and will being "free". Things do what they do, and when you can consider who you are vs others, you can inspect this independant from how the actual actions are "computed" so to speak. If I built a mickey mouse figure out of legos, you would easily identify it as a mickey mouse figure because you look for the features of one, vs another figure, without any action because you are distinguishing form vs distinguishing what it's made out of. The consideration of your actions are much greater. I'm simply pointing out that you can distinguish a free will vs not by looking at the identity level, and that going "deeper" to what it's made of is like saying it's not a mickey mouse because it's made of legos. Mickey mouse isn't even a real living thing, yet it's form has identity. If you ask "what would superman do vs batman?" then you're in the right range of analysis; the point is they aren't even real, but you can distinguish what they do because of identity.
Reflection is key in a world which contains almost none. Unfortunately, most people cannot see beyond the physical version. Yet the other three mirrors (mental, psychological, spiritual) are of far greater importance to confront.
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In Time, all points converge: hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the Universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
1) We had no free will to be born, because that event was determined for us. 2) Therefore, our first conscious decision as a baby/infant may have been the one and only true "free will" choice we ever made. 3) After that, every subsequent choice/decision was influenced by our initial "free will" selection. 4) Is that how it works? Just asking.
Segun mi punto de vista.
Conciencia es lo mismo que Mente, así qué nosotros estamos en la Mente de Éso que llamamos Dios. No hay un Dios como tal, pero así lo llamamos, porque no sabemos que es Éso.
Por éso no hay libre albedrío, hay la ilusión de poder elegir, pero las elecciones ya están predeterminadas, digamos que el guión ya estaba escrito.
Por ejemplo vas a una cafetería y te preguntan, desea un café o chocolate? Ambas opciones ya son existentes, por lo tanto no hay nada nuevo creado, ni inventado, ya estaban imaginados por la Conciencia o por la Mente Universal.
Imagine how POWERLESS a person must feel in order to think their freewill is an illusion. 🙂
What an ignorant comment.
@@Tom_Quixote Elaborate ;)
Which possibly makes this illusion so important to explain how humans were able to become, shall we say, the most dominant species on this planet.
@Israel Flores after deeply processing this information You become truly free.
Welll, you can dream of course Lol
A problem arises when two alternatives appear to have equal outcomes. Free will cannot break the deadlock. Therefore, free will is an illusion.
The choice can be grounded on some ethical/moral principle but that is rationalism, thus >> determinism.
Very good point
@@carolvassallo26 I can't take all the credit...
_"...a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, and placed in between food and drink, must necessarily remain where he is and starve to death."_
- Aristotle
That's called being stuck or ambivalent. It doesn't remove free will it just means we struggle to make a choice. it doesn't also remove that some things can be random. For example a person who is stuck making that decision could say "well they both seem equal to me, so I'll just flip a coin and pick one of them based on the result of the coin toss"
possible that free will from measurement of probabilities in random quantum wave function also determines everything in physical nature?
1. If there is uncertainty, then one cannot say with certainty that we don't have free will.
2. There is uncertainty. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
3. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that we don't have free will.
Determined not to blink it seems
The guest's scenario where a person is essentially tossing a coin in the air to make a decision is not the best example to showcase how NON ZERO freewill exists. You don't have to demonstrate freewill under all circumstances to showcase the existence of freewill in nature. You only need to showcase it under a single scenario and we have the POWER (ie freewill) to choose any scenario we want.
A better example is where a person is given as much time as he needs to make a decision. As he weighs the options, he has the POWER to CHANGE the PROBABILITIES of each given choice. Once one of the probabilities reaches ~100% is when a decision is made.
Again, the POWER to CHANGE PROBABILITY choices is what we call freewill and it definitely exists. It is by no means an "illusion".
The place of action [the body], the performer, the various senses, the many different kinds of endeavor, and ultimately the Supersoul - these are the five factors of action.
Although the place of action here refers to the body and the performer the soul, these 5 factors jointly contribute toward the success or the so called failure of any activity.
Let us look at an example of how this is true in this physical world. Let us say we are in a job. First and foremost, we have to be in the right job, but just landing in a right job is not enough. What the individual does with the given opportunity of being in the right job thru his/her various endeavors, by appropriately engaging both their perceptive as well as working senses, is entirely up to the individual. Having done all of this correctly, success is still not guaranteed as there is something beyond our control and that is the Supreme Will
- The Bhagvad Gita
Please read: "Behave" of Robert Sapolsky
If you start out looking for personal responsibility and blameworthiness, then you will always conclude that free will doesn't exist. Nature doesn't do ethics or morality.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
Yep, and like everything else that choice was predetermined too.
But the choise was not free.
human choices from the past affecting present choices demonstrates non-randomness in nature? in the case of random probabilities for quantum wave function, something about measurement of quantum wave function is not random?
Free will does not reside in the molecules in the brain that are either determined or random. But the will has to do with thoughts and intentions that are imposed on those brain signals. All the interactions of all the brain signals are about thoughts and intentions which are abstract entities not subject to the deterministic or random physical processes. We already know that there is nothing random or deterministic about how all our thoughts and intentions interact to converge on decisions.
But why do we have those thoughts and intentions? You can't want to eat an apple without having first learned what an apple is. You can't intend to do something unless you have a reason to do it, and the root cause of that reason is from nature or nurture.
@@Dave-xd5vk In other words, reason is just another form of pattern recognition, like recognizing the patterns associated with food or predators. And the act of reasoning is just another form of muscle activation. And we humans have extra brain cells that we can repurpose for reasoning and purposeful intentionality.
See my comments a few minutes ago.
The metaphysical hypothesis that I find most attractive, not saying it’s necessarily true, is Many Worlds, first proposed by Hugh Everett III.
Most academic proponents of Many Worlds, including Sean Carroll, maintain that although some decisions may be random, overall determinism is preserved.
How can you discuss free will without discussing who is making decisions, who or what is the arbiter making the decision
Yes
How can we talk about free will if we can't even define what exactly we mean by being free ?!
my thought exactly, it's full of people writing books with theories but no precise definition of what's an agent, what's will, free from what...
@@LuigiSimoncini yeah and what is free agent exactly !?
If you wish to know about nature, you don't start with concepts and definitions, you start with observation. When it was observed that people are able to choose from the available options based on whatever is going on around them, this was given the apt name of free will. It is human goal seeking behavior that is not inhibited by outside coercion. No matter how you conceptualize this easily observable phenomenon, your concept and definition cannot negate the very thing on which it is based.
You can say that this natural free will is an illusion, but you will have to come up with something a little stronger than some metaphysical speculation like determinism to counter our everyday experience of free will.
Anything that has a beginning, a middle and an end is said to be limited & relative. Anything that is relative is paradoxical and thus within the realm of ignorance (i.e., indeterminate, beyond words, mind). Everything within the realm of the mind including itself (that seems concrete) is in fact paradoxical. The Self, which is non-negatable at all times, is ever the unchanging Absolute! Freewill (as the limited man knows it) spawns when mind spawns; not otherwise.
While some decisions are effectively time constrained in advance, such as the hypothetic one about accepting or rejecting a job offer chosen by Professor Werkmeister to present here, many are not, and thus are subject to further consideration. It seems to me that the "non-decision" to terminate considering things further, might itself be "free will in action", so to speak.
Which is to say that someone who does not believe they have any free will, might decide to not consider a given matter further, while someone who does believe they have some degree of free will, might not decide to end further consideration to occur. And hence to "admit" additional unconsidered information into their prospective decision making.
Which is to say their NOT acting to end further consideration, could be a NON-ACTION, that is not bound by the same "causal" constraints that the decision to end further consideration might be bound by. And that thinking/acting as if one has the potential for free will (which we all seem to me to do pretty much habitually) might actually be the causal "loophole" that allows free will to manifest in reality-land.
A "phycological habit" one might say, that has become semi-ubiquitous for the reason the Professor speaks of . . negative consequences for ending consideration. Possibly including the virtual extinction of those who ACT as though they have no potential free will at all, and therefore do things that lead to death as a result, which those who resist more the urge to end further consideration, might not suffer as easily/frequently.
Each such habitual "resister", of a phycological habit of considering, would experience a unique set of additional informational inputs in each instance they resisted terminating the habit of considering, and hence there is no distinct causal chain for a decision in existence, to be violated, before termination of said habitual consideration. And thus, a sense of the sufficiency of informational input, would become a selectable trait, that did not itself rely on a causal chain in any particular circumstance, which all decisions/non-decisions occur within.
What people believe is we could select the options we don't select in a magical way that would overcome our being fated to select the option we do. That's the free will in question and, of course we don't have it.
Learning and adaptation does not mean necessarily free will.... It is hard to accept, that we are not in control....
Why when thinking of determinism does it have to be one or the other?
It could be that the universe or even parts of it work in both ways.
I think rather than thinking of the laws of the universe when thinking about free will, we should focus on what we know and what we can observe with regard to the brain.
We could also ask such things as, ' Why is it important to us that we hear our own voices in our heads when we think if most all other things are done subconsciously? '
I think that it has something to do with the two parts of the mind talking to themselves in order to ask questions, to give the subconscious goals and perhaps more.
It keeps the subconscious focused perhaps in some ways while it also deals with other things such as breathing, moving muscles etc.
Please make the intro blur last longer
alfred couldn't argue otherwise 😋
could free will determine everything in cosmos and physical nature?
Not having free will doesn't mean you'll know what will happen or predict the future. I think determinism can exist but we haven't stumbled upon an ultimate answer. Humans make pattern recognition errors all the time. Not every position opposed to free will is necessarily deterministic. There are theories of chaos, there's intuitive observations we colloquially call Murphys law. It's just as erroneous to make predictions as it is to assume our decisions are results of self deliberate choices, and not merely reactions to uncontrolled events we rationalize after.
Randomness, probability,…etc are concepts (means do exist but due to the lack of enough knowledge and enough understanding they are concepts).
because of the incomplete understanding of time, space,… and limited knowledge they are still concepts.
so to say: randomness and probability are concepts till humans understand the mechanism,
that does not negate or cancel their existence, but it postpones their being scientific facts until their mechanics are understood.
Understanding the mechanism later may change the names based on the new understanding or keep it in a case of compatibility with the mechanism. that does not apply to self-concept,
it does exist but still just a concept among those took control of the media, authorities,….etc
(concept among the public). (it’s about existence itself) they deny their own existence!
it’s related to existence itself (it’s something else).
Could determinism be fluid? At quantum levels its fully not deterministic but as we move up in scale it becomes more and more deterministic, easier to predict? And in between we have things like consciousness not really sure what's going on because they experience both. This dualism about the universe seems to not want to go away so maybe we should think more about 2 systems interacting, rather than trying to explain it as one thing
Do we really have a choice?
Is a child born like a clean slate? (If no, then there's already a lot of things which will affect life including choices)
Yes? That means that the child does not have choice making capability, it won't even understand that it has choices. It won't even understand that it has the capability to choose.
But when the child becomes adult it has choices, it can decide, in short it can make decision about its destiny and how he perceives the world, what is good, what is bad.
Yes? Then what happened between childhood and adulthood?
The child got learning. From where? - From everywhere including parents, close society etc.
Let's say a child gets coffee, becomes fond of coffee. Parents see that he is consuming it in excess. Parents tell him that coffee is not good for health, it can affect hairs (causes hairfall). So the child stops drinking coffee in excessive quanity. In fact, he can be frightened about hairfall and not drink it at all.
Another child, same problem, but nobody told him this piece of information. So he drinks on excessive amount of coffee.
So, the choices these children make is dependent on what? - Environmental inputs.
Another child, same problem, he is told the problem with coffee... But he doesn't really care about it. And fortunately nothing wrong happens to him due to excessive coffee.. In fact he finds that it boosts energy a bit. So he drinks on. So, what happened here? - The child made a choice.
But we established that child cannot make choices, without environmental learning. Was it a conscious choice, like we adults make? Or, was it a random choice? Is a random choice indeed a choice? Wouldn't you call it fate?
Now, if a child is born a clean slate. How come this child acted differently in this case. "He didn't seem to care about it" - why? what's different here? He was given same information in same way.
Maybe his brain works in a different way. Maybe something is different in his underlying cognitive structure. Of course everyone is different, however we fall in categories.
But you see, the child who didn't care and ignored parent's advice. And fortunately he didn't get any side effects from coffee (just because his body was capable of handling it), he might learn to avoid parent's advice. And in process as he goes on with his life, he ignores many of his parent's advice which are improtant. So, what happened here? - His perception of the world changed, his decision making process changed. What's good and what's bad changed. And all because of (interaction of nature and nurture). You know that small events can produce significant impacts?
So effectively, when you say "I made this choice or he made this choice for himself", I understand that it was his body, it was his mind, but when we can clearly see that it all resulted from a sequence of events, I don't see where was he in all this journey. This I/he/she you are talking about, is a result of numerous random choices, numerous things inside your body and brain, you don't even know (remember) where you got some ideas from.
Now, let's talk about current state. What's done is done. Now you think that whatever it was, however it happened, you feel that now you can make choices for yourselves.
Suppose you are a girl, you have a lot of options who show that they love you. (Some of the options may be hidden, you don't even know about them, because they couldn't show their love. Why couldn't they show? It's their choice? whatever...Let's forget about them for now). Do you really have a choice whom do you like, whom do you love. Not evaluate for marriage. Whom you ACTUALLY LOVE, you think you have a choice?
Suppose these scenarios where girls choose boys. In some cases, the choice turned out to be bad, and their condition worsens. It's easy to say that it was their choice that brought them into this mess. But was it? Was love their choice? You could say that they could catch the red flags. But really? First thing not everybody is expert in catching red flags (why? - again nature and nurture), and second thing even if they caught red flags, it was love, was love their choice?
Now you can say, okay things got messed up, now it's their choice how to proceed. But some of them had never happened to put a fight, struggle. They don't even know that they can get out of this mess easily. But you say, they have examples, we have so many examples, they did come out of mess.
Remember that tea and coffe guy, where child couldn't practise parent's advice. Maybe this girl never practiced any positive advice. How can she suddenly make her mind, "No! I can do this. It's a mess, I can get out of it." You know, the same motivational speech works on some people and is completely useless on others. Similarly with drugs, drugs affect some people and are useless on others.
Also, it's very common to observe that same situation and people react differently, same wound, someone cries, someone doesn't, same temperature, someone feels more cold, someone less, we don't even see the same redness, if we are looking at a red thing. Clearly, our brain processes information differently, and if processing is different outcomes can be different too, if outcomes are different, behavior, habit can be different. If perception, habit, behavior is different choices can be different too.
WHEN DO WE ACTUALLY MAKE A CHOICE? ACTUALLY WHERE IS THE ONE WHO MAKES CHOICE HERE? IT ALL SEEMS TO BE JUST REACTION, FORMING A PATTERN, SOMETIMES BREAKING A PATTERN.
It wouldnt' have taken this long to illustrate the point if we just consider that we act as our brain suggests, and our brain suggests after doing calculations, and calculations happen on input parameters, but input paramters themselves are result of computations, so it all goes back to seed parameters. Also, consider that in a multivariable system/equation, to simplify you can assume some variables to be constant, but the fact is that each variable can have a significant impact. Also, even if the input parameters, and computational instructions are same, the execution and output depends upon hardware.
The quality/quantity of fruits that a tree gives, depends on how was the tree nurtured (did it get proper manure, sunlight, shade, air etc when required) and it also depends on the quality of the seed.
Is happiness a choice? Is behavior a choice? Does behavior, habit play a role in choice? Does knowledge, mood, intuition, experience play a role in making choice?
Universe is behind you when u desire and focus energy and efforts towards a probable outcome.
Seems to me he arrives at his conclusion by switching out "are shaped" to "can be shaped", but without any clear description of how the "can be shaped" is functioning.
Interesting take, but I have to disagree in that I do think free will is an illusion. And I think this question gets to the heart of a bigger question of the structure of reality where we may live in a higher dimensional 'probability space', of which we only see one 'slice' at time (similar to how we only see one 'slice' of spacetime at a time). In that sense determinism is true and everything exists; free will would be our false sense of equating the one 'slice' with the whole.
Also, I think that when you look close enough, every 'decision' boils down to the output of processing of massive amounts of data sets, which is in line with determinism. The concepts of 'free will' and 'randomness' are probably just human-level abstractions as the details and amounts of data that go into each decision are far too complex to comprehend.
if I set 3d object(=A) my way, A will move as my wish
BUT what if A get error? A won't move as my wish
generally human have no free will on general situations
BUT human can own the free will when we get error(against our nature or emotion, calculation by our own consciousness 100%)
Compatibilism = The universe could have been different IF the universe was different. 😂
That's _not_ what compatibilism says. Compatibilism is the position that free will and determinism aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Once there's an agent on the scene, the fact that it's decisions are deterministic doesn't necessarily mean that they're not the agent's decisions.
Most arguments against free will are really just arguments against absolute or libertarian free will; free will compatibilists don't believe in absolute or libertarian free will.
When you carefully examine the arguments of most people that claim there is no free will at all, neither compatibilist or absolutist, usually it's apparent that they're actually either arguing for a type of compatibilist free will without realizing it, or failing to refute compatibilist free will without realizing it.
Jesus understood this, long ago. It's in The Lord's Prayer, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." This implies, Jesus thought, free will choice was context dependent, which it is. Which means everyone has free will, just not complete free will. Free will and determinism aren't mutually exclusive concepts. We all have limited free will. We need to stop thinking of it in binary. We are all limited by deterministic things we can't control: such as the time we are born in, everything that happened to the world before us, how come out genetically wired. Within that context we make choices, exercise free will choices. No one has complete free will. Maybe not even God.
@@TimBitts649 "Lead us not into temptation" Yeah this translation did not survive Pope Francis, much like Catholic Church won't survive him either: it''s now "do not let us fall into temptation"
"If my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle" wait this saying doesn't work any longer in America
great, now I'm wondering if Mr. Mele was free to choose or was predetermined not to blink through the entirety of this video.
Or to write a book "Free Will - An Opinionated Guide"
Hahahaha
I totally disagree with the POV ascribed here, as the Libertarian view that from Randomness you can learn from the past is self contradictory, and equally, from Determinism, Compatiblism is just a political spin off to maintain the status quo without stirring to much the waters of human comfort zone regarding social organization.
Freewill questions have nothing to do with the input one agent receives. A human decision can only come from freewill or not, and it comes after we observe the input from the environment. Chance refers to an event, not human decision, unless you consider human as an event. Considering this thought experiment: In computer science, I doubt we can tell computers to generate a truly random number. We can tell it to measure an unpredictable event in real life and then generate a number base on what it observes, however, the computer itself is still deterministic, only the event it's measuring is random. If you replace that computer with a human, we observe random events and then make decisions, that decision can only be from us or not, nothing to do with random events.
The Self is always Free but it is not to be alone...
Genesis Two Eighteen
The Gospel is Love
Seems to me that the idea of free will is based on our emotions, our feelings, our experiences, our point of view, our goals, our childhood, our culture, our mental health and a bunch of other stuff,
Reflection is key in a world which contains almost none. Unfortunately, most people cannot see beyond the physical version. Yet the other three mirrors (mental, psychological, spiritual) are of far greater importance to confront.
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In Time, all points converge: hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the Universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
But by taking into account past failures, that presupposes those past failures have a direct impact on the person's current decision. They learned to do better next time BECAUSE they failed prior. If they hadn't failed prior, they would've made the same mistake this time. But they DiD fail prior. So, now, their past is verifiably dictating their future. That's literally determinism.
We really, really hate the idea we aren't free. But we really aren't. It's just simple logic. No amount of wiggling and worming will make it any different. Just do the best you can and assume that you're destined to be a better person than not as a result of your striving.
There seems a lot to me in his argument that’s false. Learning from past experiences doesnt support free will. Why one person learns a lesson and another person doesn’t from the same experience, is all determined by their genetics and history.
How did you arrive that conclusion? Rational thought? Evidence? Oh sorry, it’s just your genetics and history I forgot.
What made you write this comment? Or if you believe you're thinking rationally and looking at evidience, why? You're genetics and all the events you've had until the moment you wrote up to this point. Nothing else. @@siroutrage1045
Because the universe is not deterministic, our brains have the power to weight probabilstic forces of such universe and come to a conclusion of what action to take , i.e. god does place dice with the universe as much as u do when u gamble or make a decision of relevance
Yes it is.
Done
Yes, we could say that there is no free will, if not for one "little" problem. Subjective experience.
Why there are hunger, thirst and other similar feelings? For who? Hunger creates that urge for me to go and find the food. If there is no free will, that is completely pointless, as my body would go and take the food automatically. No need to pressure it with hunger feeling
"Subjective experience" is very malleable and, well, subjective. Your feels do not necessarily reflect reality
What on earth are you talking about? Hunger is just another deterministic result of the organisms physical state, just as the organisms subsequent behaviour is a deterministic result of that sensation of hunger combined with other deterministic factors …
@@kierenmoore3236 Does a robot that goes to power itself when it loses its energy has a subjective feeling of needing energy, in the same way living things have hunger feeling? Does it need to have it in order to go and recharge itself? I don't think so. It just goes there automatically. We can make that kind of a robot even today, let alone in billions of years.
Not to start about how subjective experience cannot be explained by physical processes right now. And it is pointless. Robot could do all that stuff without consciousness. And we are just a biological robots by theory of not having a free will
@@milannesic5718exactly! As Tom Campbell would say, awareness with choice! Please explain how homosexuality exists in a biological male/female if we have no choice and the laws of physics are all that exists. Please explain how couples are married and “choose” to not have children even though the MOST IMPORTANT law of nature is reproduction of the species. Seems like nobody will ever be able to explain this other than us having free will. Now I don’t think other animals have much free will, but that’s due to their machinery not being as sophisticated as humans so they are not aware of other choices like humans are. As you can tell I take consciousness as fundamental like Tom Campbell or Bernardo Kastrup does. The most unlikely thing in the entire universe in my opinion is awareness arising from otherwise dead material. Voodoo!
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *""Subjective experience" is very malleable and, well, subjective. Your feels do not necessarily reflect reality"*
... There is no greater level of first-person information than "subjective experience" as this is pure, unfiltered data that YOU are exclusively processing. We are the framers of reality.
100%
The greatest of what I call necessary illusions, is the feeling of absolute or libertarian free will.
The feeling is so pervasive that some of us will defend it to our dying breath, and believe me I know that feeling.
I feel it all day long, maybe even in my sleep, but it’s an illusion, which strictly speaking isn’t quite right. It’s a delusion - believing in something that doesn’t actually exist.
Some of us, indignant that others believe determinism to be true, will resort and appeal to randomness, not realizing that randomness doesn’t grant free agency, rather exactly the opposite.
Some random quantum fluctuation in your brain decides your decisions? What? How is that free will?
Why do we feel absolute or libertarian free will?
Why do we not instead feel "deterministic impulsion" or a sense of being "pushed" (say) which would be congruent with determinism?
The feeling of freedom, given a reasonably healthy mind, militates strongly against determinism.
i prefer expensive will, or weighted will.
If I say to you, put a cup on a table about 3 meters from a comfortable chair, now sit in the comfortable chair, relax, relax, now focus on the cup, make sure you are very relaxed, no straining, now slowly focus further.... Will the cup to move.... Tell me the result and I can explain something life changing
I wonder what the phillosophers, who think free will is an illusion, description of free will would actually be.
Or are they saying free will is impossible?
"Free will" is poetry, it's most probably _necessary_ poetry just like religion is to _Homo sapiens_ without which human existence as we know it wouldn't be possible at all but it' not an actual thing
By free will I suppose we mean the experience of weighing alternatives, coming to a decision and acting on that decision. As an inner experience, this is as real as any other feeling.
You make choices but you can't choose your choices. Your decisions are based on pre existing conditions. Whatever you choose is the one singular outcome. You don't make any decisions, the decisions are already there.
@@septopus3516 agree 100%
I think the reason why so many people believe in free will is that we're conscious of (some of) our thought processes. So until consciousness is understood much better, I think arguments over free will can't be settled. An interesting possibility is that consciousness is a helpless passenger that experiences thought processes but does not influence thought processes, which are essentially deterministic (except for occasional quantum randomness that also can't be influenced).
@@septopus3516 There is one little escape for freedom, which might be difficult to understand when one is not familiar with Many Worlds interpretation of QM. Consider every event already laid out in the eternal totality of possible states. Therein are countless 'yous' who are experiencing their worlds. At any point are also countless 'yous' with identical pasts but divergent futures. That is called "branching". Each of the 'yous' is equally real, still the you 'you' is always experiencing only a singular story line. At the point of branching, there is nothing in the physical world that decides which of the 'yous' with different futures are you. Don't know if this makes sense to anybody.
@@septopus3516 *"You make choices but you can't choose your choices."*
... I can evaluate all of my options (choices) and "choose" to decide to make no decision either way.
*"Whatever you choose is the one singular outcome."*
... Investors that short a stock that they already own as a backup plan might disagree.
*"You don't make any decisions, the decisions are already there."*
... Are all nondecisions included in your "set of all predetermined decisions?" Are you seriously going to argue that choosing to make *no decision* is predetermined just like when someone makes a decision? You know that's circular reasoning, right?
Let's say there was never a construct like "hard determinism" ever proposed. I then make the bold claim, _"Every decision we make is predetermined."_ You respond with, _"I don't believe that's true."_ Then I say, _"That's because it was predetermined that you would not believe it to be true."_
How do you argue against my circular claim?
Let's say that there is no free will, and determinism rules the world.
This necessarly means that you are making the statement above only and soley because you are deterministically compelled to do so, and not because of critical thinking or rational choiche.
Essentialy, by saying that everything is predetermined, you're are also admitting that you are predetermined to say/believe so. Which seems kind of circular but let's not focus on that.
Ok, fine. So how you determine whether your (100% compelled and coerced) first statement about free will is true or false? How do you know you are being "deterministically compelled toward the truth" (and not falsehood?)?
Assuming that you have opted for determinism on the basis of empirical observation and experience of causality and, from that, inferered determinism... we must not forget there is no strong evidence for absolute ed inevitable causality. So the leap "from the degree of observable causality" to the "highest degree of conceivable causality" is an ontological unjustified leap from the ground of actual experince to the thin air of pure reasoning.
But let's admit that there is impeccable logic that can "prove" determinism. Well, I dont' see how logic can prove your statement true or false, being impeccable logical reasoning nothing more than a deterministc phenomenon happeninig in your brain, qualitatively and materialistically no different from questionable or false logical reasoning
If determinism is true, nothing else matters. You'll say whatever you're determined to say, think whatever you're determined to think, feel however you're determined to feel, and no amount of reasoning can make the slightest difference. You're just a robot watching a movie.
@@petromax4849 Actually, strict determinism would have been entirely useless even for Laplace's demon, if "he" was a physical entity (i.e. obeying the same laws of physics as everything else).
He could predict the entire future history of the ( Newtonian ) universe , including the future history of "himself", his thoughts etc. but that would have been entirely pointless, as he couldn't change even the slightest detail of these predictions!
Absence of or denying the existence of free will calls into question things like morality and accountability. Without free will, nether concept can exist.
Indeterminism does not necessitate randomness-the two are not equivalent.
Randomness is a sub-category of indeterminism but they are not the same thing.
An agent causes an effect based on its nature and a free willed decision from that nature (a decision of alternative possibilities); a decision which is not determined by any preceding external causes of the agent (which at most act only as an influence but not a necessity). To call that random is a tautology because it is basically saying anything that is not determined is by necessity random and therefore not free either-even if it is a ontological free choice of a being freely acting upon certain factors in such a way that it could have chosen otherwise.
Also, his scenario of rewinding time and doing the opposite decision the second time is logically impossible.
Based on the logical law of non-contradiction something can not be both A and not A (~A) in the same sense and at the same time.
So it is logically impossible for man M at in circumstance C and time T to do X; then to rewind to all the same factors above and man M do ~X. This would violate the logical law of non-contradiction.
However, this does not mean man’s choice was determined and could not have been any other way. The key distinction here is concerning what man M COULD do and what he WOULD do.
He COULD have truly done either X or ~X; however he WOULD only choose to do one of them (it is logically impossible he WOULD choose both; therefore, no matter how many times you rewind the clock he would always freely choose the same action).
There is no free will
@@notanemoprog
My experience tells me I have it.
You need a strong defeater to overcome the justification which comes from direct experience.
To clarify the difference, you might make an example.
@@mrfabulous4640 Watch Sabine Hossenfelder's video "You don't have free will, but don't worry" it's bound to change your mind
To assume scientifically that the universe is deterministic, implies that there must be an equation or some scientific expression of its behavior, include ours. And if we presume that this law can be known by some finite means, it may as well be broken once known, which is a paradox. Therefore, either we are designed to never know the law, or there is no law, or the law can't be interfered with whatsoever.
Also, a deterministic world doesn't imply that the determinism itself is random. Thus, one could very well question the source of that determinism, and then the source of that source, .... just like one can question the source of god, and so on..
If there’s no free will then there’s no reasoning. It’s a self-refuting proposition
It's not that our wills are free; it's that our goals are broad. And even if we can't will our goals exactly, having them be humanly broad makes us free-er than animals (in some sense). Determinism means every thing is caused, but being a "thing" is in no way a proof of being a non-participant in causation. Did Mozart, his genes, culture, family, or the immediate environment write his concertos? Arguably these factors had huge effects, but the obvious causation is still system Mozart. He is the pointy-end of his causality spear, or the lens through which all his past determinism was focused.
I don't think the choice of determinism is actually a dichotomy, At Qm levels there is no determinacy as such, it's only as you climb into higher complexity does the preponderance of conditions become deterministic. That is why probability and relativity have functional value. As it applies to freewill, then it must be a variable. This is why no agreement is applicable to blanket theories on the subject, it is by nature subjective.
There is so-called free will but within the arena, it's incomplete (limited but does exist).
the Arena is so-called material world.
it's a complicated matter (there are two cycles)
there's existence (which is cycle two) and there's cycle one (which is so-called material world).
it's hard ti say that cycle two is so-called super-deterministic but something similar but not the same (long story).
Still too early for all that.
If determinism is correct the very first virtual particle that started the universe must have contained all the information about what was to follow which it obviously being a singularity did not. So determinationism is disproven.
Why couldn't a singularity contain that information?
you were there? you looked?
It’s clear there is no total free will because we are animals with a nature, human nature. All our choices take place only within that realm of possibilities. His argument for free will then appears to be along the lines of Aristotle’s habits, that it is hard to change your trajectory but with protracted work and effort you can. That is the way I see it. The inanimate world is deterministic, but once you add life, and especially higher life forms like humans, then the rules have changed. It is incorrect to map the laws of physics 1:1 onto life.
Universe: you will have cake!
You: I want pie!
You go to the market and they have no pie.
So, you buy cake, and eat it too!
The universe drives you to stay on track.
So there is a God?
@@thesuncollective1475 how am I supposed to know? I know there is a Santa.
*"Universe: you will have cake!*
*"You: I want pie!"*
*"You go to the market and they have no pie."*
*"So, you buy cake, and eat it too!"*
*"The universe drives you to stay on track."*
... I decide to make no decision either way. ... Is the universe now _off-track?_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC the universe is never off track. The universe is the track.
@@quantumkath *"the universe is never off track. The universe is the track."*
... Your opening comment stated, _"The universe drives you to stay on track."_ If the universe drives me to stay on track, then there must be times when the universe is not on track and therefore it must be driven back on track ... correct? Otherwise, there's no motivation for the universe to compel me to do anything at all.
If you have believe you have " will " and since it is you using that " will " then you have free will to act as your own conscious agent to act as you please.
As i se the world now I would go for Robert Sapolsky his definition
Sapolsky is a demented freak who has a pathological aversion to the concept of personal responsibility and blameworthiness. He makes Sam Harris seem almost reasonable in comparison.
It seems to me that here free will is equated with the ability to learn. Then, however, we would have to concede also already very primitive animals and also computers a free will. Their mental models are simpler, but also they decide on the basis of made experiences which are built into this mental model.
The assumption of Libet experiment that free will must always be conscious is pointless - we consider many things subconsciously, we even say, for example, that we have to sleep before we make a decision. We decide by thinking partly consciously and partly subconsciously during dream.
Or in a judo, box or sword fight - fighters decide obviously but do not decide consciously at all -- their movement are too quickly and too complicated. A novice driver presses the pedals consciously, but the experienced driver decides without realizing it. -- It is proof that we decide not always consciously.
It's incredible that intelligent people need to argue for the existence of free will. Their own intelligence is used to prove they have no intelligence.
Hahaha lol 😆 🤣
Free will, as in choices without resistances! First define free, as without opposition or resistance or cost! Next define will, as in the force or commitment or effort towards a goal. The wrong definition of free will is what creates the paradox.
Question : Why did a pair of twins separated at birth and having never met, name their kids the same, both twins chose the same careers, marry a woman with the same name, they drive the same car?
See my answer regarding human nature. We are constrained by human nature, the roots of which go back to biological evolution and also, secondarily, to culture and upbringing. The similarities in separated twins that you point out show this well.
I love it when educated people spout. The obvious. I love it even more when the religious folks argue for Free Will, the very FW which their deities' omnisciences blow right out of the water. Simply put-
-your God/s know what YOU are going to do, so what alternative do you have?
What npcs and main characters do in a video game has no effect on how it starts or ultimately ends.
Who says that free will is equal to the best will?🤔
freewill is a feeling ... that is not supported by physical laws. What is wrong with that. Our feelings are wrong all the time.
correct, but that wouldn't write you a best-selling book, conferences, interviews on this channel etc, etc...
Some (lots of?) Neuroscientists think so too
Determinism requires laws, but there is no law about what I am writing right now. Based on Mele's view, that's not compatibilism.
No person can ever prove that they could do otherwise than what they did
Even an absolute Free Will could not be available for God if God means to share and share alike, what belongs to the first carries to the last and all that falls in the middle between first and last. God must bow down to the people and surrender any absolute power , if God means to share with humanity the concept of life. So , the price of an absolute free will is absolute loneliness to be absolutely unable to share anything with any other, and stand absolutely alone , it becomes futility, even for God. So God must give away the absolute power of being alone and so in sharing all all things, God moves from a singular idea to a plural majestic resolution of sacrifice of giving way to randomness and divisive reactions, so that as Solomon said "Time and Chance happen to all men". So we have a relevant free will but not an absolute free will, because whatever is going on that is happening is being shared, among many.
Determinism and fatalism are NOT the same, randomness is NOT the opposite of determinism and Chez Pierre is a strip club NOT fine dining.
Fatalism actually assumes a certain amount of choice, the universe or a god or w/e, decided an outcome before hand and everything/ everyone is going towards it regardless... Determinism has a subtle but important distinction, results are determined by what preceded them. That doesn't necessarily mean there's only one outcome. For example a fatalist view might have a notion of lack of freewill that excludes multi-verses since there's truly only one inevitability set in motion; however, a determinist view might ascribe to the idea of multiverses allowing for a variety of possibilities that a set of causes may bring about, still without the need for freewill. There are other implications of both that can differ.
I think what truly bothers people about determinism is less a question of whether we're in control of ourselves and more, deep below the surface, it's a question of control over others. If pure determinism is correct, Bundy didn't kill those girls; everyone and everything that happened before and during that time killed the girls and just happened to do it via Bundy. We have no villain to blame nor sense that justice can be served even when he's executed. We lose control of the external as well as internal, which for many, admitting lack of control over the external is very frightening but lack of control of the internal is a sort of relief.
Determinism is really a question of cause and effect though: Do effects come about because of something or do effects spontaneously come into existence?
If a series of causes results in a specific and finite array of possible 1st degree/ direct outcomes, then the reason you're thinking and "choosing" what you're thinking and choosing are the results of things that came before them.
Deterministically even the dice toss only seems random but if you precisely replicate the toss factoring in all variables (position of the di resting in the hand, the pressure it's held with, the number and speed of shakes/ vibrations, the air pressure, and so on) the di will land the same each time.
We can question whether we "know" what we claim to know, by sufficient deduction or by more questionable inductions (then i would agree, we must be agnostic) but then we also have to change the name of "science" to something that means 'pretty sure' instead of 'knowledge'. But if we claim that empirical materialism measured by our current models of eliminating variables and proving/ testing accordingly, are in fact "science" then we're doomed to accept determinism - anything in the realm of "science" as we know it ought to adhere to that; whereas, philosophy has the luxury of questioning it.
If you're a scientist you are bound to say, 'The cue handled in this specific way, with it's own peculiarities, struck the cue ball with its particular weight and shape etc. in this spot and in this way, the ball was on this table in this spot with it's own quirks, which caused the ball to roll in a certain way under a particular amount of heat, air pressure, atmosphere, and so on... and so you put bread in the toaster and either burnt the toast or didn't, you cried or laughed... you're neurodivergent enough that you "chose" to read this because of everything preceding this moment in your life and brain, each of which occurences were caused by everything that lead to those peculiar events, and as a result you're reading it. It all conspired quite accidentally, to cause this moment'.
If you're a philosopher you get to say, 'we've only had a limited number of pool cue strikes against balls with these exact variables measured and so can't be completely sure that we don't live in a universe where occasionally the ball struck in this exact way, instead of moving in that way, turns directly into burnt toast and ask what if a ball pops out of your toaster when you put bread in, or, if a donkey is lead directly between two equal stacks of hay, with no wind or other form of influence, and having never experienced anything nor any genetics causing a predisposition towards moving left or right, will the donkey starve or make a choice?'.
I'm tired and doubt what i said will make sense later, is my doubt caused by previous experience or is it something that spontaneously developed just now? Was the universe as we know it, with our memories and minds as they are created last Thursday? Are we all just blind psychics?
Even nothing isn't free.
How free are you to do whatever you want? Probably less than you think.
We are not free to do anything we have not learned is at least possible to do.
We are not free to do anything that we have not taken the time to actually learn how to do.
We are not free to understand anything we have not taken the time to understand.
Our choices are directly limited by our knowledge and experience.
For example, we can't even imagine doing something, creating something, unless we know it is at least possible. Then, we can't actually do or create that thing unless we have learned how to do it, or create it.
If we follow that logic, a baby is not free to make make very many choices. Also, by that same rational thinking process, we are most free when we have the most knowledge and experience.
But, of the choices we are aware of, what drives us and motivates us to make certain choices? That is the deeper mystery of human existence. It is linked to the social network in which we are raised, our personality, our natural skills and abilities. In other words, nature and nurture. Reflecting on, and understanding our own nature, and who we really are, what we really want, is part of the secret sauce of making good choices for ourselves.
Most of education is about at least knowing that something is possible, that some knowledge or skill is possible to attain. Actually learning, taking the time, and gaining the specific skills needed is much harder. For example, learning by watching (ie, youtube videos, or a lecture) is important, but only part of learning what is possible. Getting down and dirty, and actually learning by doing, to gain mastery of a skill, is much harder, but much more rewarding. Learning skills requires learning it is ok to fail, and learning how to try, and try again. This includes learning your own limits, and knowing when to give it a break or even quit altogether. Often, it requires learning how to work with other people that you may or may not like, and negotiating social networks like in a business or government environment.
I really believe you can do anything you want, if you set your mind to it. But our lifetime is limited, and we make choices within the limited time we have on this earth. 22,000 days is the average lifespan of a human. And that may mean we need to give up the possibility of doing other things.
Becoming the master of some set of skills and/or knowledge is part of what become an adult is all about, and what makes life so satisfying and rewarding. But it may also mean giving up doing or learning other things, or order to do what we really want. Being an adult is about making choices.
In other words, we can do anything we want, but we can't do everything we want.
On one level, some of the above may seem blindingly obvious or trivial, and not necessary to say. But it becomes much deeper, and more meaningful the more you realize that the time you have on this earth is limited.
What do you really want to do with your life, given the limited time you have?
Clearly human agents make choices; they have will. So the question is "How free is that Will". If you think with any subtlety you know that there are different degrees of freedom.
But the ethical conundrum only arises when it is necessary for philosophers to PROVE that God is merciful despite his horrid torture of sinners. Since they had FREE WILL, we must accept their grotesque punishment. If we are released from that obligation to understand a wrathful God, then we all know that all our choices reflect our nature. Our task is to improve ourselves. That used to be called Wisdom. To what extent consciousness is Causal remains to be worked out.