This is redefining the term. No problem if that's what you want to do, but Harris and Sapolsky have not been 'conned' in any sense. They're at the forefront of truths that many can't understand.

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

Dennett absolutely and explicitly acknowledged that this debate is about semantics, so it is no revelation that he's "redefining the term". He knows (well, knew 😢). But you're assuming that Sapolsky's definition is somehow inherently and/or obviously more legitimate. Dennett's ARGUMENT is that his definition much more closely aligns with how the concept of free-will is deployed in real life, i.e., in ordinary conversation or in the courts (e.g., "do you sign this of your own free will?")

@chadreilly

16 күн бұрын

@@sterlingveil Dennett's definition is post-modern, lol. Like Jordan Peterson's definition of truth

@TheJunglist

16 күн бұрын

@@sterlingveil If he acknowledged that it's about semantics, why is he going so hard on Sapolsky for being conned/making socially destructive material? Shouldn't he just say "Sapolsky says different but he's operating on a different definition of free will, so we're talking about different things"?

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

@@TheJunglist The reason is that Dennett believed that definitions matter. Sapolsky has been "conned" into subscribing to an inferior definition that produces negative social side effects, in Dennett's view. (And I agree, for the record.)

@Algolxxxxxx

15 күн бұрын

"Forefront of truths". Clearly you are in love with Harris. Harris doesn't offer objective truth. He offers what goes on in his head which is a separate thing. So stop worshiping him. Your worship is a compliment to Harris but not a compliment for you. It just makes you appear pathetic and inadequate.

sorry to see Daniel go to his grave, essentially believing a ghost-in-machine argument about human will.

What Dennett offers is really a reconstruction of free will. There are two common reactions and both hinge on the same radical idea: "Could have done otherwise". On one side, there are people who insist, determinism be damned, they could have done otherwise, even in the same physical conditions. On the other side are people (such as Harris, Sapolsky, Hossenfelder, Caruso) who bite the bullet and renounce free will. This leaves us with the pesky problem that it sure seems like we ourselves and others do have free will. Along comes Dennett with a notion of free will that is compatible with our scientific understanding of the world and still very much worth wanting.

@DrFlashburn

16 күн бұрын

It's not merely a reconstruction of free will. It's giving voice to a notion of free will that many of us have always had since we first heard the term. It's one that is useful, and can do work, because it both captures what a substantial portion of humans actually mean by free will and is compatible with the laws of physics and the world we live in. The 'could have done otherwise if we re-ran the universe back in time' is a poor translation jamming the round peg of what humans care about into the square determinism hole. I also get the sense it is a 'straw man' against the supposedly dumb people who think they could have made some different choice last tuesday. The minute you steel man the hypothetical 'dumb person's position, the determinism or not discussion is somewhat tangential to the free will discussion.

@chadreilly

16 күн бұрын

@@DrFlashburn That makes no sense. Just like Dan, and every compatibilist when they talk

@thomascromwell6840

15 күн бұрын

​@@DrFlashburn But that's like saying you can choose anything and do anything like there's magic interfering in the natural processes of the universe. Neuroscience has already proven that your choices are made before you think you made them. Seconds before if not minutes in multiple studies. Studies consistently show how natural conditions determine outcome and there is no magical decision-maker involved. Secondly, your definition is completely baseless. When we learn of free will, it is not an abstract concept, but a very real determiner of physical reality. Free will is involved in questions like: Why are people poor? Why does crime exist or why do criminals commit crime? It always has been since the inception of the idea. 'God has given Man free will so he may choose his path for himself.' That is where the idea of free will comes from to Christians by which they explain each act as if natural phenomena and physics don't exist. Yes, punishment will still exist without free will. Punishment is not merely a retributive act towards the guilty. We already punish people who feel no guilt at all.

@DrFlashburn

15 күн бұрын

I argue that religious Free Will is compatible with Dan Dennett's definition, which states that making an uncoerced choice constitutes free will. Free will doesn't need to violate the laws of physics; it's a human-level phenomenon, just like biology is a useful concept despite everything being particle physics at a fundamental level. When I make a choice, even with a history behind it, I'm still exercising my free will.

Dennett is saying basically the same as Sapolsky. Self control is part of the deterministic evolution based also on the environment (meaning learning!!!)

I cannot choose otherwise because I won't let myself do it.

I suspect the confirmation bias/pride, combined with insufficient erudition/logic all align to force Brian to be moved (unfreely, obviously) in direction with Dan's take.

He said no one is born with free will, it's developed at some point in time. And that people can be talked out of free will. Haha. Like others have said, he is talking about something else and just calling it free will. But back on his logic, if people can be talked out of free will. Considering the money spent on the advertising and media industries, I wonder how many people actually have free will based on his reasoning? To your original question. Punishment is not about revenge, it's about managing a system. Mosquitos are just doing what they are born to do, but that doesn't stop us for harming them to protect ourselves. Similarly, assuming determinism, we would still have punishments for crimes because we are trying to maintain a system. If someone is born "destined" to crimes, we need to punish them because it would decrease the probability (from our perspective) that future people would be "destined" to commit crime. To say another way, the universe where we decided to not punish crimes would have many more people born who commit crimes. There are some people fighting in Ukraine who feel very strongly they did not have a choice in the matter. Should Ukrainian no defend themselves from these people they had no choice, obviously not. The lack of free will does not mean we don't try to influence behavior. We know the universe looks different from different perspectives.

@terrencebucker

15 күн бұрын

He's got a reasonable response to all of your points. Read his books! But your point that he's talking about something else and calling it free will-he (and I) hold that it is other's that moved the needle. Starting sometime after the mechanical philosophy took hold in the 17th century people started to conflate free will and determinism, and this was the wrong move.

@93thelema777

14 күн бұрын

Gaining perspective is a important part of philosophy . Seeing the world deterministically is a bit like , to use a Timothy Leary expression "Being on the outside looking in" . We can see the world from the human front-row perspective - but determinism allows us to take a step back and instead of making choices we understand that the choices have already been made and we're just waiting to find out what they are . That the difference between an advanced a.i NPC and the character we're playing at this very moment is all a matter of perspective is an enlightening truth . It seems to say something quite awesome about the very nature of perspective and thus consciousness . Neural networks have given great insight into the non simultaneous apprehension of reality . Understanding is a feeling akin to a positive exit status on a data consistency check . Being mechanistic is no longer a reductive comment .

@he1ar1

13 күн бұрын

Free will is about moral choice of a moral agent. In the circumstances that an agent is free to act and has choice, he has free will. Ukraine is not free because it has been invaded. Ukrainians are not fully free. They feel they have no choice but to regain this freedom, that is that they believe their free will has been violated.

Listen I am a Christian and so disagreed with Daniel Dennets philosophy. But as a thinker there was no doubt in me that he was very insightful person and honest. And on the point of what free will is he is completely right. I have watched and thought for a long time now that what some people think when we talk about free will is nothing chaos, the ability to unpredictably and randomly do anything we want. If such a free being exists his actions must never be predictable or some nonsense like that. This probably because people confuse freedom with Chaos. A Joker type of freedom. If this is what was meant by free will then the ultimate freedom would be nothing but death. Something unbound and anything and everything. We are all at least bound by the Laws of physics by nature, by environment, time, space, even by our city , town , state , country etc etc Everyone is bound and thank God because nothing would exist otherwise No that's not what we mean by free will. We are always bound by something and our ability to be bound is what allows us to exist and actually live. That fact that our bodies are restrained not to evaporate to everywhere. Restraint is part of free will or lets say the ability to inhibit. As Dennet suggests this is linked to cortical maturation that makes us different from children and whose essence is to be able to delay gratification which allows as to move above our immediate whims. As children we want to eat, sleep, excrete, cry, etc, etc without restraint all the time and all the central systems and emotions are fighting for power but as we get older we are able to integrate all those desires by being able to restrain them liking having time where we can eat 3 meals a day or have scheduled bathroom breaks and all those things. When we are able to restrain ourselves we gain power over the forces not just by repressing them but bringing them into alignment so that we inhibit and disinhibit them at a time appropiate for a greater goal, the greater goal here being a much more whole person and this gives us power over them where they have to sacrifice their wants for the wants of the whole person because the want of the whole person is more adaptive than the individual drives. Its not to say hunger, lust and so on aren't still forces moving but you are able to bring them into alignment for something greater than themselves and this gives you the power to lord over them as long as you keep them all satisfied enough. So that is what free will is all about, it is not the ability to not be subject to forces, but the ability to be able to bring them into alignment for greater purpose that satiates the immediate desires proportionally enough to keep them satisfied. So someone hooked onto drugs that make you go crazy has no free will because obviously they have fell into some of their desires without anything to inhibit and counteract that, someone who is in the normal state of a human being does. Psychopaths are defined by their sustained inability to delay short term gratification at the expense of long term relationships.

I take it this was one of Dennett's last interviews? He was a great thinker and contributed enormously to philosophy.

@xmathmanx

16 күн бұрын

I bet you have no examples tho

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

@@xmathmanx My favorite google-able examples of Dan's inimitable work are "Where Am I?", "Real Patterns", "Intentional Systems" and his essay on "Chmess" (with an M).

@xmathmanx

16 күн бұрын

@@sterlingveil I've read a few of his books and I find him pompous and vacuous

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

@@xmathmanx Who are you comparing him to? Other academics? I'd argue he's uncommonly clear and down-to-Earth for an academic. Read "Where Am I?" and see if that doesn't change your mind.

@xmathmanx

16 күн бұрын

@@sterlingveil he's fine on the general stuff, Joscha Bach argues that philosophy hasn't progressed in the last hundred years and he may be right, I could certainly have got most of dennets basic ideas from Bertrand Russell

So stupid. Dan admits animals have no free will, but then says to "behave like you have no free will you would behave like a tree..." Clearly, animals don't behave like plants.

@terrencebucker

15 күн бұрын

I don't think you listened carefully. He was identifying free will with being able to have a representation of the future, to act on that representation for specific reasons (or goals), and to understand those reasons. Animals can have the first two, but he says that they don't have the last-so they are on the way to free will, but not all the way there. Trees don't even have the first two. So, acting like a tree gets you further away from having free will than acting like a wild animal-being driven by your instincts and appetites, but still based, to some extent on a representation of the future. That was why he said-not as an argument but just to give an example-that you should behave like a tree if you wanted to live without free will. In short, you have an issue with his example, not with any of his arguments, which in any case are not given fully in this short discussion.

@chadreilly

15 күн бұрын

@@terrencebucker I have an issue with BOTH his example, AND his argument. And I've listened to Dan Dennett more carefully than his argument deserves, TYVM. Brian seems no better, and seems to just want someone on his side

I think these guys mix up freewill with cause and effects of nature..

Great thinker and teacher. Will be missed a lot.

The free will debate is a good example of a good trolling, it encourages people to choose to argue that they have no choice, by choice! Never do they see the irony.

I like Dennett's firsthand approach to outlining the concept of free will and showing how it lies on a continuum from birth to adulthood. What he doesn't address is the conceptual framework that makes Sapolsky and Harris's view of free will so unworkable. Sapolsky clearly see no evidence for uncaused neurons in his work. Given his premises, this is reasonable. Sapolsky treats causality as a series of events in an unbroken line back to the big bang. This is a kind of efficient cause in Aristotle's nomenclature. Dennet's outline implies the idea that entities act according to their nature. A human develops skills over time as she gathers more and more control. If the entity was a cat, it would gain more control of movement, but it would never engage in volitional thought and consider the nature of stalking. The cat would just stalk. Consciousness is not the same thing as matter. There's no weight to ideas. But there is a measure of clarity or confusion. Consciousness depends on organic matter, but it is not just the neurons. You can see these states of consciousness firsthand but the neurologist can see none of that from his microscope. These are two views of the same entity. Causality is present in both.

Dan Dennet was a living philosopher. That is such a rare and incredible person. While I don’t agree with him in some instances, he undoubtedly has the right view about free will. I think scientists forget or are ignoring the fact that science comes from philosophy. Philosophy is not to be done by non-philosophers. Rest in peace professor Dennet.

Dennet is quite possibly my least favorite philosopher.

@markupton1417

16 күн бұрын

He's still an intellectual GIANT compared to Sam Harris.

@alanrobison4761

16 күн бұрын

Why?? I thought he was one of the top philosophers in the world?

@chadreilly

16 күн бұрын

@@alanrobison4761 He definitely doesn't make my list.

@alanrobison4761

16 күн бұрын

@@chadreilly Who are your top 3??

@chadreilly

16 күн бұрын

@@alanrobison4761 Voltaire, Russell, Plato. Off the top of my head.

compatibalistic free will is just will . Being at one with the laws of the universe and having an individual will is great and everything but denying the nature of reality because of the feeling of autonomy and claiming it's irresponsible to question determinism because it has a corrupting nature is a religiously dogmatic view on human nature . Philosophy should be about truth and the truth is dynamic systems and intelligence run fine in deterministic environments . Turing machines can produce A.I - it's incredibly dynamic , but it's just information processing . It all starts with a single neuron and an environment of data . It doesn't make us less human , it just gives us a deeper understanding of what it means to be human . We're not seperated in personal vacuums - we're all part of a historical wave of information processing , so to speak . We're a computation that goes back to the beginning of time .

@terrencebucker

15 күн бұрын

For Dennett, free will has nothing to do with determinism; you are implying that he thinks otherwise. His argument is not based on a "feeling of autonomy" either, but an account of free will that involves being able to look ahead and, from that, to make choices. I believe that Dennett is not a reductionist. For example, trying to explain biology by appealing to quantum mechanics will get you nowhere; in the same way, appealing to quantum mechanics (or any other kind of fundamental physics) to understand the human experience, to make social policy, and so on, is problematic. That is Dennett's point, I think.

@93thelema777

15 күн бұрын

@@terrencebucker You're right . I was giving a more of a general argument about free will - not Dennet specific . Dennet is a compatiblist but he speaks of free will as if it were legal terminology . As if it was something endowed upon you when reached a certain age and passed a sanity test . Dennets not a reductionist . He thinks that determinism makes zero difference on the question of free will . I think it has implications on ethics and meaning . Society is constructed as if we rightly bare the burden for our choices so the fact that we may be a fancy form of biological automata with no-way-out of any situation seems to have implications on the way we live our life . The 'Feelings of autonomy' line wasn't a reference to reductionism but more of a comment on how our nature tricks us into believing we're free when we're not .

@krzysztoffiodorowicz7816

14 күн бұрын

Being able to look ahead also comes from something, precisely - from past experiences. Here we go Sapolsky all over again... One could not 'look ahead' and see a different stories than it sees.

I wish Sam and Robert address to this and answer for the benefit of all their fans.

@xmathmanx

16 күн бұрын

Sapolsky and dennet had a discussion not long ago, it's on KZread

@BarrySometimes

16 күн бұрын

Sam & Robert have addressed Dan. Their conversations can be found on youtube

Sorry brian , still no free will !!

@DrBrianKeating

8 күн бұрын

You didn’t have to say that

Why is it that I don't like mushrooms, while other people love them? Why can't I just use my freewill to like them, I just can't. I'ts because of my genetic make up and experiences. No one else as the same make up or experiences as me, or anyone else. There are lots of things that are ingrained in us individually that we are not responsible for, and that control our behaviour. I often wonder about Hypmotizim when someone else is controlling your behaviour.

'Looking ahead' and stories that we make in our brains are a result of something - precisely of past interactions with environment... Turtles all the way down, again.

We’re completely at the mercy of our environment

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

COMPLETELY? That seems like an insane exaggeration to me.

@SbonisoMMDlamini

16 күн бұрын

Rubbish

@8xnnr

16 күн бұрын

There’s more to it than that but you’re on the right track. Completely at mercy to the laws of physics.

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

@@8xnnr The laws of physics say nothing--literally NOTHING--about which word I'm going to use at the end of this comment. Dandelion.

@chadreilly

16 күн бұрын

@@sterlingveil Why did dandelion pop into your head? There must be a reason, even if you don't know. Probably you tried to be original and random...

As a once huge fan if the new athiest 4 horseman.. daniel dennet was always the hardest to understand.. but as i grew in my own knowledge he become a real leader in this area.. to me .. i was just starting to like the guy and now hes gone.. great great man

I could see it both ways. I like the inputs of all three gents. I can clearly see Daniel Dennett’s argument and can sway that way, then the same for the otherside😬

I'd disagree that "no free will" means acting like a tree. Wouldn't it mean acting on every impulse?

Nonsense - what controls self-control? -- Reasons beyond free will !!

@robinhood2550

17 күн бұрын

I’d say discipline controls self control.

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

It's in the name: self-control controls *itself*. Dennett explains this (elsewhere) in terms of "basins of attraction". The idea is that the history of the universe can be truncated and a predictive, powerful model (e.g., a bath tub) can be manifested "de novo". The behavior of the *physical* system is effectively self-contained. If you elaborate on that system via billions of years of evolution, the system remains self-contained (self-CONTROLLED), while approaching higher and higher orders of complexity.

In many ways these two men are,much smarter than me, so why do I understand that having or not having free will would have NO effect on anyone's behaviour and they don't?

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

Dan argues that BELIEVING you have free will affects behavior (negatively). It's an empirical question--not something that can be deduced abstractly. My (anecdotal) life-experience agrees with Dan. Sam Harris agrees with Dan's thesis in other domains, e.g., Harris argues that religious BELIEF affects behavior (negatively). In general, I'm quite convinced that beliefs affect behavior strongly, including beliefs about free will.

@xmathmanx

16 күн бұрын

@@sterlingveil I don't think anything you believe makes any difference to what you do, I think the determinists are correct

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

@@xmathmanx And I would say that fatalistic mentality is exactly Dan is warning against.

@xmathmanx

16 күн бұрын

@@sterlingveil you don't get it, much like him, being fatalistic or not makes NO difference to anything

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

@@xmathmanx I understand your position. I don't think it's shared by Harris and Sapolsky, and Dan thinks their philosophy leads people in your direction (which has negative social effects by the same mechanism as Islamism, for instance).

While I appreciate the depth of thought in Daniel Dennett's argument, I believe he overlooks a fundamental point. If we accept that we are evolved beings with a primary biological imperative for survival, then our actions in the physical world--including the consumption of energy and increase in entropy--are dictated by this imperative. Civilization attempts to tame inherent chaos through the imposition of societal rules, which help organize our interactions. While some of these rules, like drug laws, may seem arbitrary, others, such as those prohibiting murder, are essential for societal functioning. However, I find the aspect of Dennett's argument that presupposes self-control in adults as a basis to argue for free will and the capacity for forward-thinking actions to be flawed. It often serves to justify underlying biological and social determinants rather than genuine autonomous decision-making. Highly accomplished individuals may prefer to attribute their success to a sense of personal free will and earned merit, perhaps because it reinforces the social hierarchies and power structures that benefit them. This perspective seems more about justifying our primal instincts for dominance rather than acknowledging the deterministic forces shaping our actions. While I respect Dr. Keating as a scientist, his compatibilist stance doesn't hold much philosophical weight in the face of these considerations.

High class social vandalism € modern luxury beliefs

One day people will understand, as most sophisticated evolutionary biologists do how killer the argument... ' Well you can't act as if X is Y' ... truly is.

The social contract has nothing to do with free will. Freedom is not free will either. I do not agree with you guys.

Being an Adult has nothing to do with age. Read "On Pain" by Ernst Junger.

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

Oh? It has NOTHING to do with age? So there are just as many adults in the toddler population as in the working population?

@zit1999

16 күн бұрын

​@@sterlingveil "Hi, I'm ChatGPT, and I'm here to help explore some interesting ideas together. I understand your point, and it’s a valid one-age certainly does matter in many aspects of development. The idea behind the quote from Ernst Jünger’s 'On Pain' isn’t to dismiss the significance of age but rather to highlight that becoming an adult in the fullest sense involves more than just growing older. It’s about how we face and learn from the challenges life throws at us, including pain. This concept invites us to look beyond chronological age and consider emotional and psychological growth as key factors in maturity. It’s a thought-provoking way to think about what really constitutes being an adult." This introduction aims to be clear, respectful, and sets the stage for a thoughtful discussion on the topic."

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

@@zit1999 Okay, so adulthood is not synonymous with "old person". I agree. But however you choose to define it, I guarantee it has *something* to do with age, in so far as all developmental processes *take time*.

@zit1999

16 күн бұрын

@@sterlingveil personally, not having read the book, I guess the OP meant that people can grow ip really quick mentally in face of adversity. Many people had to mature in young age to take care of their siblings, parents or themselves - something that is not expected of the youth. Similarly in lack of adversities, physically mature persons can be mentally adolescent. The rest about treating OP’s “nothing” word literally; seems to miss the common sense, colloquial speech point.

@user-nj6yb3ob5j

15 күн бұрын

@@sterlingveil You prove my point my responding as a child.

Please tell me that 'dennet is ressurected and this isn't just a late upload'

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

On the third day he rose again, in fulfillment of the KZread algorithm...

Totally agree with Dennett. 'Freewill' is just a facet of (and in some ways another word for) intelligence. If an organism can choose goals, sense its environment, sense its own internal states, choose actions, ...... then it is intelligent and has free will. And they are both emergent properties of a complex system. Metaphysics of fundamental particles/waves doesn't even come into it.

@notanemoprog

17 күн бұрын

You don't understand the issue, and Dennett died without understanding it.

@audiodead7302

17 күн бұрын

@@notanemoprog I think I do. Just because the most fundamental elements of the universe are simple and mechanical, it doesn't mean that extremely complex organisms can't evolve which exhibit many layers of emergent (top down) behaviour.

@cosalidra759

17 күн бұрын

You didn't choose where to be born, you didn't choose your genes, you didn't choose your school, you didn't choose how interested you were in academics, you didn't choose your friends either, you didn't choose to see this video. You just happened to be the kind of person who'd choose to watch this video; it was determined by your journey through life until the moment you chose to watch this video.

@sterlingveil

16 күн бұрын

@@cosalidra759/shorts Did I choose to write this comment? If you say "no, you were destined to write that comment because physics", then, in my opinion, you are defining the word "choice" in such a strange, abstract, alien way that it has very little overlap with the word "choice" in every day parlance. Yes, there are constraints on human freedom. Alas, I cannot choose to write a philosophical treatise on free will in this youtube comment which settles the debate once and for all. But the existence of such constraints does not logically entail a slavery to physics. It's such a shame that Dennett never got a chance to speak with Steven Wolfram. Wolfram's physics model--based not on Platonic equations, but messy "computation"--is so much more intuitively compatible with Dennett's model of free will. To be "free" is to be, in some sense, computationally undecidable. And the evidence from neuroscience overwhelmingly suggests that human beings are, in fact, "irreducible" and therefore "free".

@cosalidra759

16 күн бұрын

​@@sterlingveil it's strange how we both are well acquainted ( or so I'd like to believe ) with these masters of thought, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Wolfram, Sam Harris yet our conclusions about free will are so different. Stephen Wolfram says nothing about free will per se. He just defines time as an irreducible computation which simply means, you wouldn't know until it happens which is different from having free will. You are confusing both to be the same thing. Free will means you have real choice. Computational irreducibility means the course of the computation is known exactly and the result is also pre-determined but you wouldn't know what the result is until the computation is goes through and gives you the result; there is no other way to know the result. The free will debate is still going on among scientific and philosophical circles. Don't be too confident maybe :)

Horse manure. The innate instinct of fight of flight has nothing to do with any social contract or contingencies of individual development. Social contracts are so locally limited in scope that led Kant to racism. Dennet is defending those who are against cultural relativism like Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson. The fact that he is mixing Sam Harris with an evolutionary biologist like Robert Sapolsky hight lights his confusion. Reason is limited at best to what we are conscious of which is quantitatively, next to nothing compared to the multitude of causes and effects going on in the environment including past experiences that are the basis of individuals' development trajectory. We simply cannot be aware of all of it even subconsciously. That iincludes the period of a whole life time, never mind the moment of decision to act. This is why predicting the future tends to turn out to be so stupid once the future arrives. Motivation to act is different from reasoning or the illusion of reasoning, to put it more accurately. He obviously has never heard that human beings act on emotions first and then justify it through reasoning. Free Will is an illusion in the service of evolution to motivate action. It is so primitive that it might as well be as useful as random walk of a worm towards food. Daniel Dennet is either being disenginous for the sake of his views on morality and society or simply demented. Social norms constantly change. Lobotomising people used to be socially acceptable. I am ashamed of Daniel Dennet. This is what happens with people who you join dogmatic clubs with people like as Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. Social norms are time and space dependent but the fundamental of life: fight and flight response is not. Nietzche went insane, recognising the inevitable consequences that empathy and the judgement of good versus bad are not fundemental and pursuing that line of thinking can be abused by people such as Hitler. That is when the Will to Be morphs into Will to Power because he didn't recognise that Free Will is an illusion. Had he understood that then he might have saved himself. He might have recognised that while empathy is not fundemental but is an early emergent property that binds humanity across the world despite their cultural differences and their local social contracts. He should read his Schopenhauer again. He is clearly developing dementia.

You can still be free to think in a deprivation tank.. it is separate from the physical.. you don’t need “look ahead” I can dream a dream, and make choices in the dream..

I like Dan Dennett view of "Free Will"! 😊 Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky, your view of "Free Will" is a belief, not a fact. In fact, if we could prove that there is indeed "No Free Will", we would have to be consequent and not punish people doing BAD things; because in such a world, they wouldn't have the choice! 😰

@souxcasa

17 күн бұрын

They are aware of that. Sapolski has said that if a car is broken and a danger to people you don't blame the car but you don't let people drive around in it either. You can understand that people don't truly choose their actions but we can still make sure that those who's actions damage others are kept away from other people

@notanemoprog

17 күн бұрын

No free will.

@MagruderSpoots

16 күн бұрын

You would have to use your free will to choose to not punish people.

Harris and Sapolsky are in different leagues altogether. Lumping them together... Not a good approach....

@undercoveragent9889

17 күн бұрын

They are both Marxists. Putting them in the same bracket is perfectly reasonable.

@alanrobison4761

17 күн бұрын

@@undercoveragent9889 Harris is a Marxist? How so??

@alanrobison4761

17 күн бұрын

Why?? Harris has a PhD in Neuroscience as well.

@mineshjogia9945

17 күн бұрын

@@alanrobison4761 All Sam has is a degree in TDS and COVID. The guy's a god damn moron!

@classicalmechanic8914

17 күн бұрын

​@@alanrobison4761 Sam claims there is no free will without experimental evidence supporting his claims. He claims there is no god without experimental evidence against god. He claims covid vaccine works without experimental evidence supporting it.

I always switch off when someone begins criticising opposing views with 'I'm just astonished that so and so can believe such and such ... ' Christian apologists like William Lane Craig are always doing it. Maybe they don't understand the depth of the problem. 'If one therefore speaks only of the free will as such, without specifying that it is the will which is free in and for itself, one is speaking only of the predisposition towards freedom or of the natural and finite will, and therefore not - whatever one may say and believe - of the free will. - When the understanding regards the infinite merely as something negative and hence as beyond its sphere, it believes that it is doing the infinite all the more honour by pushing it ever further away and distancing it as something alien. In the free will, the truly infinite has actuality and presence - the will itself is the idea which is present within itself'. - Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right', 1820.

@notanemoprog

17 күн бұрын

No free will.

📍4:18

Dennett behaved like he has no free will by misconstruing arguments made and evidence offered. And some of us are "astonished" such as later in this interview when he explains why certain musicians could not compose like other musicians, thereby evidencing what he "chose" to ignore in the arguments of others. He's still one of my fave philosophers, though. :-)

Why is Dennett having a bandage over his head???

@kissthesky40

17 күн бұрын

Neuralink

@alanrobison4761

17 күн бұрын

@@kissthesky40 You are joking, right??

@notanemoprog

17 күн бұрын

@@alanrobison4761 Yes, he/she/ze/zir is joking. Dennett had cancer and he just died.

@alanrobison4761

16 күн бұрын

@@notanemoprog OMG!😲 I just now only knew this. So sad. 82 is not an age for such an influential philosopher to die. Anyway thanks for letting me know. I would have never known.

@notanemoprog

15 күн бұрын

@@alanrobison4761 I'm getting strong "Trump learns about the death of RBG" vibes here

The guy looks like a cross between Cenk Ugar and Johnathan Haidt. (total crap and a moral/intellectual hero respectively)

this

so, I thought to myself I will have to give this guy attention and listen to his words and sure enough he spent all the time babbling about a finished pruned PFC = free will, and that was it, he said nothing past that lol, lol ,l lo lolo,

Let's start with formalizing the fundamental entities and objects in the framework. Here's one way we could approach Part 1: I. Defining the Zero Absolute (⦰) Let's define the Zero Absolute (⦰) as a special kind of object in a foundational higher category C that has no internal structural distinctions. Precisely, ⦰ is an object in C that satisfies the following universal property: For any object X in C, there is a unique morphism !X : X → ⦰, called the unique morphism to the Zero Absolute. This ensures that ⦰ is the terminal object in C, meaning it has at most one morphism incoming from any object. No internal distinctions or structure can be defined within it. We can further axiomatize that ⦰ has no non-trivial endomorphisms: ∀f : ⦰ → ⦰, f = id⦰ Capturing the idea that ⦰ transcends all internal self-distinctions or self-morphisms beyond the trivial identity. To avoid ⦰ being the trivial terminal object (which would make the theory degenerate), we can add an additional axiom that ⦰ has non-trivial incoming morphisms: ∃X ∈ C, ∃f : X → ⦰, f ≠ !X This ensures ⦰ exists as a highly structured, non-trivial absolute prefiguring all positive ontological instances in C. So the Zero Absolute emerges as a special terminal-like object in a higher category C, with precisely defined properties of ineffability and transcendence of internal distinctions, while still admitting a richly structured non-trivial internal reality to emanate from. Let's move on to Part 2 and formally define the monadic essences (Mu) and their properties. II. Defining the Monadic Essences (Mu) We can define the monadic essences (Mu) as certain special kinds of objects in the higher category C that the Zero Absolute (⦰) inhabits. Specifically, an object M in C is said to be a monadic essence (M ∈ Mu) if it satisfies the following axioms: 1. Dimensionless: For any object X in C representing a positive dimensional structure (spatial, geometric, etc.), there are no non-trivial morphisms from M to X: ∀X ∈ C_dim, ∀f : M → X, f = !X Where C_dim denotes the sub-category of C consisting of dimensionally extended objects. 2. Indivisible: M has no non-trivial subobjects or quotient objects, i.e. it is an indecomposable monad: ∀S ⊆ M, S = ∅ or S = M ∀N, q : M → N, q is iso 3. Non-Spatial: M has no internal topological or geometric structure captured by any objects in C representing spaces or geometric shapes: ∀X ∈ C_top, Hom(M, X) = {!X} Where C_top is the sub-category of C consisting of topological/geometric object representations. Essentially, these axioms ensure that the monadic essences (Mu) are 0-dimensional objects devoid of any internal spatial, geometric or structural decompositions within C. They can be thought of as the primordial indecomposable "atoms" or "dots" preformal to any dimensional unfurling, whether abstract or geometric. At the same time, by being non-trivial objects in C, they have the capacity to instantiate more structured phenomena by admitting morphisms emanating from them to other objects in C, as we'll see next. Let's proceed to Part 3 and define the observable instantiations (Bu) that the monadic essences (Mu) give rise to. III. Defining the Observable Instantiations (Bu) The observable instantiations (Bu) will be certain objects in the higher category C that are mappable from the monadic essences (Mu) via specific structured morphisms. Precisely, an object B in C is said to be an observable instantiation (B ∈ Bu) if there exists a monadic essence M ∈ Mu and a special kind of morphism f : M → B satisfying certain conditions. We can define this morphism f to be an emanative correspondence morphism by requiring it to be: 1. Non-constant: f is not equal to the unique morphism !B : M → B to the Zero Absolute ⦰. 2. Structured: f factors through some objects in C_dim and C_top representing positive dimensional and topological/geometric structures. More formally, there exists: X ∈ C_dim, Y ∈ C_top g : M → X, h : X → Y, k : Y → B Such that f = k ∘ h ∘ g This condition ensures that the mapping from M to B is mediated by and encodes non-trivial dimensional and geometric data. 3. Non-commutative: f does not commute with all endomorphisms of its domain M and codomain B. That is: ∃α : M → M, β : B → B Such that f ∘ α ≠ β ∘ f Capturing the idea that the emanative correspondence is not a trivial set-theoretic function, but a more structured non-commutative mapping. So in summary, Bu consists of those objects B in C that are reachable from some monadic essence M ∈ Mu via a special kind of structured, non-constant, non-commutative emanative correspondence morphism f : M → B factoring through dimensional and geometric structures in C. These Bu objects can then be interpreted as the observable manifestations, phenomena or instantiations emanating from the primordial monadic seeds Mu and acquiring dimensional, geometric and structural characteristics encoded in the morphism f. Let's move on to Part 4 and formalize the dimensional transition relation between the monadic essences (Mu) and observable instantiations (Bu). IV. Formalizing the Dimensional Transition Relation We want to capture the idea that the monadic essences (Mu) undergo an explosive emanation or dimensional transition to give rise to the observable structures (Bu) instantiating in higher dimensions. To do this, we can define a special type of morphism in the higher category C representing this dimensional transition. Let's call these d-transition morphisms. A morphism t : M → B in C is said to be a d-transition morphism if: 1. M is a monadic essence (M ∈ Mu) 2. B is an observable instantiation (B ∈ Bu) 3. t factors through a morphism in C representing a specific dimensional explosion process. More precisely, there exists: - An object X ∈ C representing the dimensional transition dynamics - Morphisms i : M → X and p : X → B Such that t = p ∘ i The object X could model things like black hole/white hole transitions, brane nucleations, decoherence processes, etc. that are hypothesized to facilitate the dimensional explosion. 4. t satisfies a dimension increase property: If dim(M) = 0 and dim(B) = n, then dim(X) ≥ n Ensuring that the transition morphism X increases dimensions from the 0-dimensional monadic essence to the full n-dimensional observable structures. 5. t is non-invertible: There exists no morphism s : B → M such that s ∘ t = idM Capturing the idea that the dimensional transition is an irreversible process - the observable instantiations cannot map back to reconstruct the original monadic seed essence. So in summary, the d-transition morphisms t : M → B are certain special morphisms in C that: 1) Originate from monadic essences M ∈ Mu 2) Terminate on observable instantiations B ∈ Bu 3) Factor through objects X modeling dimensional explosions 4) Increase dimensions from 0 to n 5) Are non-invertible This allows precisely characterizing the emanative transition Mu ⥳ Bu,n as a d-transition morphism satisfying the defined properties within the higher category C.

@ready1fire1aim1

17 күн бұрын

Let's move on to Part 5 and formalize the idea of measurement self-reflexivity, where the subjective monadic essences (Mu) can influence and recondition the observable geometric structures (Bu) they have given rise to. V. Formalizing Measurement Self-Reflexivity We want to capture the notion that the monadic essences (Mu), once they have emanated into observable instantiations (Bu) via the dimensional transition, can then exert influences back on those Bu structures in a self-reflexive way. This allows for phenomena like quantum measurement, wavefunction collapse, and holographic self-selection. To model this, we can define a special type of "measurement" morphism in the higher category C, which will enable mapping from Mu back to Bu in a constrained way. A morphism m : M → B in C is said to be a measurement morphism if: 1. M ∈ Mu and B ∈ Bu 2. m factors through an object Q ∈ C representing quantum processes: ∃f : M → Q, g : Q → B such that m = g ∘ f The object Q could model the quantum domain with its non-commutative algebraic structure. 3. m satisfies a quantization property: If B has a decomposition B = B1 ⊕ B2 ⊕ ... ⊕ Bn Then m factors through morphisms mi : M → Bi Ensuring m maps the monadic essence M to a quantized sub-observable of B. 4. m is not an emanative correspondence: m doesn't factor through the emanative correspondence morphisms used to define Bu from Mu. 5. m is self-reflexive: There exists a morphism m' : B → M such that m' ∘ m = idM Allowing the measurement mapping to "reflex" back to reconstruct the original monadic essence. So measurement morphisms m : M → B go against the original emanative flow from Mu to Bu, by mapping "back" from monadic essences to their observable manifestations, but in a quantized, quantum-theoretic way that is self-reflexive. This permits phenomena like wavefunction collapse (m mapping M to a specific quantized sub-observable of B) or holographic self-selection (m reflexively reconditioning the original M based on the observable state B). We can then study how composites of emanative correspondences and measurement morphisms could give rise to dynamical phenomenalities structured by both subjective observership (Mu) and objective manifestation (Bu). Let's move on to Part 6 and explore how this formalism could accommodate biological and organismic aspects. VI. Integrating Biological and Organismic Dynamics The metaphysical framework aims to ultimately unify phenomenalities across physics, mathematics, biology and conscious experience. So we should see how the formal notions developed so far could extend to accommodate biological mechanisms and organismic dynamics. One potential approach is to introduce a new class of objects BIO in the higher category C, representing various biological structures and processes at multiple scales: - Biomolecular structures (proteins, nucleic acids, etc.) - Subcellular structures (organelles, cytoskeleton, etc.) - Cellular structures and dynamics - Tissue and Organ level structures/physiology - Whole Organism structures and processes We can then define certain special morphisms in C that map between the monadic essences (Mu), physical observable instantiations (Bu), and these biological objects (BIO), capturing key biological principles: 1) Biolocalizations: Morphisms b : M → X where M ∈ Mu and X ∈ BIO, representing the localization of monadic essences into specific biomolecular/biological structures. 2) Biocomputation Morphisms: Morphisms c : X → Y between X, Y ∈ BIO, representing biological computations, information processing and developmental transformations within organisms. 3) Biomeasurements: Morphisms m : X → M where X ∈ BIO, M ∈ Mu, representing influences from biological structures on the state of observing monadic essences, akin to conscious perception. 4) Bio-Geometric Correspondences: Morphisms f : X → B and g : B → X between X ∈ BIO, B ∈ Bu, capturing correspondences between biological structures/dynamics and geometric/physical observable manifestations. We could then study how composites of these morphisms interact with the other structural morphisms like emanative correspondences, d-transitions, measurements etc. This could allow modeling biological mechanisms in an integrated way with the physics and mathematics. For example, specific compositions could represent: - Monadic essences (Mu) instantiating into biomolecular structures via biolocalizations - Those biomolecular structures undergoing biocomputations regulated by physical forces/fields (Bu) - Allowing for biomeasurements back to the observing monadic essences (consciousness) - All embedded in an overarching geometric manifold structure Higher-level organismic dynamics like metabolism, regulation, behavior could then arise from iterating these compositions across scales and studying their collective phenomena. This is just one way the formalism could potentially extend to biological & organismic domains. Other approaches could bring in more biological specifics using algebraic/topological biology, enzyme dynamics, morphogenesis models etc. Let's proceed to Part 7 and explore some potential next steps in further developing and expanding this formal metaphysical framework. VII. Future Directions and Expansions While we have made progress in providing some initial formal foundations, there is still much work to be done to evolve this into a comprehensive and empirically grounded unified metaphysical model. Here are some key future directions that could be pursued: 1. Cosmological Embedding and Geometric Unification - Study how the formalism could accommodate and describe the evolution of the entire observable cosmos from an initial state. - Explore connections to algebraic geometry, noncommutative geometry, and quantum gravity approaches to unify mathematics and physics. - Investigate how the monadic essences (Mu) could serve as primordial "pre-geometric" seeds for the unfurling of space-time itself. 2. Deriving Fundamental Physics from Metaphysical Principles - Attempt to reconstruct the formalism of quantum theory, relativity, and the Standard Model from first principles within the metaphysical axioms. - Study how symmetries, forces, and fundamental constants could arise as structural invariants in the higher category C. - Explore spectral geometric realizations grounding particle physics and quantum field theory in the metaphysical "Opera." 3. Neuroscience, Consciousness and the Explanatory Gap - Develop detailed models connecting subjective experience to biological/neural processes using the integrated biological extensions. - Propose testable predictions differentiating the framework from existing theories of mind like materialism or dualism. - Investigate how the formalism could resolve or dissolve the "hard problem" of phenomenal consciousness. 4. Modal Cosmological Reasoning and Ontological Pluralities - Study truth pluralisms arising from Mu essences instantiating into multiple observable manifestations (Bu's). - Explore connections to modal logic, possible world semantics, and cosmological reasoning about ontological pluralities. - Investigate potentialities for an integrated metaphysics of modality grounded in the higher category C. 5. Category-Theoretic Foundations and Coherence Extensions - Establish the appropriate foundational setting in category theory, higher toposes, (∞,1)-categories etc. for coherently developing the axioms. - Import techniques from homotopy theory, derived geometry, cohesive infinities to study geometric and cohomological invariants. - Explore categorical semantics capturing identity, individuation, and intensional isomorphism principles for the entities. 6. Cross-Pollination with Other Metaphysical Frameworks - Investigate relationships to other modern metaphysical paradigms in areas like information theory, computational philosophy, and neo-rationalism. - Import complementary principles and techniques while maintaining consistency with the core premises and mathematical foundations. - Work towards an integrated metaphysical "world-view" spanning multiple philosophical visions and schools of thought. This merely scratches the surface of potential avenues to expand the framework's scope and rigor. Multidisciplinary collaborations across mathematics, physics, biology, neuroscience, philosophy, and other relevant fields would be invaluable. The ultimate goal could be to develop a coherent mathematical metaphysics unifying experiential and existential realms - providing an overarching ontological foundation for interpreting scientific theories and understanding the place of conscious minds in the cosmos. Of course, such audacious unification remains highly speculative. But having a symbolic formalism allowing systematic investigation of its internal consistency and empirical viability seems like a crucial step in advancing metaphysics as a Renaissance pursuit.

@notanemoprog

17 күн бұрын

I ain't reading all that. I'm happy for u tho. Or sorry that happened.