Introducing unpredictable randomness doesn't change the discussion about the viability of 'free will' in any interesting way, is what Dennet is arguing at the end, so you may as well contain the discussion to a deterministic universe. Free will can't mean complete freedom from predictability either; that's just randomness. "All the varieties of free will that are worth wanting you can have in a deterministic world." That's the key. The biggest problem in the discussion if so-called free will is the very mushy definitions people bring to the table. Once you're clear about what you mean when you say 'free will' it's not that complicated to show that it does or doesn't exist.

@unconcernedcitizen4092

3 жыл бұрын

You’ve got it. The eras-old debate is a semantic one.

If determinism does not allow free-will, the avoider is just doing the "evitable" when he predicts a future event and avoids it.

@babbisp1

9 жыл бұрын

Doug Syler I've been thinking the same thing. If you knew everything in a certain moment, you'd "predict" the future and change it. And that itself would've'been predetermined. Although I feel like there's a flaw in this reasoning.

@GodmyX

8 жыл бұрын

+babbisp1 No, it's correct in fact. But you have to realize that even if you succeed somehow to uncover the hard-determined future (before it arrives), then THAT future scenario that you learn will have to contain every and each one of your attempts to avoid it and how it shaped your path to arriving to it. The determined future might even say something like "At this day and this hour you have successfully avoided xyz." And from some reasons that will be exactly what you're going to do. Maybe that the recognition of the hard determined future will always just yield very useless information since it will always contain the possibility of you having avoided anything bad that might come to you. But it won't ever tell you that something bad is going to happen for sure if there is even a slightest possibility that you can avoid it and succeed. Or it will tell you that something bad is going to happen, but it will reliably "predict" that you have no way to avoid it or to get all the information on the misfortune that's going to happen. (if that ever will be the case!) Dennett just, as he says himself, doesn't understand what do people mean by the inevitable future and he thinks it's the scenarios we are able to predict by the power of our reasoning or observation and therefore avoid them: but that clearly isn't the inevitable future. The inevitable will and must contain all your attempts to avoid other possible future scenarios that you want to avoid. Dennett from some reason, didn't come to this in his reasoning or chose to ignore it.

@nunya7616

3 жыл бұрын

yes, exactly, thats what we believe

@carlitosgl

Жыл бұрын

yes, this guy Dennet thinks he has solved the problem Descartes was unable to solve, and Newton, and Hume, and Chomsky, they are all wrong, and he is right because he discovered that "inevitable" means "unavoidable" and he is so happy...well...it is funny how stupid people think they are smart, so so so simplistic and superficial

@Uri1000x1

Жыл бұрын

@@nunya7616 An avoider ducks when a brick is thrown at me.

For me personally it's like this. I genuinely don't believe in free will and I do not take credit for any of my actions. Not even when it's convenient and I do something awesome. I really see myself as a spectator experiencing my life. Even though it feels like I'm directly involved with it, oh and I am, but I do not have control over it. When something great happens and I accomplish something, I just think, "Wow, that's really awesome that I was able to do that." That is my kind of peace.

@paulv7744

Жыл бұрын

Rest as awareness.. just as some zen Buddhist might say 😀

Part 2.. I personally think it's ironically "liberating" to understand these things. It gives us new insight on what we actually are. The reason it seems unpleasant is because we've been brought up to believe the opposite and unless you've lost respect for those values it's difficult to adopt or understand new things. If more people understood that free will doesn't exist, our ways of solving problems would change drastically. I'd encourage you to check out "Paradise or Oblivion" on youtube.

There are three things that most people seem to miss when they discuss this matter, and Dennett is no exception: 1) Knowing all the truths in the realm of Physics (every particle, field, etc in the initial conditions of the Universe + all their determined behaviors) doesn't give a predictive picture of how the world will be because it's only one level of explanation. You can't even see cells and their behavior at the phyics level; you need to invoke chemistry and biology. And it gets more and more removed as you move up "levels". Imagine that, at a given moment, a huge cluster of atoms stop going in the direction they had been going and quickly fly in the opposite direction. Why did they do that? No answer on the physics level. No answer even at the chemical level. They did it because they are the constituent atoms of a gazelle who just saw a tiger and is running for its life. Explanation has levels, and what is meaningful at one level is not exhaustively visible at a lower level. And so, embodied agents interacting with a world and in a community of minds can make decisions because that's the kind of entities they are, and physics is the wrong level at which to address that. 2) Libet-style experiments are irrelevant to the real question of free will. Neuroscience has focused on these kinds of experiments, but the lifting of a finger or pressing of a button is actually just a small piece of a much larger activity: *participating in Libet's experiment*! And this involved all sorts of planning, choosing, committing, etc, and it involves REASONS why you went through all that effort (perhaps thinking that advances in neuroscience will help people or whatever). Moreover, the Libet-style experimenter has to rely on the subject to tell them at what time they chose to lift their finger. But that means you have to trust the subject to respond truthfully and as accurately as they can. But why should you trust that unless you consider the subject to be an agent who has the desire to help you with your experiment, etc etc? 3) Finally, having discovered that particles are NOT actually tiny billiard balls behaving in predictable ways, why should we imagine that large assemblages of them who certainly seem to have non-deterministic wills and abilities to choose are just bigger billiard balls?? Indeed, we almost can't help but think that we are choosing freely, even when it comes to freely choosing not to believe in free will! It's a basic belief; as basic to our epistemological framework as the belief in the external world and it's comprehensibility which underlies all scientific endeavor. In other words: We have certain basic beliefs that are fundamental to our cognition, and science is based on several of these... so it is a perilous idea indeed to try to use science to uproot equally basic beliefs (like free will), ESPECIALLY when we're counting on those beliefs in each experiment we do (see point #2 about the reports of the subject in the Libet experiment). I think it's really pitiful what a zeitgeist like metaphysical naturalism can do to our thinking when we're wrapped up in it like Dennett clearly is. Otherwise brilliant people end up making the silliest mistakes.

@MARDLAMOCK

10 жыл бұрын

There would be a physical explanation to the change of direction of the atoms if one was to study the intricate relationship between that system and the entirety of the universe. Physics is not the wrong level to study this, it may be the most impractical one in a short term, but it is certainly not wrong to approach a biological problem through Physics. One day, if we get good enough at using computational models, we may be able to predict the behaviour of a full blown animal, maybe even an animal in a small environment. Particles do behave in a deterministic fashion, quantum mechanics states that there is an apparent randomness, there could very well be hidden non local variables that explain that apparent behaviour of particles. And even if we said this "randomness" is really embedded into the laws of the universe, there is no room for free will, as randomness does not imply making a decision, you dont choose where the electron is, it just exists there. Besides, what if the belief in free will is present in so many things we do? 2000 years ago people thought the fucking earth was the center of the universe, and that the planets moved around the earth in perfect circles and around another center in an epicycle. Millons of women were murdered for being "witches", people are stoned to death in certain arab countries and it has been happening over a really long time, does this mean that doing so is right? Of course not.

@Mentat1231

10 жыл бұрын

Mardlamock N You've missed the point. An "animal" does not exist at all at the level of physics. As such, it isn't about getting better computational models of subatomic particles. No such model will ever address the "animal itself" since no such entity exists at that level. I wasn't saying that the indeterminacy of QM is the explanation of free will. I agree completely that randomness doesn't help the free will argument at all. And I also personally favor the hidden variables, Bohm-deBroglie type of model of QM such that there is no *ontological* indeterminacy; merely epistemological. But that is completely beside the point. I only pointed to the "none-billiard-ball" nature of the subatomic world to give an example of where our "mechanistic" idea of how the world works is clearly flawed. Subatomic particles are most likely behaving as interacting *fields*, not balls bouncing off each other in mechanistic fashion. As such, the very idea of "physical determinism" is not what it once seemed to be. Finally, I wasn't saying that the ubiquity of our belief in free will guaranteed its truth. I was saying that the *proper BASICALITY* of that belief indicated that we are more rational to dismiss a worldview which tells us we have no free will than we are to dismiss free will in favor of a worldview. The belief in free choice is *properly basic* to our experience; it is even present in the very attempt to get rid of it! If I say "I choose not to believe in free will, since I am convinced by such-and-such argument" I am implicitly saying that I can freely choose which beliefs to accept! Moreover, a belief as basic and central to our experience as free will obviously is ought not to be abandoned any more easily than we ought to abandon the belief in the external world or the belief in other minds.

@MARDLAMOCK

10 жыл бұрын

An animal does exist at a physical level, because if it didint it wouldnt exist, we havent been able to find a mathematical description of an animal, but i am more than sure that with the use of computational models we could be able to find one. If a person who doesnt believe in free will says the word choose, then that person is contradicting itself and fails to communicate their beliefs, that person hasnt understood the objectiveness with which one must communicate such idea.This is one of the biggest problems with determinists, the difficulty in expressing one s ideas without using words that imply choice. If you listen to any free will supporters, they will use the same argument as you are, but that does not adress the very nature of the problem, only the way of expressing it. IMO trying to take down determinism by the way it is expressed is cheap and dishonest.

@Mentat1231

10 жыл бұрын

1) I never said animals did not exist at "the physical level". I said they don't exist at the level of Physics. I meant the level of subatomic particles/waves/fields which is the fundamental realm of Physics. There are no "animals" at that level; just collections of fundamental particles. It is the wrong level to address things like predation. The movement of the atoms would look no different if the gazelle was running for some other reason (or for no reason at all). 2) I wasn't referring to the *word* "choose", I was referring to the *concept*. The determinist genuinely believes that they have been convinced by reasons to accept determinism. However, if determinism were true, then the determinist would believe it the same way a tree grows a branch; an inevitable result of objects bumping into each other. 3) What's cheap and dishonest is how you completely ignored my main argument and misconstrued my secondary one! My main argument is to do with the proper basicality of belief in free will and how it is on a par with belief in the external world. As such, since science presupposes the latter, it is untenable that it should disprove the former.

@MARDLAMOCK

10 жыл бұрын

1- There are no such things as animals in a small level, animals are just the effect of the interactions between atoms. It is not the wrong level to adress things like predation, it is simply the most impractical, one day we will get a mathematical definition of an animal (it will be very complicated imo), everything approachable from Physics, because physics tries to understand the whole universe, it may be trying to solve what happens on a small or gigantic scale, but once we find those rules we can figure out all that goes inbetween ie: animals, social interactions, psychology. 2- And i dont see why being convinced should represent a problem to a deterministic view of the universe, there is this causality. I believe in determinism because I was convinced of it there is a causality( i saw something on a computer screen, which introduced that thought into my mind, which then stayed there and made me do some more research, bla bla bla). And you are still not adressing the main point of determinism, just the way people express their belief in it and the certain contradicitons it may seem to pose in a person that believes in free will. 3- Science can and will prove free will wrong, one day, maybe not too long from now.

The free-will problem is easy. Objectively, of course there can not be any free will in a materialized world, but subjectively, we are hard-wired to feel that we are free to choose. You are determined to feel free! You cannot equate subjective experience with objective experience, just like you cannot equate your experience of color to the wave length. There is no contradiction at all.

@colinjava8447

3 жыл бұрын

To me, colour doesn't really exist, its just something we perceive from different wavelengths of light. Analogously, free will doesn't exist, its just something we perceive from being conscious.. If you take that deeper, you could say different levels of reality have their own truths, but I suspect that's not right, the "truths" in the higher level are probably just illusions.

It's so easy to say in hindsight that "you could have only done this" but genuinely I think you'll find that in this very moment you have the ability to choose...or at least, a very convincing illusion that you do. But here's where I employ Occam's razor. It's simpler to assume we do have free will rather than the illusion of it.

Did you watch the video? The point Dennett is trying to make is that any sort of "free will" worth wanting doesn't depend on any thesis on determinism or indeterminism, much less any thesis about quantum uncertainty.

Dennett is brilliant and expresses himself with extreme clarity as usual. Thanks for posting the video.

In ten minutes of nigh-uninterrupted speech, Dennett said precious little about what he believes and his rationale for believing it. I've watched this video a few times now, and can't help but wish more and more that he'd give Sam Harris the dialogue he's asked for.

@justinholme6944

9 жыл бұрын

Neil Mcintosh there is no position to make sense of :)

@dubunking2473

7 жыл бұрын

+Neil Mcintosh This is because Dennett is confused and hopeless. There is no evidence that we do not have free will, none at all. We are the agents. We may be fooled, we may make mistakes, we may be misled but all these simply confirm that we in fact have free will. That is the end of the matter. Simple. Don't let fake philosophers like Dennett pull wool over your eyes.

@AxxLAfriku

5 жыл бұрын

@@dubunking2473 There is no evidence that we have free will.

What he says is very simple. Free will exists not as an ontological entity, but rather as a linguistic form. Free will is our way of explaining to ourselves how we behave under given circumstances.

Amazing.This guy wrote a book and gained recognition without understanding the topic of which he speaks.Whether you'll avoid something is determined by your ability to foresee the results of your actions.Whether you have that ability is determined by your intelligence,experience,current level of tiredness,genes,and many,many other things.But its just the normal stream of cause and effect.If you made a choice,then time rewinded,you would make the same decision again,all factors would be the same.

I just learned the word gratuitous from this video and will use it liberally from now on. Thank you Daniel Dennett!

According to Bennett Google's self driving car has free will because it can avoid collisions. That's what he's saying.

@jamesfleming1155

7 жыл бұрын

cause he's an idiot.

@TheChrisSoria

7 жыл бұрын

But is the car reasoning? Or simply reacting?

@kevinmm20

7 жыл бұрын

+Christopher Soria It doesn't make a difference because ultimately, reasoning is simply reacting too..

@ChollieD

7 жыл бұрын

According to Sam Harris and the other incompatiblists, you're just a collection of cells, and there's no "you" in there at all. If that makes more sense to "you" (the scare quotes being necessary in that case), then fine.

@ChollieD

7 жыл бұрын

***** But the decision to move your hands is predicated on signals from your brain. Where do the signals originate? In brain cells, and from their chemical processes. If you don't believe that, then consider people whose motor systems in the brain do not work. They can't move their hands up and down. Do the handicapped have LESS free will than you? (BTW, I think we do have free will, but I like making this problem hard because to me it really is tricky.)

@0ctopusRex I understand determinism perfectly fine, but I never mentioned omniscience. Point is how can I know something I can prevent? Is it even logically possible for me to know what I'll eat next week if the universe is deterministic?

Well I was more so talking about just standing in the road with a bus heading in your direction and you must either move or not move. Therefore you would indeed be able to make a thought out decision. Not just a reaction but motives taken into consideration..

The other guy's name is Robert Wright, BTW

This is an argument about language.

@userjames2009

8 жыл бұрын

+Graham Shimell Free will arguments are always arguments about language. Heck, most arguments come down to people using incompatible or poorly defined terms. The observation that most metaphysical arguments come down to definitions of terms has been known since the ancient Greeks.

@grahams1609

8 жыл бұрын

Word is a cool breeze of a sudden wind blowing into the expanse; it might refresh you, but it won't help you get anywhere.

@mikebasketball11

7 жыл бұрын

Wittgenstein argued that all of philosophy is an argument over semantics. This doesn't negate the meaningfulness of the aforementioned debate!

@alberteinstein5352

6 жыл бұрын

that is what philosophy is about - understanding the language.

@Drew15000

5 жыл бұрын

Just like every other argument

The undeniable "explosion of evitability", which I do not deny, does not change the basic constellation, that we ALWAYS act "in style". "Acting in style", which enables clever observers to predict in most cases, what we are likely going to do, INCLUDES acting AGAINST our true inclination, e.g. fear, sexual desires, laziness etc. etc. Wolfgang RUTTKOWSKI / Kyoto, Japan

Exactly right. Life is not about having control, but about experiencing it. The “Amness“ is the capacity to experience, nothing more (Peter Russell). In a hard deterministic worldview, things like anger, envy or pride, are irrational. It is much easier to deal with struggle, discomfort or injustice. It is easier to forgive and to bring your mind at peace. It does not free one from moral responsibility, and it doesn´t take away fascination because you don´t know what´s going to happen next.

I Agree with Daniel Dennet, that free will is an illusion regardless of universe being deterministic or undeterministic. Free will is an ilussion not because of determinism, it is an illusion because we equate it with thought processes, the meaning of whic we can not or do not understand and therefore proclaim it as a metaphysical concept independant from the rest of our thoughts, that we do not consider as a part of our free will.

@neverstopaskingwhy1934

7 жыл бұрын

exactly becuz there is no true delimited object in the world that obey a different law from the rest of universe. Were all mass of matters.

@seop1721

Жыл бұрын

That’s not at all what he thinks. Free will is NOT an illusion. We have all the freedom that matters.

He's a compatibilist? I thought he was a hard determinest.

@unconcernedcitizen4092

3 жыл бұрын

Really? Compatibilism has been Dennett’s schtick for decades. He’s written three books on it, given lectures, did a Philosophy Bites episode, etc.

If there is only the material world, as Dennett beleives, it's obvious that there is no free will. It's impossible to say rationally that we can compatibilize free will and materialism. Laplace understood this very well. It's surprising that Dennett, a philosopher, seems unable to understand something so obvious. Excuse my English, I'm a Brazilian.

"but in no way free." It's free by the definition Dennett provides. In the same sense someone who're not in jail is freer than someone who is, someone who is in a situation where many choices are available is freer than someone who isn't. This is all that matters to the connection between the term free will and morality, which is why compatibilism has value.

He lost me right when he started to dissect words. Inevitability is what has happened ...thus you can predict. Sorry Dennet, you're wrong.

Im a Christian, which obviously means I disagree with Daniel Dennett on certain things. But I strongly agree with what he says about compatibilism

Which book by Daniel Dent is the interview talking about?

can someone explain the laplacian (spelling?) term they mentioned?

Hahahaha Dennet stumped :) at ca. 9 minute mark. The interviewer pins him down and all he can do is bluster and insult. Notice he offers no response in the form of a rational argument. Anyway he has so changed his tune in the last 5 years hahaha.

He talks about "agents", but neglects to take apart the word like he did "inevitable". If the universe is deterministic, true agency doesn't exist in the first place. It's rethorical sleight-of-hand.

@Banestalk

10 жыл бұрын

addendum: You can avoid a spear. But can you avoid avoiding the spear?

@PGBurgess

10 жыл бұрын

What do you mean by 'true' agency? In a deterministic universe their can be action/reaction, their can be complexity, chaos, unpredictability.. and systems like us that get input, calculate probabilities, weigh optional outcomes and act on these result... that is agency.. Why does the 'true' stand for? What does it add (that we can demonstrate exists)? Addendum: most of our actions are taking by us, but not with this 'free will' at hand. Our biology does most of the work, we have reflexes, instincts (which are basicly shortcuts to useless calculation of option in familiar circumstances..), .. The sort of free will we seem to have is a slow working system, prosponing fast reaction and taking the time to recalculate different scenarios.. (not whilst spears are approaching) But between all these different systems, that induce action, i suspect is a lot of greyscale.. they flow one in the other..

@Banestalk

10 жыл бұрын

P.G. Burgess Our biology doesn't do most of the work, it does ALL of the work, because unless you want to invoke some sort of soul, our biology is all we are, and thus the only thing that CAN do the work. Thus, the only difference between instinct and so-called free will is subjective experience. Objectively, all actions and "choices" we make are but the ticking of a biochemical clock - a program running on a neuro-computer. And like any other computer, given the same input, programming and initial state, we will always make the same choice. So what room does that leave for agency?

@PGBurgess

10 жыл бұрын

Ann O. Nymus I'll agree that 'free will' , 'making of choices' or 'agency' are rather subjective experiences. I'd say these terms explictly refer to the experience this 'neurocomputer has'. I do understand your point, but what 'objective' viewpoint is there from which the unfolding of time is predictable? You say 'Given the same input', but the same as what or when? What initial set state was there? Even the 'programming' of the brain is a dynamic system.. The place of 'agency' is that of -what seems to be the only- existing viewpoint in which actions are 'calculated'. But i think one might even go further.. we interact with a complex and unpredictable universe; it is filled with fundamental uncertainties and interferences... in which the smallest detail can make huge differences. You do not even need to go into the blury field of quantumtheories to find chaos; this even can arise in simple deterministic systems. (for reference, check out lorenz-equations; non-liniair dynamics...)

@theocean1973 Also, check 3:55 - 4:12. The word 'inevitable' gets it's meaning from the agent point of view, in other words it's use is pragmatic. Therefore, the argument that free will is impossible because in a deterministic material universe every event is inevitable, in exactly the way it happened, can be dismissed.That's just not how we use the word 'inevitable'. So ironic enough, the standard argument for non-compatibalism is actually juggling with words and Dennett's argument is not!

In any case, the compatibilists have solved all the issues related to morality and determinism ages ago and have a technical vocabulary related to that, which includes the definition of freedom that Dennett talks about here. If you don't like it, tough, but it actually works very well, because there aren't huge changes in meaning and any sensible person should be able to grasp it right off the bat unless they have ideological commitments to contraditions.

Inevitable/unavoidable! Dennett likes to use unnecessary and confusing word play!

Dennett's brain defending a belief it was determined to hold. Oh...the irony ;)

@leonardu6094

4 жыл бұрын

Are you a libertarian or determinist?

@lenn939

4 жыл бұрын

What irony? Dennett’s view is compatible with determinism.

@leonardu6094

4 жыл бұрын

@@lenn939 Dennett was simply predetermined to hold those views.

@lenn939

4 жыл бұрын

@leonard u But what’s ironic about that?

@leonardu6094

4 жыл бұрын

@@lenn939 He's defending an idea that he was predetermined to believe. He can't know if it's true or not since every thought that comes to his head was simply determined to be there.

What's the name of the interviewer? I've seen him in other videos and on the news before, but I never seem to catch his name.

Just another of the mysteries with which we must content ourselves, I am with William James who says, 'the first act of my freedom is to affirm that I am free.' It is an affirmation that by the logic of the case cannot be compelled not event rationally or logically. It must be chosen, assumed, believed in.

His error is in missing that natural selection was determined in a materialistic universe, down to the position of every molecule which was part of evolution, so that evolution itself could not have occurred in any other way, and the 'avoiders' so formed could have formed in no other way, including each minuscule step of avoidance and the subsequent consequences of that, right down to the current illusion of free will in humans. Every thought is a chemical reaction formed by previous states and without escape. In other words, even the avoiders were determined to avoid down to the last molecule. This is a freight train sized hole in his reasoning, and one can only assume it is because he so wants there to be some actual freedom of action rather than mere existence watching internal and external forces in his own mind drag him along.

@rickmg2552

8 жыл бұрын

+De Bunking You only say that because you can't help but respond that way... ;-) But seriously, it's not a response to just say 'you don't understand' and not give specifics. Tell me in what way I don't understand free will and explain how it really works in opposition to what I said. Otherwise, you are just proving you don't really have any ideas, just complaints you can't defend. Show us what mechanism can free any matter in the universe from either inescapable cause and effect from initial conditions, or from the relentless randomness of quantum uncertainty, both of which deny actual free choice and only allow an illusion of choice. Explain the mechanism.

@rickmg2552

8 жыл бұрын

+De Bunking - I agree hard determinism is bs. But it is also logically inescapable for atheistic worldviews, because there is no mechanism possible to free our thought from cause and effect (or random quantum fluctuation, neither of which allows for libertarian free will.) I do believe in free will, and because I believe in a transcendent super-natural God, it is a rationally defensible position. Congrats on beating your addiction and ptsd. I think that's really terrific, and a great hope for others to know it can be done.

@OfficialJab

8 жыл бұрын

+jasonthesage Isn't your decision to wear your red shirt and have corn flakes for breakfast a result of combinations of causes? It seems like people just call the victorious decision from that molecular battle between neurons 'free will' no matter what it is. None of this will change anyone's life one iota other than adding more experiences to be considered in future decisions (maybe you'll buy corn flakes tomorrow now). In fact I could pretty much change 'incompatible' to 'compatible' and use it for my argument. As he said, determinism is pretty much inevitable for an atheistic worldview. Are synapses affected by 'free will' or the other way around? If you see this comment and decide between replying or ignoring it, what element other than the material parts of the decision (1. your brain and its components and 2. the words its receiving from me) are involved? If none, isn't that pure determinism on its face? Why call the result 'free will', especially if you obviously can't control what synapses/neurons do and you can't control what my words are? (and if neurons are controlled, what is controlling them and how can I worship it?)

@OfficialJab

8 жыл бұрын

***** How is the fluff (not to mention 'yourself' and 'your mind' distinct from your neural chemistry? Something indescribable - can it be demonstrated to exist?

@OfficialJab

8 жыл бұрын

***** I would define subjectivity as just differences between brain chemistry, between either people or between yourself at different times. What else is it? Why attribute it to something unobservable?

Trying to get good things = seeking behavior

Bell's Theorem only rules out LOCAL hidden variables. It still leaves room for the possibility of non-local hidden variables. So this basically means that a particle might be able to affect another particle instantaneously from a distance. This would effectively mean that "information" can travel at faster than light speed (under certain interactions).

The free will question does not ask whether we can make decisions in isolation from physical law, nor does it ask whether the future is predestined. It asks ONLY whether it is sensible to to hold people accountable for their actions. To which the answer is YES. Even those who argue against free will admit that holding people another accountable 'makes sense', or is 'unavoidable'. Dennett's position makes sense of accountability in a deterministic world without magic.

The delusion of the Dennet is to believe that intelligent agents have the ability to choose to AVOID the determinist nature of their behaviour, when the reasoning itself that the agent has to go through to "choose to avoid it" is underlied by deterministic processes and as such it's IMPOSSIBLE to do so! The example of the brick and a lighting stroke is pure bull. "You can't avoid a lighting stroke, but you can choose to avoid a brick thrown at you". No you can't. The decision of avoiding that brick (or not) was predetermined to happen.

@ScottLahteine

10 жыл бұрын

Prior conditioning does not obviate the capacity to make a broad range of choices and take actions in the present. What Dennett is saying is that your insistence on there being something more to free will than that is simply a bugaboo. In other words, it's not a black-and-white thing. In your sense, right, there is no absolute and total free will. But that's not something we should expect or care about when we discuss whether or not a person can make their own navigational decisions. We clearly can, and whether or not that is wholly conditioned and deterministic doesn't matter to the concept of independent agency.

I am quite surprised that Dennett, whom I have generally found to be extremely bright and eloquent, would make such a fundamental error. He somehow fails to see that when a brick is thrown and someone ducks to avoid it, this was a complex process of action and reaction, and there was no way that the person was ever going to be hit by the brick. They may think they almost got hit, and other people may think so; but the fact is that it was just not in the cards, if the universe is deterministic (and Dennett takes as a given that it is deterministic). You may as well say that the spokes on a bicycle wheel are good at avoiding collisions, as they never touch each other, despite one spoke moving very quickly toward where the other spoke had been just a millisecond earlier.

@PGBurgess

10 жыл бұрын

I think a part of his point on this is that it is non-sense to talk of 'what the future might have been'. In retrospect the future could -in a direct way - not have been different. (only in manner of speaking.. 'under almost the exact circumstances') But as far as the actual future is concerned, that may - even in a deterministic universe- still be unpredictableto us in a fundamental way.. leaving our determenistic mind up to the task of making probabiltiy-calculations that may 'alter the future..'

@justinholme6944

9 жыл бұрын

Alan Thomas people who believe the universe is deterministic are not aware of the implications of Quantum Physics it seems to me. Surely you have to be a Newtonian in terms of your level of scientific understanding to even entertain the idea that the universe *is* deterministic? Of course there is some hope for determinists that behind apparent quantum chaos there is an underlying order but the current understanding is against determinism, and that is the state of scientific evidence at this time. Right?

@dubunking2473

9 жыл бұрын

Justin Holme The word believe is interesting. It is just belief. No more no less. One is free to believe anything one likes. Dennett sets out his belief. You can have yours. That is about it. He begins to look like a fool when he pretends this is science.

@justinholme6944

9 жыл бұрын

I think as a philosopher you need to be very clear if you are putting forward a personal belief or a philosophical position. The later should be based on the best evidence available, generally scientific. People are interested in Dennet as a philosopher, very few care at all about his personal life surely.

@dubunking2473

9 жыл бұрын

Justin Holme You are right. But I think his personal belief is also his philosophical position. Could you explain why philosophical issues should be based on scientific evidence? Do you mean a philosophical position can always be settled by scientific evidence ?

I'd like to hear him flesh this out more. Anyone know a book or video where he does?

It isn't determinism that gives us the illusion of free will, but rather emotion and indeterminism that does. The fact that we can't anticipate the next moment makes it seem like we are choosing the next step, but we aren't. In reality we are all only drawn towards certian choices and deterred from others (through learned behavior). Emotion simply seals the deal by making us feel good and powerful for making a choice to in essence reward the illusion of "free will".

i can't believe this guy is a respected intellectual. "some agent can avoid a brick, therefor determinism doesn't preclude free will" - that's just stupid. obv the important thing is that it was predetermined that said "agent" (not really an agent) would avoid the brick. determinism and free will are incompatible, amirite?

@billwillow9281

10 жыл бұрын

correction, he said determinism doesn't imply inevitability. same thing really, it's inevitable that the agent avoids the brick if everything is predetermined

@billwillow9281

8 жыл бұрын

Long time gone! Well actually I was arguing against determinism, just because it's depressing/disempowering, not because it's unlikely. I say, if the history of the universe is just a series of physical reactions, the future is set and none of my actions or thoughts matter. Or I should sayy actions and thoughts are inevitable, so my effort doesn't matter. I prefer to believe in free will and trust my sense that the universe and my life exist for a reason.

@GodmyX

8 жыл бұрын

+Bill Willow Well if you succeed in something you should be happy by the fact no mattter if you were determined to succeed or not. Unless you have the information, there is no reason not to be happy or disempowered. The absence of free will just has totally nothing to say how we should behave in most situation (there are exceptions like taking vengeance etc.) UNLESS we know the determined future. And we might never will.. the amount of computing power would have to be astronomical. That is: unless we know, we have no reason not to behave and understand the universe as if we had the free will, no reason at all.

Dennet doesn't understand choices are included in determinism too lol..

@420xHustlerxB0SS

10 жыл бұрын

If everything was random, everything would be inevitable, because you'd have no chance to avoid things that are out of your control. Determinism helps free will, because agents get more reliable information about things to avoid. When less is up to random chance, more freedom is on the agent.

@severed321

10 жыл бұрын

420xHustlerxB0SS you don't seem to understand either lol.. what you know about outside threats is determined, and so is your "choice" to avoid those threats

@neilmcintosh5150

10 жыл бұрын

That's why he's a compatabalist! Oddly enough a recent survey suggested that 80% of philosophers beleive in the 'compatabalist' view on freewill! To me it's all word play and confusion on defining what freewill is, a straw man argument if you like which gets us nowhere.

@agusti211

7 жыл бұрын

You are totally right,it seems incredible but he doesn't get it

@alberteinstein5352

6 жыл бұрын

sure he understands that. Dennett does not argue against determinism. He argues for compatibility of free will and determinism.

I think Dennett is quite right. When people talk about free will, the important thing about it is not that it's magic, but moral responsibility and the feeling of control. If a person is identical with the properties of a brain, and the brain is in control of the body, the person is in control. Whether your identity is "caused" is irrelevant; if no one constrains you strongly, your actions are your own. Even computers can surprise their programmers; one day they may be considered "free" too.

"Choice" and "decision making" is just the part of determinism where the prefer-ability of outcomes is ascertained. Action is the result of a personal calculation. It is governed by our ignorance and preference. People ALWAYS "choose" the most valuable/preferable action. If going "against" the strongest preference, that is the persons actual strongest preference. Thus there is no choice, only unique preference and the ignorance of the moment.

Absolutely not worth watching.

@babbisp1

9 жыл бұрын

Toolman85 I agree with Sam Harris. His speech was 100% true and enjoyable. Do you agree with harris that free will doesnt exist?

@babbisp1

9 жыл бұрын

Toolman85 1) sam harris doesn't say "goofy things". 2) "Don't get out of bed and starve to death starting tomorrow, and tell me you don't have free will" What the fuck are you talking about? I have the desire to get out of bed, but I'm not responsible for having it or even following it. 3) "sam harris doesn't want to "blame others". in fact, he states clearly that blaming doesnt make any sense, because free will doesn't exist. I'm confident that the notion of free will is nonsensical no matter how you put it. Here's the thing. If physical determinism is true, we are "slaves to chemical processes", like you said correctly. However, if indeterminism is true (the universe would still be partially deterministic, btw) we still don't have free will. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them. Imagine this. Imagine if all of your experience was caused by someone at a computer, determining what you feel, do, say and want. That's clearly not a circumstance of free will. Now imagine if that person was determining all of that, but 10% of the time threw some dice or introduced some other mode of randomness into the process. That doesn't open up a space for free will. We know as a matter of scientific fact that everything you're consciously intending to do is preceded by neural events of which you're not conscious, and of which you have no control over whatsoever. Lastly, my argument against free will does not depend upon philosophical materialism, the idea that reality is at bottom physical. Now, there are very good reasons to believe that the mind is at bottom physical, but even if we had souls, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious operations of a soul grant you no more freedom than the unconscious neurophysiology of your brain does. If you don't know what your soul is gonna do next, you're not in control of your soul. And you didn't pick your soul to begin with. In other words, the whole notion of free will can be debunked by one sentence. You can't think a thought before you think it. So you can brag all you want about how Sam Harris is wrong or goofy or whatever, but it means less than shit if you don't provide evidence for your claims.

@toolman8538

9 жыл бұрын

wow, like im gonna read all that... I'm not going to debate with you. I think that determinism is silly, think what you want! your acting like your going to eventually find "proof" that determinism is true... "In other words, the whole notion of free will can be debunked by one sentence. You can't think a thought before you think it." This statement is just plain silly

@babbisp1

9 жыл бұрын

Toolman85 You weren't bored to read it. You chickened out. By the way, I only mentioned determinism once. I simply argued why free will can't be mapped unto *ANY* conceivable reality (regardless of determinism). And don't ask me "what do you mean" or "explain yourself". Not until you've read the paragraph.

@nycholaus

8 жыл бұрын

Not so silly really. But a better way to phrase it would be that a man can do what he wills, but he can not will what he wills.

This is embarrassing. Dennet is the Ringo Starr of the four horseman....

@jlareaux5504

8 жыл бұрын

Right,lol. You know what I mean. Ringo's songs were shit and that's not up for debate. If there were one member of the beatles that could have been replaced without totally ruining the band it was Ringo!

@nealkelly9757

8 жыл бұрын

+J LaReaux What Goes On, Don't Pass Me By, and With A Little Help From My Friends were good Ringo songs

@jlareaux5504

8 жыл бұрын

Neal Kelly yeah yeah yeah, i knew i never should have made that comment,lol

@nealkelly9757

8 жыл бұрын

J LaReaux But you were right about Dennett not making any sense in this video

@jlareaux5504

8 жыл бұрын

Neal Kelly thanks...that was the point I was trying to make...nothing personal about Ringo,lol

If you want to see the full interview, search "Robert Wright Daniel Dennett interview meaning of life tv". :)

does someone have the script of this conversation? the movie script, if you know what I mean.

@tsimtsum2000 What if i don't have an objective function in choosing a variable?

Why is everyone hating on Dennett here? To posses the capacity of avoiding requires: 1. to be conscious of goals and life-plans stretching far into the future 2. To be able to evaluate situations and elements in your environment as being useful as means for those goals and life-plans, or detrimental to their fullfilment 3, to be able to react intelligently and autonomously to those situations, thus avoiding the things that you can perceive to be bad for the realization of your goals and lifeplans. You can have all of this in a deterministic world!

@view1210 & @fmocastro So either the universe will keep me from knowing my own future (which might as well be an indeterministic standpoint) or the universe will render me incapable of changing it which sounds counter-intuitive (do I turn in a mindless puppet unable to change my choices or will the universe suddenly do things to prevent an alternate outcome?)

One of the significant changes that results from accepting determinism, or that we don't have free will in the libertarian sense, is that it shifts us from a retributivist conception of justice to a consequentialist conception of justice. I will give you a clear example of how these two conceptions of justice come apart. - cont.

I must say, its as unexpected as it is refreshing to stumble upon a voice of such reason and clarity in the KZread comments section. Mo' power to you.

I think KZread user Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨Ʒ nailed it with this comment (posted on this video kzread.info/dash/bejne/nKN3sbmakbfQZKQ.html ): "You run models in your mind of what the world will look like if you do different things, you evaluate the consequences, and you make the choice which has the consequences that are best. You were always going to make that choice, but you had to run a model where you didn't. That's what gives us the feeling that we could have made the other choice."

Free will is a social construct we apply to make sense of this world. I agree with Dan Bennett in the sense that we could come up with a definition of free will that makes sense and fits within a deterministic perspective, however one could argue there's nothing free about it at all since it wouldn't free us from being slaves of our brain chemistry and events happening around us.

@SubtleChaotic What do you define as free will?

This is how the two different conceptions of justice come apart: If you have a consequentialist conception of justice, all you care about is that the effects of punishment are good for society, so you would want to have a lower recidivism rate. Most people have a retributivist conception of justice though, they are willing to allow more crime if it means that prisoners are forced to suffer, because they believe they deserve to suffer and this is based on their belief in free will.

@SaraCufer "You're implying it's even possible for another observer to see the atom, at that point, in a different state" No I was referring to relativistic effects due to different observers moving at a high velocity relative to one another. Items located relative to one observer can be in a different location to that seen by the other observer. In otherwords one observer may be looking at an objects past or future relative to the other observer. For one observer the atom may have decayed.

@AEFic Yes, his ability to fill 10 minutes with a solid stream of words and yet in the end, say absolutely nothing never ceases to amaze me.

Watched 7 mins and I have no clue what he is talking about. If you watch sam harris talking on this subject, he is very clear and makes strong points with concise examples. I'm not sure exactly what determinism is, but I think if time was reversed by say 1 hour, then things would play out slightly differently the second time due to the randomness seen at the quantum level. With or without any randomness, its irrelevant to free will. My point here is that determinism might not be the opposite of free will, cause it could be a random-determinism like I mentioned above. If he does mean something different when he says freewill, he should clarify it to stop confusing people.

@irongrunty The approach that best reconciles our experience (we feel like we have free will) and our logic (determinism), is to think of free will as an asymptote -- something we never perfectly reach, but which we're approaching and growing nearer to all the time -- so close that only by adding decimals can we express a gap. In math, we write that .99repeating =1. And while an asymptotic curve never perfectly hits the obvious end-game, at some point, it's good enough for government work.

The issue is much more complex than that. Without determinism our actions lack reason and become irrational. So you can either believe that determinism is false yet there is some loophole that allows us rational thought. Or believe determinism true yet there is a some loophole that allows us freedom.

@TheWALOS good point, free will is essentially saying that we have the ability to make a decision other than the decision we made, it is expecting something different to happen if you replayed time (ignoring quantum physics which has no bearing on free will, as our will is still determined by physical laws outside our control even if they are probabiliistic). what i should of said is 'it doesnt make sense to talk about free will, as it doesnt make sense to talk about an undeterminded universe.'

Right on the money! When I wrote my reply I thought of putting "and enhanced" in brackets. The proper way of putting things is to acknowledge that nature and its laws simultaneously enhance and constrain our freedom of the will.

A discussion with Dennett and Wilford Brimley would be downright hilarious.

Dennett's answer is "yes", in many instances we could have done otherwise but being able to do otherwise is not incompatible with determinism. There is nothing problematic about saying that we are determined to be able to do otherwise. An odd way of putting it is to say we are just such beings that do not have the choice to be able not to do otherwise. We are determined to have choices, to have certain decisions up to us, unlike the moon or a stone, for example.

This is just about the hardest conversation to follow ever.

@comanchio1976

10 жыл бұрын

The whole subject makes my brain itch. Same thing happens when I try to wrap my head around special relativity

Dennett's view is that every variety of free will 'worth wanting' is compatible with determinism. The problem is that a significant kind - the kind needed to make us truly deserving of blame and praise for our deeds - is absent. Of course, it is probably absent if indeterminism is true too, and may actually be incoherent. But that doesn't alter the fact that compatibilist free will just 'aint up to making us responsible.

Nah, Dennett explains what we're actually referring to when we use the expression free will, and his explanation is perfectly straight forward and true. The only reason to reject it is if one believes we need to reserve the expression "free will" for something magical and contradictory that obviously can not exist. The latter seems foolish given the role freedom(In Dennett's sense) plays in assignment of responsibility etc.

But the set of electrons rushing through my brain causing me to type these letters were once set in motion by the big bang and these anonymous particles have been pushed around in a long line of causal events, eventually to end up where they are right now. When did this un-causal thing called free will all of a sudden intervene? How would that work?

Redefining terms and proposing you support something that means something while proposing that doesn't exist isn't really arguing for anything.

mathematically, everything that is currently happening in the universe when i hit "post" WILL determine everything until the end of time. free will is simply the definition we give to what is determined by the inputs and outputs of our brain. since the nature of electrical impulses in our brains vary from person to person, we get the illusion of free will. i encourage a response to this.

@PurpleGhost Oh sorry. QM=Quantum Mechanics. This goes to your point of "range of possibilities" but without the Dennett avoidance mechanism. The mechanism in this case is scientific uncertainty. Are you familiar with it? "Uncertainty" is fundamental to QM. Theres alot of arguing (for and against) its importance in "free will" as well. I think it allows for indeterminism which gives us "the range." From there its a mystery for now.

@SaraCufer I posed a question. Einstein saw time as a dimension of time-space. For Einstein the present and the past exist simultaneously. Hence the term the block universe where all the slices of time exist together. Now the question in quantum mech. is do we have multiple parallel universes for each observer or is there a single universe with all its time slices already layed out? Does that atom have to decay at a particular point in time-space. If so the future is set - no degree of freedom.

Thats because determinism is a concept. A concept deeply rooted in causality and main time. Our perception of time plays a big part in it, as far as I can see. But a concept of causality and time is necessary for us survive and function in the world. Which means the concept of determinism is even more subjective to us, erasing its objectivity.

That's a conflation of "a number of possibilities to choose from" with "the process by which we choose" though. The concept of free will is about the action, the process of making a choice. Ultimately, the process doesn't change no matter how many possible choices we have (unless we have only one). The process is deterministic in nature - therefore there is no freedom to it. And so we leave out the 'free' part, and stay with our 'will'. We avoid things, because we must.

It's true, there may be something that we haven't found yet that would change how we understand quantum physics, but this is very unlikely, because the evidence is pretty overwhelming. The calculations and predictions of quantum mechanics that tell us that it's all probabilistic, are the best predictions and calculations we have in all of science. Richard Feynman said that it is like calculating the width of North America with the accuracy of the width of a human hair.

Contra Freewill: When an agent makes a choice, choice being a discrimination between two or more variables. The agent must have a preexisting condition of value in which to compare the variables to, in order to assess the value of each variable. Hence the problem, the value of both variables in choosing are completely dependent on the already preexisting value before the choice even occurs. Meaning that the choice is really a dependent reaction, because it limited by a preexisting condition.

here`s my take on free will, not that it counts for much, but here you are anyway. We can make choices in our lives that may well seem to be unrestricted and free. However, we can only choose from what might be set before us. We can not make choices that lay outside of what`s on offer.

@rjbullock You might be joking, but it made me think about something: I wouldn't say that since you're incapable of doing something you're not free. It's a matter of free will not even being a part of the equation. You can be willing to do something, and yet be unable to. Am I correct in this?

Exactly,.. in that context it was predetermined. I would also not say that I have proven that free-will doesn't exist but the more you discuss it seriously you begin to see more evidence for the contrary. For free-will to exist it must be separate from the world of causation and non-random. One question that you can ask is: where does your desire come from? or where does it originate? If you tend to link it back to some causal chain then it is not free. And randomness takes away accountability.

layperson here, does my brain create an underlying, evolving, constant memory that is who "I" am and what my mind is? do we use our brain to make choices? does our brain use us to make choices? do we "think" our mind is separate from body, brain, and self? if “I use” my brain to make choices, then who am “I”? I do really find it interesting that I don't have as much free will to make choices about what my brain is actually charged with controlling: blood flow, body temp, body growth, injury repair, metabolism, that annoying uncontrollable twitch you get once in a while, etc. If I cant honestly choose to, for example, quit sending blood to my index finger or maybe just quit blinking till my eyes hurt then how do I believe that I have more control over other less intimate things. if free will is the ability to choose, then what is choosing? so I googled choice, then got "decision" in the definition, so I looked it up and got conclusion, then reasoning, then thought, then thinking, mind, intellect, consciousness, and so on. it appears that it is much more complex to define what "choice” is than I expected. "making" a choice must be exponentially more difficult. just for arguments sake take this next sentence. “you” “think” “you” have a “choice” to read this or not and “conclude” if its “intelligent”. I find all the words in quotes very had to define. the calculations (or whatever thought is) of reasoning are so freakishly complex the more i think i am thinking about it, the less i feel i understand. from a different perspective, in a truly "free will" scenario how extreme can one go to simply "not choose" anything, ever? it seems that we believe in free will and yet many choices we make, we MUST make, and we don't have the free will to not choose even if indecision didnt immediately mean certain death. I dunno, like I said... layperson here maybe I should "keep mouth closed so foot cannot enter" lol

What is a Laplacian Being or Laplacian Determinism? I am having a hard time find it on Google.

Isn't the definition of free will that when i make a decision it has been decided by ME? and when i say ME i mean my body and my brain etc. i think that if im trying to figure it wether or not i was the one making the decision, i should check if processes in my brain caused the outcome, and if thats the case then i was responsible.so that should mean that there CAN be free will in a deterministic universe. could you please explain because i think i am wrong lol, sorry for my english by the way

@SkepticsClaw Just to add - obviously things are "partly deterministic", the parts that aren't are what constitute the effect of free will.

Yes, but the physics going on in your brain emerges from quantum physics, which allows from some chaos to slip through. Especially considering that the physics we're talking about is the change in electrical states of the neuron. This is why human behavior can be manipulated with some accuracy, but not controlled or predicted.

the way you say it makes me think that considering the existence of randomness is just a believe as well since we can't be sure to leave something out etc etc. yet i agree, i can not imagine randomness.

@koda215 The interesting question is whether the deterministic picture of decision-making is compatible with our 'idea' of free will. It is certainly compatible with our experience of decision-making. But perhaps not with our idea of what free will must involve. Our common sense conception of free will is that it involves having alternative possibilties and that these must be directly available to the deliberator in a way that only indeterminism can provide.

I don't think anyone is arguing against that. I think everyone agrees that we are bound to a limited number of decisions at any one time. But what I'm saying is that we DO have decisions...even if they are limited.

Well, Dennett has his view, and then there are studies that show, for instance, that if you believe you have free will, you have more of it. There are so many opinions, and so little we actually understand, about the mind. Dennett published a book entitled, "Consciousness Explained", and one critic said it might be more aptly titled, "Consciousness Explained Away". Steven Pinker wrote "How the Mind Works" only to admit in the last chapter that he doesn't actually know how the mind works.

That's what leads me to believe we have free will. The lack of responsibility on anyone would just be terrible. I feel like we do have responsibility, I feel as though I'm in control of my actions. Maybe that is just there to keep me alive though. I don't think we have any sort of purpose, but still I cling to this idea of free will. I'm just waiting to be convinced one way or the other, I guess.

Yes it is available at google video. Search for Daniel Dennett and it is the first hit.

@solomontruthlover5308

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/nH6izMSApLq0lZM.html

@SkepticsClaw That's easy - the soul/spirit is something external to our deterministic Universe but nevertheless has an effect on our decisions - the soul/spirit is *not* based on past events/information from our deterministic existence.

@HybridD91 I'm sorry perhaps I was not clear in my post. The deep principles I refered to are things which cannot be tested to develope laws. That was the point. How do ordinary atoms form to produce life? What does it mean to assume multiple dimensions? What are the mechanics in the realization of physical form? Where do the laws of physics come from? What are the deep properties of dark matter? These are just a few questions that are beyond our comprehension.

If I decide to "avoid" a bus that is heading in my direction it was INEVITABLE that I would! Do to: my desire to live, the fact that i want to go home and play xbox, the possibility of eating pizza later that night...etc etc. whatever your reason it was unavoidable that you would or would not avoid. If you decided not to avoid the bus then that as well was determined by your lack of desire to live, your lack of desire to play xbox later that night etc. whether we avoid or don't is already set

@SciTechExplained I'm not for or against as I said. Thank you for your interest in the subject.