Eddy is a gem of a human. He was my supervisor at GSU.

I have for a long time thought that the problem with ‘free will’ may be the expression “free”. If you have time to humour me in my thoughts, consider the following analogy: You are watching a movie on Netflix. There is a scene where a suicidal character is about to jump off a bridge. They are about to jump when at the last moment they seem to reconsider, but then they jump off. Now I rewind the movie and watch the scene again. The same exact thing happens. No matter how often I rewind the movie, it always plays out the same way. Of course it does. How could it not? Nothing changes, the actions of the actors are fixed, they are merely recorded, and I am not altering anything by rewinding. The physical universe in which we live is like the movie. I get up in the morning and decide to have coffee, rather than tea. Say I could rewind the universe 5 minutes and see what I decide then. Well, it plays out the same way. I decide to have coffee. I actually have no choice in the matter. But now consider this sequence from my point of view: I live through the 5 minutes it takes for me to build up to my decision to have coffee. While I am in the flux, I do not know what I will decide! This is key, to my mind. At time 1, the universe has not yet unrolled to the point at which I will decide. My brain is still in the process of firing neurons, the state space of the universe that will determine my ‘choice’ is forming, and of course I contribute actively to the formation of this state space. Actively, but not CONSCIOUSLY! I do not know exactly in which way I am contributing to the state of the universe, and I cannot predict and therefore know ahead of time what the state of the universe will be at time 5, which is the state that contains my decision. And yes, there is randomness in the way virtual particles form and elementary particles decohere etc, so even if I could rewind the universe, it would not unroll in exactly the same way. But whichever “version” of the universe manifests each time I rewind and replay it, there will only ever be ONE unique state space that contains my brain’s deliberation in that version, and in each one of these manifestations I would always have come to the decision contained in that manifestation. So ‘free will’ is not free if ‘free’ means what theologians call ‘libertarian free will’. That last version actually is supposed to be a form of free will where the agent exercising it is not bound by the rules of the universe, but stands outside it. In a secular context, no such free will can exist. My best explanation is that we, as conscious agents, do not KNOW what the future holds (= how the state space of the universe develops and in which way we, through our thought processes, contribute to the formation of that state space) and THAT is the reason why the act of determining what to do feels ‘free’. In that sense, I agree with Eddy that a deterministic universe (which is the one in which we live) does not exonerate the conscious agent from responsibility for their own actions. We still have to ‘do the work’, weigh the pros and cons of our actions, even though we would weigh them in exactly the same way over and over again, were somebody to rewind the universe and play it again. So my point is that our will is not “free”, if by “free” we mean “independent of the laws of physics”, but they are also not “externally forced”. If I need to make a decision whether to purchase this car or that car, I still have to go through the process of determining my choice, I cannot sit on my sofa and think that everything is pre-determined and therefore the universe will force me to my decision and all I have to do is sit there and it will unroll. So, is free will an illusion? No, but it is a misnomer. The word ‘free’ does not denote a state outside the laws of physics, it describes what it “feels like” to deliberate without knowing what the outcome of my thought process will be.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

Thanks, that was well reasoned and concur on all those points. We as physical beings are the authors of our choices. Historical forces, our environment, our biology have shaped us into who we are. But who we are is what chooses, and that is an active conscious process.

@misterhill5598

10 ай бұрын

Good points. Is suggest looking up the core teachings of Chan/Zen Buddhism.

@hstanekovic

10 ай бұрын

True, but if you believe in souls (mind-body dualism) then, for you, free will is free from the influence of the material word

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@hstanekovic That still doesn’t answer the question of how a considered decision comes to be made. If it’s not a reliable repeatable process of evaluation, and not random, what is it? Free is a statement about the constraints on the choice, not the way the choice itself is made. Suppose it is a non physical process, maybe it’s a deterministic non physical process? Non physicality doesn’t seem by itself to say anything about the actual character of the process, only the medium of its implementation.

@hstanekovic

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 You are right. It is hard to speculate anything about souls. I imagine a soul as something that "just exists", and existed always (similar to God). That is, there is nothing from which a soul was created and it has no parts of which it consists (contrary to the things that exist in the material realm). But that is just a speculation, of course.

Life is tough, very difficult. Overcoming the mind is very tough.

Dear Gentlemen, thank you for this inspiring video. Dear Mr. Eddy Nahmias, your approach to the subject is a precious contribution to science as a whole. With due respect to everyone, I believe there is no fatalism. I understand that when we decide not to change ourselves, determinism keeps doing what it does to govern our destiny. This way, determinism works as a field created by universal physical and moral laws that allow us to understand and live on an evolving platform of possible realities for each one of us - laws that sustain the ultimate purpose of creation. I understand that we only move to a better trajectory inside this deterministic field when we progressively align our intentions and interests with the creator's purposes. In this context, determinism is our guarantee that we can improve ourselves and our future. It is the foundation upon which our free will can exist, be exercised, and thrive for the greater good of ourselves and everyone else. Perhaps suffering is the ultimate proof that free will exists and is exercised as a universal and immutable law. Understanding this can have profound implications for ourselves and others regarding our responsibilities. We cannot be naive to think that physical laws are the most important laws of the universe simply because we do not yet understand other laws that indeed govern them. Once again, thank you.

I think freewill exist as a result of infinite deterministic nature of reality.. Which means from any point in reality there's numerous deterministic feedback.. so the choice to choose within all the possible deterministic feedback is what gives us the sense of freewill.. example is : it's deterministic that every living thing dies.. while a living thing may have freewill to choose how to die

There are two worlds, one inside your head and another outside.

@JohnnyTwoFingers

10 ай бұрын

7 billion+ worlds!

Freedom = psychosis » To choose without reason or cause (indeterminism). To choose to act based on a set of rules or based on the consequences is the illusion of freedom.

We cannot know the future so behave as though we have free will.

@PetraKann

10 ай бұрын

….it’s not about knowing or having perfect perceptions of future events. It’s about creating the future with our actions and thoughts in the present. Are our actions and thoughts pre determined or subject to free will or genuine choice? Does it really matter? I have the free will to deny that YOU have free will which means WE all must have free will

@JohnnyTwoFingers

10 ай бұрын

Most humans at least sometimes claim to the know the future.

@cibriis1710

10 ай бұрын

Why's everyone going on & on about free will? We have will, isn't it enough said?

@bernardliu8526

10 ай бұрын

Schopenhauer said, and Einstein agreed, that a person can do what he/she wants, but he/she can never will what she wants.

@ralphhebgen7067

10 ай бұрын

You may just have expressed in two lines what it took me several paragraphs to say 😂😂😂

Experimental philosophy seems very interesting, unfortunatelly I assume is too young to have divulgation books about it for the general public. The first time I read a book on behavioral economics It was a great pleasure and a revelation for me and this remind me what I read.

If you can sway the future through faith, prayer, love, passion, etc, then we have free will by any relevant definition.

@JAYDUBYAH29

10 ай бұрын

But you can’t. You can impact the future only through actions. Those actions have proceeding causes, but your actions affect the world. That’s all he’s saying. I think the framing of free will VS determinism is often confusing because it automatically evokes the opposition between “being able to affect how things turn out” vs some concept of “fate.” That starts to get more into an almost religious metaphysics, which I think is a wrong turn. We cannot help but act as we do, based on pre existing conditions we did not freely choose-but that doesn’t mean our actions aren’t part and parcel of the unfolding, intersecting, overdetermined reality of causation unfolding as it must. The real thing to grasp is how vast and complex it is. Even when someone develops the restraint that can choose not to react with anger or violence, the ability to do that ultimately was not freely chosen any more than someone else with a brain injury or trauma history or genetic abnormality can “choose” to not be violent, if that’s their situation.

@stoictraveler1

10 ай бұрын

@JAYDUBYAH29 I disagree, the wave function can collapse in your favor if you apply yourself.

@JohnnyTwoFingers

10 ай бұрын

​@@JAYDUBYAH29Do you realize you are speculating?

Determinism means people do not make choices. It means nobody could do anything other than what will happen. It means that everything a person will do and experience was decided before they exist. It means everything that will ever happen in our universe will happen will happen in the determined way. If the average person still thinks that means people have “free will” then they must not understand or mean something less by “free will”.

He is right We have fluctuation dilations kind stuff even E- mc can change with speed n gravitational pull or source of E that using so deterministic statements r there untill someone broke it down we have a quantum now meta and more yet to found just a thought

A question: I understand that the fact that there are causal antecedents to those brain states that instantiate patterns of what we experience as willful decision-making does not entail that those patterns of decision-making don't have consequences (they obviously do, insofar as they part of the causal chain of events). But the real question is whether the causal antecedents determine in advance the outcome of what the pattern of decision-making experiences as an open choice. For instance, if at time t i find myself deciding between Coca Cola or Pepsi, and I choose Pepsi, but it is shown that the causal precursors made it so it was determined that I would choose Pepsi, then it seems as if the openness I experience when making the choice is indeed epiphenomenal. Even if my having picked up the Pepsi has consequences, that's not really what's in question: the point is that what I experience as an open-ended future whose outcome it contingent on what I decide at a given time has already been determined by blind causal processes at a time anterior.

Sometimes when I feel stuck, or worried about some decision, or another.. I like to think to myself, hmm.. be like the atom in a superposition. But that doesn't always work out well.

Determinism is very tricky concept, because Robert thinks about fatalism while Eddy thinks about everything having a preceding cause. I like Eddy's thinking

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

Right, the concept Kuhn seems to have difficulty with is that, under determinism our mental processes absolutely do determine our choices. It's just that our mental processes themselves also have preceding causes. However those mental processes are still us, so it is us that chooses.

@marcv2648

10 ай бұрын

So this would mean that chance cannot exist.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@marcv2648 It has two meanings. In the philosophy of free will it's usually taken to mean 'determined by the laws of physics', leaving it open to be a random statistical process depending on the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The point being it's a 'mechanistic' physical process contrasted with free as in philosophical free will. It's this ambiguity in the meaning of determinism that I usually prefer the term physicalism, because it's more specific, but in this case determinism was the term already in use in the discussion. Strictly though even then physicalism and determinism aren't the same, even allowing for random QM effects. Compatibilists manage to be both physicalists and non-determinists in that they think physicalism is compatible with philosophical free will.

@Robinson8491

10 ай бұрын

Does it exist according to you? It is a measure of our ignorance of the physical situation@@marcv2648

@marcv2648

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 The problem I have with the mechanistic physicalist determinism is this. Reproduction in animals, plants bacteria, etc. is optimized to exploit random chance, and the law of large numbers in the volume of gametes, eggs sperm, offspring, etc. Also, natural selection is an emergent macro-level process, not a quantum process. Natural selection rewards large numbers on almost every level. There are only ever a comparative few survivors. So exploiting large numbers is important, and resources are devoted to it. That said, when life invests in large numbers, it invests in chance. If non-quantum random chance does not exist, how would a process like natural selection be possible or even meaningfully play a role? Why would its mechanism even come about in the first place? It's not an energy efficient process in any way. I don't see why the universe would generate a process that optimizes for non-quantum randomness, and yet still be physically predetermined. I think a universe like this would be paradoxical, and nature doesn't allow for paradoxes. The first commenter tries to differentiate between physical determinism and fatalism by saying, "Eddy thinks about everything having a preceding cause. I like Eddy's thinking." As I read this, there is no real distinction other than feeling good about the way it is phrased. I think the relevant question is: Does random chance exist? If it does, we have an explanation for processes like natural selection. If it doesn't, then we have this natural selection process that expends energy on optimizing for randomization without cause.

There can only be free will with determinism, because free will means choice of the individual, not the choice other man would take, but the one choice only one man can make. Thus, one man can only make one choice (his) and this means his destiny is only one, never more.

this is an interesting conversation but I have to ask what is the definition of a " normal" person?

If it's true that to every action there's a reaction then it means all reactions already exist even before the action..

I don't understand how that kind of enquiry, valuable as it might be, constitutes an "experimental philosophy" as opposed to a sociological or cultural-anthropological study about people's beliefs concerning certain concepts that while relevant to philosophers are also part of common-sense worldviews of non-philosophers. Philosophy might be able to identify the mistakes in the reasoning of individuals concerning these topics or concepts, but the experimental part of it doesn't seem to me to be philosophical in any meaningful sense.

I like the spherical view of the brain, not the top down, and its processes. The brain is a singularity drawing in perception from all directions. But it is not a Black Hole, our Consciousness allows for reaction, decision making, and communication to flow from it. The difficulty lies in how that consciousness is influenced by perceptions, particularly those that are the result of input from determinists i.e., social, political, religious and scientific. We must also deal with the chemical and connection influences on our physical brain to our perceptions and our consciousness's ability to respond. Free will, maybe. But it is one that is influenced in many ways. We humans are severely hampered in our journey through life. And in so many ways. Sigh... One issue I have with this conversation is the use of the term "ordinary people". How is 'ordinary' determined? And by whom? Kind of off putting and a bit insulting.

Человеком управляют мотивы, учат детерминисты. Они бывают обусловлены или его внутренними влечениями, или же внешними обстоятельствами. Поступок человека зависит не от его добровольного выбора, а от того, какой именно мотив преобладает над прочими в каждый конкретный момент. Что можно на это сказать? В принятии человеком решений мотивы и действительно играют важную роль. Как правило, детерминист ,в практической жизни ,не руководствуется своей теорией, в противном случае он должен быть апатичен и любое событие воспринимать как должное: зло это или добро, приносит ли оно ему беду или радость. Подтверждением ложности детерминизма могут служить угрызения совести и неразрывно связанные с этими угрызениями переживания, проявляющиеся в осознании человеком того, что в той-то и той-то ситуации он мог поступить по-другому, однако не поступил. С подобными угрызениями связано и знакомое каждому чувство раскаяния, чувство вины. Детерминизм служит удобной основой для самооправдания: Я не виноват; а виноваты обстоятельства; виновато мое естество; виноваты гены; виноват весь мир - кто угодно, но только не Я. И целые талмуды, кстати написаны о том, что преступника нужно лечить, а не судить.

@onemind4402

10 ай бұрын

I think that judgement is a determination by an individual or society of an act and its effect on that individual or society (I/S). While being somewhat subjective (see below), it is also a means by which the I/S can assign a response, whether it be a physical one that causes the actor to pay a price determined by the I/S or to make it a teaching moment (you can question the right that the I/S has to make that judgement, the penalty imposed, and just what 'teaching' would mean). I liked the Ball view of the brain, not the top down, and its processes. The brain is a singularity drawing in perception from all directions. But it is not a Black Hole, our Consciousness allows for reaction, decision making, and communication to flow from it. The difficulty lies in how that consciousness is influenced by perceptions, particularly those that are the result of input from determinists i.e., social, political, religious and scientific. We must also deal with the chemical and connection influences on our physical brain to our perceptions and our consciousness's ability to respond. We humans are severely hampered in our journey through life. And in so many ways. Sigh...

why cant free will stand as an opposition within a deterministic universe? Thats the entire point behind a lot of belief systems, yin an yang being an excellent example. My environment controls me, but i also control my environment.

“That just seems like faulty thinking.” “I don’t think so.” How does what you think enter into this one iota? Look, the universe works like this. If I strike a billiard ball with a cue at a certain force and angle, it will go into the left side pocket. If I do it at another force or angle, it won’t. That’s it. The trick is, the “I” has both to do with it. Let’s say I had an argument with my wife the night before, my thinking and reflexes were off, and I missed the shot. Who cares? What matters is that the cue didn’t hit the ball in such a manner that it would go into the pocket. The problem is that we cannot choose to put the 8 ball in the side pocket, we can only choose to ATTEMPT to put the 8 ball in the side pocket. In the end, all we can really do is choose, but choice and outcome are not the same thing.

I can't put this video in the background while working because I'll have to stop and think about the very fabric of my existence 😭😭

kind of like the coment section, in a way :) ... we do consider most other perspectives unless our past experiences/evaluations/commitments prevent us from doing so...

What is free will again? Is it the state of mind or does it relate to time? Is there free will without time? No. So its a state of mind that is concerned with past and future 🤔 ... Yes. Outside of that it is just deterministic? So does that mean, free will is calculating based on present interaction with new information? So, it can choose to respond or not respond depending on what it calculates as true or looks like it could instead be worse therefore I choose the style, manner and words to best tell someone their boyfriend is a douch. But its my fault for the moment because of all kinds of mistakes ...but later on. You choose to be available for your friend even though she was going through a difficult time. Seems like a mix bag. Maybe thats wrong. I prefer to throw a bucket of dirty water out of a window just as Descartes walked pass 😏 ..is it fate? Thanks Robert!

Consciousness in the Exclusion Zones and one giant connection for quantum entanglement as the Exclusion Zone is also “Dark Matter”…

Free will is corrupted with love.

Robert just needs to read a bunch of Alan Watts and he'll be on his wayto be less closed-minded toward philosophy that he is skeptical about.

Axiom #0alpha: "The more one 'Philosophizes' REALITY, the more Velocity the 'Philosopher' acquires in the opposite vector from any accurate description of it."

Maybe consienceness is another dimensión ?

🇹🇼

Whether the future is predetermined or can have multiple possible outcomes based on randomness, both are incompatible with free will. Compatibilists are very strange thinkers to me. They do a lot of linguistic work to try and redefine determinism or they treat human agents as if they were not part of the whole system somehow. I really cannot take compatibilists seriously at all.

There's determinism in small things, but there's free will in big actions.

Ther is no trick that makes things work right fool

The problem with this guy's whole argument is that he didn't define what free will is....the idea of free will is nonsensical by itself ...but he glossed over it like it's a simple thing every one understands. I'm responsible for my decisions, but that doesn't mean I have free will. I have as much free will as a tesla self drive car

@onemind4402

10 ай бұрын

With all those Tesla's driving into lakes, maybe they do.

Faulty thinking

I robbed this bank because of quantum mechanics

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

My emotions, experiences, knowledge, skills and preferences all weighed against robbing the bank. I had no reason to do it. I wasn't planning to do it, and in fact was just going to walk on by and do some shopping, but at the last minute I somehow chose otherwise. Philosophy made me do it!

So experimental philosophy merely figures out what people think and not about how nature works? Sounds like survey philosophy to me :)

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

I think it has it's place. For example with questions like the philosophical implications of what people's experience of consciousness means, actually knowing what the range and distribution of different experiences of consciousness by actual people are is clearly relevant. I think it's also useful to know what non-specialists mean or understand about the words they use. In these discussions here in comments people will often cite things as being obvious, or will make claims about how people commonly experience things, or what people generally experience, in support of their positions. Are those claims actually true? I think it's worth finding out.

What if we are living reality in reverse and that's why the universe is deterministic..😁

@onemind4402

10 ай бұрын

.eb dluoc, mmmmmh.

the older i get the more it seems like mathematics is the ultimate reality ..

Nope.

It's always interesting to see how terrible philosophers are at epistemology....insufficient free will?

The mistake he talks about, that some people think determinism means our desires don't have an effect on our choices, I see made here in comments all the time. As he says, determinism is the idea that our beliefs, desires, knowledge and other mental characteristics are us. They are what determine our choices. That is what it means to say that we made a choice.

@RogerSchlafly

10 ай бұрын

It is not a mistake. The host explains his "faulty thinking".

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@RogerSchlafly That's because Kuhn wants to believe in free will in the philosophical sense, which requires believing in some non-physical form of causation. And that's fine, that's a reasonable position to take. I think it's wrong, but I do understand why some people think that way. The problem is it often leads them to profoundly misunderstand what determinists even believe, before they can even start to reason about why it might be right or wrong. After all, how can you genuinely say you can argue against or refute a position, if you don't even know what it is? Some critics of determinism do get it, but a lot really don't and we can see here Kuhn has trouble with it.

@jamenta2

10 ай бұрын

Determinism is just that: determinism. You can't have it both ways. Philosophers who claim you still have "free choice" while insisting reality is fundamentally deterministic, want to have their cake and eat it too. There *is* no free choice if everything is determined. Even the illusion you hold of free choice *is* determined. Whatever action you take, has already been *determined* in a deterministic reality.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 I agree I think Kuhn's compatibilism is a road to nowhere. Determinism demands embracing it's implications. However under determinism we have a complete account of what free means, what agency means, what making a choice means, and what responsibility is. They just aren't the same as what those terms mean to people with different views.

@jamenta2

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 I hold no one responsible if they have no "free will". And ultimately, this is what determinism tells us - if it is true. I believe the verdict is still out, and quantum physics certainly opens the door to a statistical range of events - which leaves the door open to some range of free-will. How consciousness plays a role however remains unknown (if it does.) The human psyche conducts itself as if it possesses free-will, including the unconscious (especially the unconscious which remains autonomous). Which would be an odd paradox indeed - reality provides an illusion of free will when there really is none. Why go to all the trouble?

Consciousness, where free will depends on, is still the biggest mystery in science. No scientist can explain the cause of consciousness or how consciousness came to be .. ..yet, Eddie Nahmias here is claiming that everything has a cause. It would be fair if he can first explain fully the cause of consciousness, where free will depends on, before claiming that he is just a robot with free will to follow orders of determinism .. very funny..

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

If not having a thoroughly verified, proven theory of consciousness is such a big problem particularly for science, presumably you do have a proven theory. Or do you just have exactly the same problem? Agreed, very funny.

@evaadam3635

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 I believe our Consciousness has no cause because I believe that it is part of the Holy Spirit who has no beginning and no end, or no cause, that is why our WILL is FREE, so, it is not my problem to search for its cause unlike science... ...but when you define your whole being as a deterministic robot with free will, well, that is really funny stuff 🙂

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@evaadam3635 So you have no proof of your opinion, but you criticise others for not having proof of theirs? Just checking.

@evaadam3635

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Claiming to know requires an explanation of proof, but, when you just share a belief, proof is not required... ..however, regardless whether you have proof or not, when you claim to know or share a belief, see to it that it makes sense to your readers and not sound funny.. ..claiming that he is a deterministic robot with free will is obviously funny aside from not making any sense... ..and do not fault me for feeling funny but rather consider it as a wake up call for him to realize that his logic is upside-down, not an offensive criticism but a productive one.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@evaadam3635 He doesn't claim to know, in fact he doesn't even claim that determinism is correct and doesn't even argue that it is correct. He is simply explaining to Kuhn what determinism means. Watch it again if you like, I just did to be sure. He's just a philosopher explaining a philosophical position. He may well be a determinist, but in this clip he doesn't even try to argue determinism is correct. He just explains what it means and what it's implications are.

These fake philosophers keep trying to defend the fatalism ingrained in Christianity. It is funny.

And that's exactly what's wrong with philosophy: it is a useless verbalism! The fast advance of humanity in any direction depends only on practical results, on real pragmatism, and not on the level of verbosity.

Those who don't accept ISLAM ☪️ are indeed in great LOSS

@Bogudarz

10 ай бұрын

XDDDDDDDD

@asuka_the_void_witch

10 ай бұрын

no thanks i do fine without any religions.

lIKE SABINA WOULD SAY - GOBBLEDYGOOK -