Looking for meaning of life? Pereboom's answer is found at 1:00:30.

Thanks for a great conversation and for introducing me to this great thinker. Great content and great quality. спасибо

I am just an idiot. But I'd really like to have it explained to me why people concentrate on the moral responsibility aspect. If one says that determinism is true and a person makes the claim that he doesn't deserve punishment because he wasn't free to choose otherwise. How is that different than the person's responsibility who punishes him? If freewill doesn't exists for the offender then how can it exists for the prosecutor? It seems to me that people who make this argument are stopping one step short of asking the full question. Secondly. I've studied Einstein's Theory of Special relativity and can't find an argument against it. If you take that theory to be valid, then our future already exists to an observer who is sufficiently far away and moving toward us. Their present light cone intersects our "future" light cone. If it is true that the future exists before we experience it, then how can it be true that we have any choice? I'm sure I'm doing a terrible job of explaining this situation. For a better explanation I would refer you to Sir Roger Penrose. Also as regards the measurement problem in quantum physics. If the universe is one eternal block as suggested by Einstein, then the measurement problem is solved. It seems to me that assigning responsibility, blame, or praise, is meaningless. Of course it is determined, but any meaning attached is also determined. If this is true then how can one have any philosophy other than Nihilism?

@caricue

2 жыл бұрын

I would suggest that you start with the idea that determinism isn't true at all. You still end up with all the same questions, but it removes an unnecessary and faulty presupposition. The idea of scientific determinism seems to come from the fact that you can do the exact same experiment over and over and always get the same results. Determinists seem to miss the additional fact that the scientist can change the outcome at will by changing the conditions. The atoms and molecules will happily go along with this new experiment since they are just passive objects and don't determine anything. Life sets up conditions in which atoms and molecules will react as needed by the cell. The whole controls the parts, not the other way around. If you accept all of this, it doesn't tell you anything about moral responsibility, blame or praise, but it does remove one big obstacle.

@jamespaternoster7354

Жыл бұрын

The issue would be with this is that the prosecution would have to choose (with no free will) to ignore the massive piles of evidence for determinism or indeterminism at a metaphysical level which allow no room for free will and still carry out a punishment based on the false truth of free will on effectively a determined agent (the person) which is madness. Ironically a person choosing not to accept the fact free will is utterly incoherent within the laws of the universe and is an illusion in all logical probability is still not truest within their power. Powerful deterministic forces both environmental and neurobiological will have cause their denial of the lack of any free will in the system. Coming to understand we have no free will ends the whole basis of vengeance and hated for others! Among many effects that would take hours to write out sadly. But yes In conclusion metaphysical randomness (indeterminism) is not freedom nor is determinism free will either in any area of the universe.

I'm curious about why the experts seem to focus so much on moral responsibility. Are we humans immoral monsters if our free will is taken away? I doubt that. Maybe some sociopaths could become dangerous but I believe our universe is smarter than that. A more potent possibility is that free will actually is an illusion and then that's a liberating idea IF taken from a nondual perspective.

@Anders01

4 жыл бұрын

@@PleinAirCowboy I believe you are correct. And also, for example is someone has committed a crime, the judge sentencing the person to prison is also without free will!

@LarryFasnacht

2 жыл бұрын

@@Anders01 Exactly.

@user-du6lv8tg8b

8 ай бұрын

Without free will we cannot control our behaviour. So we can become any kind of monsters and we cannot prevent it.

What we prefer to do and what we do sometimes are at odd with each other. Sometimes we try hard to change a habit . Sometimes while I am doing something I know i shouldn't be doing this but unable to stop it. Are these examples of determinism or free will. How about being primed to choose something, is that free will. How come to do the right thing seems less natural and more cognitive .

@stephenlawrence4821

2 жыл бұрын

This is about the logic of choice. To make a choice we must select from options. So we must pick one out as the best somehow.

@tupacalypse88

Жыл бұрын

​@@stephenlawrence4821 how can someone tell the difference between choice and an illusion of choice?

A better perspective is to call it “Response-able Will” or "Responsible Will". We are able to respond to our environment (including society) and our environment (including society) is able to counter-respond to us. Our mechanical environment’s response may be a simple mechanical reaction, but our own and society’s counter-responses are fully determined by the past, but they are not simple mechanical reactions but are rather the result of complex scenario planning, mental simulations, and evaluation of expected outcome based on need, memory and knowledge expected counter-responses. So we are responsible to society for our actions because we incorporate the expected counter response of society in our evaluation. You may argue you have decided you will not consider society responses in your evaluation, however in doing so you have established a rule which is in itself an implicit consideration included in each evaluation, so you remain responsible. Whether you call it personal responsibility, or ethical responsibility, or moral responsibility at the end of the day we can be held legally responsible without free will of any kind. This may seem a strange use and even a corruption of the word “Responsible” but the Merriam-Webster has one use as “being the cause or explanation” which I think fits well with this use. I thought of the term "Responsible Will" after observing how often the word "Responsible" is used in the context of the free will debate, it hangs around everywhere but nobody seems to make the link that in reality, we are responsible creatures, right from the level of our eukaryotic cells through to society everything is response-able. *Where the "Responsible Will" view differs from the "Determinism" view of the points in the video:* @18:08 Just Desert - Extending the "Responsible Will" view it becomes clear that society's harsh response such as capital punishment is entirely justified, but only when future perpetrators are made aware of the response to their actions. So it would advocate for public hanging instead of private painless execution. To give someone a harsh punishment when they reasonably expected a minor punishment for a crime is thus immoral, it is society's failure not making them clearly aware of the consequence of their action. @22:20 In the "Responsible Will" view indignation is a perfectly rational emotional response to wrongdoing in that it is a functional regulator of the wrongdoer's future expected counter response to similar behaviour.

@Dannzzx

3 жыл бұрын

re capital punishment: considering that, even when made aware of such deterrents, a good number of perps still do what they do, i believe there is a sublevel reasoning here which we fail to highlight in these discussions. every part of everyones social perceptions/risk/reward/motivations are shaped by an environment which was never selected. if i ignore the C.P deterrent and kill a load of people, do i become irresponsible?

He doesn't answer the questions but just goes on a rant.

This conclusion is partly right, partly wrong. You have enough free will to go out for pizza, but not enough to hit the gym.

@sorenvc

4 жыл бұрын

Some people decide to go to the gym and eat good food. Because it was predetermined for them to do so. ;)

@jamespaternoster7354

Жыл бұрын

All neurobiological processes that we have no control over will predicate our success in any given moment on what we choose want or desire or try to achieve etc

if we have to believe we are free......we have to do something so where is the freedom?

I disagree with his idea that we need to hold people morally responsible in order to formulate a moral code and to reconcile with others You can still help formulate a moral code in your children without moral responsibility by simply encouraging them to act in a way which benefits others and discourage them from acting in a way that impacts negatively on others. There is no need for the notion of moral responsibility here The idea of reconciliation disappears if free will doesn't exist. If you take your child to the zoo and your child falls into a lions den and lion eats your child you would not feel that the lion needs to reconcile for what it has done there is absolutely no basis for holding people morally responsible if free will does not exist

@jed52

6 жыл бұрын

Are you saying murderous psychopaths should not be jailed for their crimes?

@jamespaternoster7354

Жыл бұрын

Emotions of the actual people effected would be effected regardless of logic or science facts and evidence. However laws, social norms and wider society if educated properly on the fact the world is deterministic would then ensure that irrational actions on the part of those emotionally compromised by the traumatic events, in this case the lion eating a family member, would then not be able to take legal or vengeful actions against the lion, zoo or other parties for example.

8:50 but also 5:00 ish

The tea cup's fucking me off

What is the absolute extreme of demonstrating free will? We don't need conferences and TV shows that waste precious time.

If it turns out that x is true ...but most or all of these theories seem to never be figured out ...this seems to be an argument for God...an all knowing God seems to be the only one that would ultimately know.

He sounds like Steven Pinker

I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are conceptual models based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini

@LarryFasnacht

2 жыл бұрын

I don't accept your thoughtful argument, but for the sake of this discussion, I have one question. If, as you say, consciousness isn't produced in the brain, then where is it produced?

@marcobiagini1878

2 жыл бұрын

@@LarryFasnacht A logically coherent view is the dualistic view: our consciousness is the result of the interaction between the soul and brain processes. Another logically coherent view is the idealistic one: our consciousness is the result of the interaction between our soul and God, and brain processes are a representation of that interaction.

@LarryFasnacht

2 жыл бұрын

@@marcobiagini1878 Okay, so what is the evidence for a soul? Where does that come from? What is it made of?

@marcobiagini1878

2 жыл бұрын

@@LarryFasnacht As my arguments prove, the evidence for a soul is the existence of our mental experiences. Here is a summary of my arguments. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it can be proved that this hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledge and implies logical contradictions. There are in fact 2 arguments that prove such hypothesis contains a logical fallacy. 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual physical processes. An approximate description is only an abstraction, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself; an approximate description is an idea that exists only in a conscious mind. This means that emergent properties are concepts that refer to something that has an inherent conceptual nature (abstract ideas). 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that every set of elements is inherently an arbitrary abstraction which implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set. Therefore, any property attributed to the set as a whole is inherently arbitrary because it depends on the arbitrary choice used to define the set. Arbitrariness is a precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and consciousness is a precondition for the existence of arbitrariness. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property. In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. If a concept refers to “something” whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness, such “something” cannot exist independently of a conscious mind and can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example consider the property of "beauty": beauty is intrisically subjective, abstract and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else; however, there is no objective criterion that allows us to identify what separates brain and non-brain. Obviously, consciousness cannot be a property of an abstraction, because an abstraction cannot conceive of itself. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction because it implies the arbitrary choice of including some elements in the set and excluding others. Physically the brain is not a single entity and therefore every alleged property of the brain is an arbitrary concept, a subjective abstraction. This is sufficient to prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is a property of the brain is nonsensical because it contains an intrinsic logical contradiction; consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of arbitrariness, and therefore the existence of consciousness cannot be a consequence of all that implies arbitrariness. An example of a concept that does not refer to something that is inherently subjective and presupposes the existence of arbitrariness, is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Consciousness can exist only as the property of an indivisible entity, because only an indivisible entity does not imply any kind of arbitrariness; furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity cannot be physical, since there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit.

@LarryFasnacht

2 жыл бұрын

@@marcobiagini1878 Why couldn’t the “emergent properties” actually be the processes? Not simulated or emergent, but actually are. I don’t see why something more is required. You place a great deal of importance on logic. But an argument can be logically consistent and completely wrong. I don’t see why this has to be made so complicated. When the brain dies, consciousness dies. Why do we need to say that consciousness is an emergent, or in your words, “arbitrary abstraction”? Why can’t beauty simply be the ACTUAL configuration of the brain state at that time? Such and interesting question. Thank you for your time in trying to educate me. I appreciate it.

In chaos theory , are not fractals in deterministic systems eventually superimpose on each other to reach such equilibrium that only the passage of time could predict when the determined action could take place in time ? That sounds like a way to have free will and determinism sync in harmony through some weird paradox. As it will happen, and we will know it will happen eventually, but we will only be sure of it when the time comes. Add that with quantum theory and free will is back on the table cosmic reductionist or not. Its apparent there are indeed somethings that cant be predicted until we get there and it becomes the past. It makes perfect sense too because omniscience, which is the thought experiment that claims to banish free will, brings a bigger problem to the table than the problem it proposes to solve. Fallacious reasoning is fallacious reasoning. No matter how you feel about your tribe. (atheist or theist). I have always seen it as i have as much free will as i determine myself to have. I am the master of my brain, not the other way around. Some would argue that my view would be one less altruistic than the determined one but i see latching onto determinism as a way to absolve your moral responsibility much like theists do with jesus. Am i wrong here? this is as far as i have taken the problem so far.

@mad-eyemax1389

4 жыл бұрын

*"We will only be sure of it when the time comes"* doesn't this simply mean that we merely respond to uncertainty, rather than certainty, and thus have a different will in an indeterminate world, but not a free one? Also, how would quantum theory put free will back on the table?

after listening all d lectures from all this brainy people..i beleive that free will and predestined are d same!

@user-du6lv8tg8b

8 ай бұрын

Extremely illogically

Although Derks positions are well reasoned, one can't help but notice his accute affinity for the back alleys of philosophy..A harkening back to a time when philosophers argued endlessly about definitions, mystery schools, nomenclature, categories and the nuances of meaning..Philosophies magnum opus was the scientific method and worldview, and there is NO field of inquiry beyond its purview..No offense to the respectable gentleman..

Okay, but the fact that he was raised Calvinist cracks me up because, basically, iirc, Calvinism teaches God predetermines everything. It’s kind of ironic here.

Free will does. Ot exist on any level. A myth.

free will is logically impossible. because your choices musn't be random, otherwise it's not free will, it's just randomness. and it musn't follow rules, otherwise it's not free. thus, it must follow rules (no be random), and be random (not follow rules). oops.

@thegoldensealion9463

6 жыл бұрын

Your mum is logically impossible

@24base

2 жыл бұрын

Reasoning to a decision whether that reason be rational or irrational does not render freewill impossible

@user-du6lv8tg8b

8 ай бұрын

It can be a false dilemma.

"If my faith based worldview called materialism is correct then perhaps free will is an illusion." A convincing argument indeed ;)

@bluebullets8023

5 жыл бұрын

The truth value of the claim that free will is an illusion does not depend on any ontological position. Try again.

@paulheinrichdietrich9518

4 жыл бұрын

How do you accomodate free will with a non-materialist view.

@vidyanandbapat8032

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 It's very easy for a non-materialist. It's difficult for a materialist.

Nazis also had personal relationships.

@jimbeam4736

3 жыл бұрын

So what?

Derek Pereboom is a machine. We who are not machines can treat him as a machine and do whatever we want with this machine. We can turn him off or we can modify him or we can use him for spare parts for other machines.

Wrong.

@stuartdoyle4373

5 жыл бұрын

@rob see I'm very willing to elaborate. I just finished writing down what I think is wrong with this kind of view on free will. I want to formally publish it , but the first draft is posted here in the meantime: time-and-silence.com/2019/08/10/sizing-up-free-will-the-scale-of-compatibilism/