Dennett on Determinism

[SuperDogbrown]

some really good stuff here

[rodswebdesign]

love the video man

[shandcunt]

@petestrat07 "Is there an untimate reality or is reality purely subjective?" I reject the question catagorically, the answer is that both are true.

Solipsism much?

[gavin101101]

What he's saying is that we can take a plethora of solace in the fact that an individual possessing infallible knowledge of their future incurs a multiplicity of paradoxes.

[sulljoh1]

Forgive the expression given the circumstances but, thank God for this man

[Entropy56]

Can someone please summarize what the hell Dennett just said?

[brindow1]

Damn background music ! It drowns his words and takes your mind off what he's saying. I'm off to try and find another vid.

[petestrat07]

and at the end of the day, what happens after you die is still a mystery with no absolute certainty. I'm amazed that I exist. It blows my mind that Im a conscious entity that is able to experience.

Truth is. Nobody knows wtf any of this is all about. Some have just perfected the art of observation using their finite monkey brain and senses to achieve staggering results however their perspective remains miniscule and distored. Is there an untimate reality or is reality purely subjective?

[vulnerabledonkey]

I know "lol he looks like Santa" comments are getting old, but I've got to day that if Santa did exist I'd want him to be Daniel Dennett and have him deliver ideas instead of presents.

[lourak]

@themorbidimmortal Well - it seems to me that enthusiasm needs to be based on something of value in order to be worthy of the name. Existential dread should be the dominating notion here. I see no wiggle room on a thorough-going determinism. You can have the last word.

[lourak]

As usual, Dennett obfuscates, with his sophomoric logic. The mere fact of this "epistemic horizon" being hidden from us does nothing to detract from the illusory nature of our enthusiasm for life - on a deterministic view. Indeed, Dr. Dennett - why engage in your 'big projects"?

[instereovideos]

@lourak This is YouTube. There's just no need for all that flowery language, it's a layman's forum (not that you sound like anything but). If you ever gain the respect of academics, you'll get your chance to ramble like that, to them.

Just talk here. No one is impressed that you have just enough of a vocabulary to put all of that silly "prose" together. Indeed, the mere fact of your obfuscation of Dennett detracts from my enthusiasm for your sophomoric logic. See how annoying that is?

[lourak]

@instereovideos Are you a liberal? Now how did I know that?

[instereovideos]

@lourak lol... no. No, I'm not.

Don't get so upset... you were talking like a dumbass on the internet and you got called on it. This kind of stuff happens. That doesn't make all of the people who disagree with you "liberals," but even if it did, I don't see how that would somehow make you NOT an idiot.

[lourak]

@instereovideos Alright then - we'll leave it there. Thanks!

[instereovideos]

@lourak wow, OK... does that mean I'm "dismissed?" lol. I guess you really did get upset. Of course, if I were you, I would have "left it" before you ever made that first silly comment.

[lourak]

@instereovideos I can't resist 1 last comment. Not so fast my friend. If you were me, you would do exactly what I did (we have no choice about the things we do and say in this deterministic universe ACCORDING TO DENNETT - so you'll have to excuse my "silly" comments. You can have the last word...

[instereovideos]

@lourak lol... if you give me the "last word," does that mean you've said something interesting already? 'Cause I'm still waiting for your "first word."

And notice I didn't say anything about Dennett's argument. Quit trying to distract people from noticing that I was only talking about the idiot way you put your phrases together.

No, no, I insist, YOU take the "last word," lol.

[osheaad]

POWER COMES FROM KNOWING THE LIMITS OF POSSIBILITY, THAT COMES FROM GREAT OBSERVATION!! EVERY GREAT PERSON MUST BOW TO THE DETERMINACY OF EXISTENCE, the alternative is FAILURE AND DEATH AND EXTINCTION.

THERE IS HOPE, DETERMINACY REWARDS THE OBSERVANT AND THE WISE.

[AsmoAD]

@whadjison I've never seen so many words put into someones mouth. Why don't you just back away from this video quietly and don't come back until you can manage some basic comprehension.

[hotstixx]

music is exquisite.thanks for posting.

[sisterofmercy02]

This music is nice but distracting from what he's saying.

[petitemasochist]

Philip Glass! Excellent choice. :)

[AgainstZombies]

Holy guacamole! Dennett's hair is gray, not totally white! :O

[leptismagna10]

the music really added to that

[CambridgeHeights]

Dennett is a bad philosopher. He sees reality the way he wants to see it, rather than the way it really is.

[theocean1973]

@CambridgeHeights I wouldn't say he's a bad philosopher, he made some very good contributions to dismantling mistaken notions of consciousness, but he's too overzealous in eliminating subjective experience via a strawman attack on qualia. I'm a hard determinist/skeptic against free will and I used to like Dennett's compatibilism but now i reject it outright. I now agree more with Galen Strawson: we can't deny that we have subjective experience and that we don't have free will.

[henryporter101]

@theocean1973 What straw man does he build with regards to qualia?

[theocean1973]

@henryporter101 He defines them specifically as "ineffable, intrinsic, private & directly apprehensible" and then constructs arguments against THIS definition. I thought that was fine at first, because maybe qualia are something else, something not yet quantifiable. But Dennett, I realized, has none of it. "There is no such thing as real phenomenology" he says, which confirms that by eliminating qualia he eliminates experience. That's why it's a strawman: he applies his argument to all qualia

[TAXtheAtheist]

@theocean1973 Dennett: a crazy ol' man.

[CytherLynx]

he says, 'in principle' also... i don't think this is true, necessarily. but i agree with him about how it is effectively unpredictable.

but we can say from certain that the universe is predictable to an incredible high degree (QM plays effectively nothing role)

[YourUTubeMonitor]

The corporate media's chosen one, prevaricator Christ' Hitchens through his misguided faith in A.M.A.-endorsed-cancer-treatme­nt protocols, has sealed his fate. In the end pig-ignorance was his undoing.

[NebunLaCap]

If its determinism verses free will I believe its both. If you only pick one, that is being one dimensional in your thinking. The universe is not one dimensional. The universe has probably infinite dimensions. Thats what I think anyway.

[TheAnonymousAnomie]

@NebunLaCap

Compatibilism

[NebunLaCap]

@TheAnonymousAnomie Wow I came to that conclusion by myself I'm amazing. Thanks for that.

[NebunLaCap]

I like the background music is there a name for that kind of song? I know its classical or orchestra w/e, but it speaks a certain emotion.

[tempemonkey2323]

Compatibalists are pussies.... Similar to Christians believing in their fairy tale happy feeling beliefs....... Dennett, I love you, but you are a pussy when it comes to compatibalism..... But for that matter, so is David Hume (He is the real bad ass)

[mikepalomino]

@tempemonkey2323 You know, I can understand some of the knuckledraggers out there who rate things by a manly/pussy factor like primitive apes who've just discovered their genitals and need to prove they're alpha males; what I don't get is why someone like you - who is clearly not stupid if you understand and follow this stuff - needs to do the same? Pussies? Really? What are you a philosophical jock? Do you beat up Aristotelians? Do you hustle Kantians for their lunch money? I don't get it.

[tempemonkey2323]

@mikepalomino Being strong and brave enough to accept reality no matter what she presents takes some balls.... Dennett lacks them..... A word you can use to describe a person who lacks courage is, in this modern day and age.... A puusy

Why would I act violent toward people who followed Aristotle?

I am trying to assert the fact that I do posses the courage to accept reality... If you want to relate that to a monkey and his balls so be it.

You want to spew some more shit or are you done?

[mikepalomino]

@tempemonkey2323 I have very a simple philosophy: people who are confident in their beliefs do not feel a need to flout them about like peacock feathers; humility is not a weakness but overconfidence is. Your chauvinism is not impressive & IMHO seems incongruous for someone who is learned. The you think I'm talking shit for merely questioning you demonstrates a hint of defensiveness. As for the other stuff, I figured someone as manly as you could take a little ball-busting, guess I was wrong ;)

[tempemonkey2323]

@mikepalomino Oh I can handle anything... Show me how compatibalism is a valid point.....

Imagine that a brain surgeon hooked up a device to your head that controlled all your emotions, thoughts, memories, motivation etc.... Imagine that he pushed a button and you did his bidding.. But, you really wanted to do it...

Tell me how the compatibalist gets around the picture above?

Tell me that you have discussed this issue at length and are tired of people fucking it up...

I'm confident

[tempemonkey2323]

@mikepalomino Im sick of people not grasping reality and accepting things.... It is annoying.. Get some strength, accept reality, or GROW SOME BALLS.... Or give me a counter argument.... Or shut up....

The feminist class is down the hall next to semantics....

[mikepalomino]

@tempemonkey2323 I'm not saying you're wrong or right about compatibalism; I have no stake in that argument. It just seems strange that a learned person in such matters finds it necessary to condescend like that. It's my fault really. I have a high-minded notion that intellectuals should be humble, like Dennett, regarding their own knowledge and expertise as well respecting the viewpoints of others. This isn't to say that one ought to be sheepish (aka "pussy"); Dennett certainly isn't IMHO.

[IamLiterallyRetarded]

Google Benjamin Libet. He did experiments on living human's brains and his results seem to indicate that we have "free won't". We have veto power but our minds react to things about a half second before we are aware of them.

[mechnar9]

Finally some clear thinking on this matter, youtube seems full of simplistic incompatibilists

[drunkagnostic]

If reality rules out Olympic medals, you may rationally strive elsewhere. But if reality rules out everything but your particular fate, what's rational about striving or even choosing? What will be will be. It doesn't matter whether I choose to get drunk & bitter or to constructively work toward my goals, because the choice isn't really mine and the results are fixed anyway. How does this not drain life of meaning? Only if you pretend it's not so, it would seem...

[SAMagic]

Why oh why did they conduct the interview in a room next to an orchestra?

[RyanRockGod]

perfect for my philosophy and ethics exams Friday!

[MrFuckyoubitch69]

Who will be the public intellectual champion of determinism? None have had the courage to accept the obvious yet.

[RobWein83]

I still think that Dennett doesn't get to the true point to Determinism in his explanation. Determinism doesn't equate to giving up in life and not striving for anything, rather it's the ILLUSION of making choices. Even if you truly believe in the idea of Determinism you simply understand that all your choices are simply the ILLUSION of free will. No body simply believes in Determinism and then quits life. Determinism applies to those failures as well as the successful.

[Dozedmonkey]

@RobWein83

What do you mean the illusion of making choices? There is no illusion in that, you are indeed making choices, choices based on a subjective rationale. If you weren't making choices, there wouldn't be determinism anyway. A choice is caused, as otherwise it wouldn't be a choice. The problem is free will has been misinterpreted as 'I' and 'Determinism' being seperate, and determinism being a constraint on the 'I'.

[RobWein83]

@Dozedmonkey Yes, there may be a perceptible choice, but there is a difference in what determinism and free will to what makes that choice. Free Will says that our conscious mind at that moment determines the choice made and certainly with recognizing some influence of experience, while determinism says that choice is completely conceived entirely by every condition (experience) before it (metaphorically, the way electricity follows the path of least resistance).  Free will being the illusion.

[eoliathain]

I think the music seems pretentious in a way that detracts from Dennett

[CZKing]

Just because we cant know what the future will look like doesnt mean it isnt predetermined

[kwalk30]

also loose the lame music, he isnt that deep...

[Miunoise]

LOL

[kwalk30]

Why is he always babbling about what is upsetting and what isn't? How does he know what is upsetting to US? and who cares anyway?

[ihatekhomeini]

I care

[kwalk30]

@ihatekhomeini I mean why is it philosophically interesting what is upsetting to us and what isnt....

[ihatekhomeini]

@kwalk30 I see your point. What makes it philosophically interesting, I presume, is that we may put a lid on things that upset us. That in turn makes our understanding dogmatic, which then makes us perceive things in a way that suits us. This I think is philosophically, or maybe psychologically, interesting. I don't know if you agree.

[gunman806]

While we may not possess the ability to produce original causes, evolution has endowed us with the capacity to reason; something that significantly broadens our functional flexibility. It's also important to note that the classical conception of free will isn't even desirable, assuming one values reason. What's the benefit of having the added power to choose freely from a series of options as opposed to having the brain select the most reasonable option automatically?

[thethikboy]

Until science can show tangible progress to creating a conscious and therefore living entitiy - it's all just precise noise.

[Naturalist2009]

Wich is the backround music of the video? I would like to have a full version of that track.

[LennyBound]

It's a track called "Poets Act" from the score for the film "The Hours" by Phillip Glass.

Hope that helps. :-)

[Naturalist2009]

Thank you very much!

[unassumption]

well I think that's what he's alluding to towards the end...either that or he's attacking the idea that free will would mean anything even if true....its hard to tell :S

[unassumption]

I'm not offended by intilectually accepting that I lack this logically impossible concept known as free will, and emotionally following through as much as possible, any more than I am that I wasn't specially created at the centre of the universe by an all powerful deity.

I am however, offended by the William Lane Craig-esque "without free will there can be no morality, meaning or purpose in life" line of logic Dennet alludes to toward the end. As with god, its fallacious logic even IF true.

[unassumption]

All Dennet proves here is that we have an illusion of indeterminacy, and that we can never fully overcome this illusion; maintaining the concept of free will, even if its false, for its unproven utilitarian benefit, or because there is some biologically selected for trait that leads us to believe in free will, is like doing the same things for belief in God, and could be more harmful by propping up false moral frameworks. Even if we can never know the future, we can benefit by admiting it's set.

[sdrs85]

awesome channel...

[Nades129]

Am I the only one who gets teary eyed when listening to Dennett?

[Lederzunge4]

@Nades129 Mainly because you're being manipulated by tear-inducing music. Do not ascribe that to Dennett.

[Nades129]

@Lederzunge4 If you eat good food, and you find it tasty, sweet, or sour is that sense in you being manipulated?? Nope, not in the least.

He's talking about fate, death, life, human struggle and the power of stories. These are the things that the human soul (composed of tiny neurons) encounter, and strive to achieve. They are variables that bring tears of sorts.

Now, take that arrogant head out of that lazy ass of yours and make your life a little meaningful, rather than acting/sounding smart.

[anrchyvk]

@Nades129 Yes.

[tehorix789]

@Nades129 lol, are people liking this comment because they also get teary-eyed, or because they think you are the only one who gets teary-eyed?

[jackasslobo]

@Nades129 maybe

[helgihg]

Wait a minute... old white-bearded guy speaking infinite wisdom... God, is that you?

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

His voice sounds so weird... is it dubbed by someone else, or just because he's younger?

[pocoapoco2]

If free will does exists, as I see it, it would undoubtedly have to beoutside the physical realm in origin. The way I approach it is considring the composition of every material thing being particles. Whether you limit yourself to atoms or sub-atomic particles is irrelevant. What is relevant is that each individual particle, once all the forces acting on it are known, will behave in a 100% predictable fashion. Therefore any size group of particles consdered will also be equally predictable.

[Pongball]

(...cont) However, that doesn't make the "decision" to override your reflex action any more "yours", from a deterministic point of view. But "free will" is a convenient term to use to describe moments when we appear to be making decisions, and a convenient way of describing the difference between humans and animals that are considerably less conscious.

(This was meant to be a reply to pocoapoco2)

[pocoapoco2]

I'm glad there's at least one other person that acknowledges that the emotionally laden act of simply feeling that you have free will doesn't change the fact of reality about actually having free will. It might be best for clarity to call it something other than free will in this case.

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

@Pongball

Hence the tendency to call free will an illusion. It just depends how you define free will.

A bit like the tree falling in the woods paradox. It depends on how you define what sound is.

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

People so often think that determinism eliminates free will. The two are not mutually exclusive. If I am placed in a room with 2 doors, one to a theme park, and one to a lion enclosure, anyone could guess I would choose the park. It would still be my decision.

Crude example, I know, but real-world choice just has more variables.

[balrenun]

It does eliminate free will because 'you' and 'choosing', and thus 'you choosing', do not function in accordance with the meaning of the words. These things come to have meanings resembling the functioning parts of a hydraulics system.

This kind of annihilation of direct experience is asserted to be supported by the various reasonings which suggest that a sophisticated enough 'hydraulics system' could produce an effect (an experience). But none of them even slightly explain exactly how yet.

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

Their lack of an explanation for certain aspects of the hypothesis is not a failure of the hypothesis.

However the fact that it (along with some form of epiphenomenalism) can account for all the information without condradiction means it is at least the most promising avenue of consideration.

The hydraulics analogy is an issue Asimov would be proud of, but it is more a dilemma of establishing human identity and experience than a reductio ad absurdium on the hypothesis.

[Pongball]

I've seen Dennett himself express that he thinks the two are compatible, but it's not really in the traditional sense that most people think of free will. The example he gave was the fact that if someone threw a brick at your head, you could technically choose to override your reflex action of ducking and yourself to get hit. He points out that most other creatures don't likely have the capacity to do this, and are operating on a much more reflex-based level. However... (cont...)

[Pongball]

*and ALLOW yourself to get hit.

(accidentally omitted a word)

[spaceghost1313]

Just watched a documentary on the BBC where a guy has to choose between two switches, left and right in an MRI scanner. The neuroscientist could see which side the guys brain has chosen up to 6 seconds before he chooses.

If that doesnt support determinism I dont know what does. Consciousness isnt an exception to the laws of physics

[LennyBound]

That's pretty nuts. Would you happen to know the title of the documentary or where one could find out more about it?

[spaceghost1313]

If you live in UK + Ireland you can see it on the BBC - iplayer "Horizon - 2009-2010 e02. The Secret You".

If not then itll probs be somewhere online in a week or so. Awesome documentary

[LennyBound]

Awesome. Thanks. I'll look into it. :-)

[MauricXe]

did you look into that vid? sounds good.

[LennyBound]

Yup. I uploaded the most interested part under the title "Neuroscience and Freewill." Feel free to check it out. :-)

[MauricXe]

Will do thanks!

[balrenun]

It doesn't establish that they're the same thing. It's illogical to say that it necessarily does.

It would be like asserting that the driver in a car is necessarily dead because the car has stopped moving.

[DemokritosAbdera]

I actually think that without certain ammount of determinism free will cannot exist, otherwise we will be just acting randomly to fit a random future scenario.

[bannedfromutopia]

Exactly, choice-making depends on our ability to make predictions about our environment. Without presupposing determinism (methodological naturalism), these sort of predictions would not be impossible, we'd be playing with dice

[heart4moocows]

Materialism does not imply determinism; neither does determinism imply materialism. But materialism does imply nihilism because of the absence of objective values, and determinism does imply "moral nihilism" because of the absence of libertarian free will -- the power to have chosen otherwise.

I disagree with Dennett on the free will issue (but agree with philosophers like Kant and James). Compatibilism is evasive, "have your cake and eat it too" bullshit.

[Zigiwy]

Intriguing! What's your take on it then?

/fellow Kant-fan

[heart4moocows]

On the free will issue? I tend to go for an agent causation type of libertarian free will. I believe it leads us to abandon the principle of sufficient reason as a "universally" applicable principle, but that it's a sacrifice necessary for the preservation of moral freedom.

Harry Frankfurt has offered helpful criticisms of the libertarian definition of free will, but his compatibilist theory is little more than an extended description of mental processes and an arbitrary definition of freedom.

[heart4moocows]

If I recall from his essay, however, Dennett's compatibilism is more in the classical strain, which defines freedom in terms of "external" constraint (rather than the "internal" constraint of Frankfurt and contemporary compatibilism).

[Slabbers]

Care to substantiate any of your assertions heart4moocows? Why does the absence of objective values imply nihilism? How does an absence of objective values differ in practice from having objective values that cannot be reliably known? How about you explain why you disagree with Dennett, rather than simply stating your belief system - or is your belief your only reason? Where is the problem with his analysis?

[ex0gen]

well it depends on who is indeed correct on the interpretation of the fraze "could have done otherwise". it all boils down to exactly what you mean in the word "can". if by can you mean ones capacity to do things then even if determinism is true it is true that the thing I don't do was something I "could" have done. on the other hand if you mean by "can" the ontologically special kind, then I can't. the question is which sense implies moral culpability?

[Gnomefro]

If there is such a thing as human nature. Materialism can ground its morals in that. We have no use for "objective values" beyond that(And no worldview gives any such values, unless you regard the opinion of invisible skyfascists as "objective").

Libertarian free will is logically impossible garbage btw. It's basically saying that, not only don't the laws of nature don't apply to you, but that a random process guides your "choices".(Denying determinism=accepting randomness)

[Gnomefro]

Also, Compatibilism isn't evasive. it offers a useful definition of free will, for purposes such as assigning responsibility, and it is demonstrably true to the extent that determinism is true.

As all we observe are determinism + possibly some randomness at the quantum level, we can be very confident that all observed choices are accounted for by compatibilism. Though some may possibly involve a random tie-breaker.

[grade1981]

hey Lenny, your vids are always cool man

[LennyBound]

Thanks. Glad to hear you enjoy them. :-)

[iheartsami]

hear that Philip Glass playing in the background? ;)

[LennyBound]

Yup... I thought it fit pretty well.

[CarlRobertStevens]

It did, it did.

[Ephemerance]

But, it is also true that determinism doesn't necessarily lead to nihilism.

[Ephemerance]

Determinism isn't a necessary philosophy in regards to materialism.