awareness and conciousness just seem like absolutely unneccesary attributes if our minds are reacting to nothing but desire. still you make a very good point and think you are vastly correct that the massive majority of our action don't allow free will. i'm going to start looking at it in depth, it's piqued my interest. got ome other good videos, i shall subscribe.
I think that our understanding of consciousness is a long way from complete. I know that there are accounts of how/why it emerged (without supposing a supernatural element), but i'm not familiar with them. Thanks for the sub!
interesting video. I don't know where you stand on God, or what not, but your discussion on free will brings to light how many Calvinist doctrines would works.
I want a peanut butter sandwich and rather than ingest it immediately I wipe it on my ass go in public and eat the sandwich by licking my fingers while wearing my pocket less pants. Would you say it was necessity since I have an outfit that lacks pockets and choose to use the most natural pocket I posses being homo sapient rather than marsupial. If I continued using this natural hot pocket would I evolve a new species? Or would I rapidly go extinct by the hand of the ignorant village folk.
I was simply attempting to be fashionable and genius starting a new trend in portable foods remaining vain enough to depart the home in clothing that has little in the way of utility. By forcing me into a homosexual union b/c of my vanity would it be moral for the religious right to deny me compensation since I was trying to be self-sufficient? I thought the religious were against homosexuality yet they force multitudes of heterosexuals into homosexual relations with each extended incarceration.
ThirdIt is exactly this reason I cannot subscribe to the false religious doctrine predicated upon the belief that man possesses the ability to interpret the simple wisdom handed to us for guidance. The problem is structure we have presumptuous leaders injecting false doctrine into a economic political relationship creating an advantage between the two that will soon come to an end when the real hunger pains arrive b/c of ignorant voters choosing stupid leaders like Bush that make war for profit.
Fourth By then they will wish they had an ass of peanut butter I bet they would even eat the peanut butter out my ass saving me tons of money trying to find that girl that is just right for me. I thought I had found her but she was allergic to peanut butter what a shame. If you know a girl that may be a match please send her my way. Well any way I have to go to church I still have social needs to tend to if you shake my hand in church be assured that I have licked them clean prior to service.;)
this video and the paper you link to both put forth many great arguments, and i wish more people could be exposed to them.
one minor point to make against the paper. on page 38, Converse (author) argues that determinism gives inherent meaning to our actions because our future is determined based on what we do now. to argue this is to ignore the fact that the same argument requires the present, and our present actions, to have been brought on by events of the past which we can't control.
Choices can't be caused (completely) if they are of free will. If they are not caused they are random or baseless. Random =/= Free Will. I think that was the basic idea. I use this argument but with the conclusion that there are no remaining possibilities rather than the conclusion that free will implies random choice. I tend to like that better...both are good and follow the same basic idea.
Yes that's very similar. For me it ends with the question: If the part of the will that is not determined (by desire, experience etc) isn't random, on what basis does it make it's choices?
Bitbutter, I have to respond to your question. I have asked that exact same question on another forum on more than one occasion. I have not received any response.
My own beliefs about determinism and free will seem to correspond more closely with yours than with any other source I have read so far.
Just one thing I think I disagree with: you feel that the average believer in free will believes in "libertarian" free will....
I think rather that the average person believes his choices are completely free simply because it feels like they are. I feel that way myself except when I'm consciously aware and thinking about how every choice I make is totally dependent on my current mind set -- or state of being -- which in turn was determined by my previous mind set plus any external events and influences that occurred at the time.
Like you said, what else could they possibly be based on?
Another question I have is one that seems totally neglected in all the free will discussions I've seen: What effect does the knowledge of determinism have on the individual? I don't say "should have" because "should" seems somehow irrelevant in a discussion about determinism.
Among other effects on me, I don't feel guilt, nor do I blame. And that's very significant for me. I also sometimes feel a "sense of wonder" about this incredible universe.
Not at all, determinism exists no one doubts that, but so does free will, you know that. there would be no determinism without free will even to event the idea of determinism presents that fact that free will actions and free will thought exist, its ok to believe or disagree and proves that your acting in both free will and determinism they really can exist together and be seperate, like imagination and reason they need one another to survive.
"Not at all, determinism exists no one doubts that, but so does free will, you know that."
I think you might be misunderstanding what's meant by determinism, since determinism and libertarian free will (the kind traditionally associated with christianity) are mutually exclusive. If i remember correctly the PDF also outlines these ideas, and so would provide some useful background information for the discussion.
A fine theory but based on no fact my friend, i could run naked up and down the street cause= me being arrested, i could choice that but it seems stupid based on rationality, but cause and effect controls us atleast, but to help someone who can in no means help you or pay u back, where is the rationality in that?? But many people have done it all through there life....why? Just to make themselves feel good? If you have ever been to jail then u may know the meaning of choice or a prison of choice
The mistake you're making (and its a common one) is to assume that determinism precludes genuine choice. That's not the case. The excellent PDF i linked to in the about box should clear this up for you.
I find there to be a huge inconsistency here. If determinism is true, then our assertion that determinism is true can be no more rational than for instance a rock falling under the influence of gravity; given the initial conditions, it could not have been otherwise. But because it could not have been otherwise does not guarantee the truth of the assertion espoused, even if determinism is true, it gives us a reason to believe it is false and thus takes on the form of a self-defeating idea.
"If determinism is true, then our assertion that determinism is true can be no more rational than for instance a rock falling under the influence of gravity; given the initial conditions, it could not have been otherwise."
Why do you think rationality is incompatible with determinism? (if i understood you)
"even if determinism is true, it gives us a reason to believe it is false"
"I suggest you find a better and more relevant example for your argument."
Your observations on the differences between humans and computers have no bearing on the point I was making with the computer example. I hope it becomes more clear for you on a second reading.
"if everything were already determined beforehand, then there was no "choice" at all in the matter."
I assume you agree that computer programs do not have free will. And yet, we are happy to talk about computer programs 'making choices' (think of an expert system, flying an airoplane). That is the sense in which i believe we also make choices.
"he can go against that inclination if, for example, he doesn't want to gain more weight and wants to be healthy in the long run, and this is a choice he makes with free will."
He was not free to choose something he did not desire to do (even an unexpected or perverse decision would be the result of some desire or other). [contd]
His desires were caused, and the only sense in which we could be said to be free is that his actions were dictated by his own desires (not someone elses). I disagree with the compatibilists, I say that this is not free will.
"and i don't believe that this free decision is radical or arbitrary as you point out, because it can have long-term benefits."
Having long term benefits doesn't say anything about whether the choice we made was really free. It wasn't free because it was, at the very least, caused by our desires, which were themselves caused.
"but i want to clarify my position, and to explain that there can be no compatibility between free will and determinism."
I agree absolutely. I think the compatibilists should ditch the dusty term 'free will' with all it's baggage, and champion something else, like 'natural will' or just plain 'will'.
In terms of desire, obviously the stronger desire perforce wins out. However, if it were that an intermediary appeared at every decision-point and asked you whether you will or will not, even though your DESIRE motivates you unstoppably, it does not mean you are forced to an action --indeed, it is your desire unmediated by any objective force in the world.
Ok, how about the very first person that decided to Smoke ? There is nothing in humans that needs smoke, as a matter of fact the human body tries to reject this smoke. So someone had to use their free well to decide to smoke. If they had free will, we have free will.
Hi. The first smoker didn't use free will to decide to smoke. They used plain old will, and acted on desires which were completely caused (or partly random too, perhaps). Curiousity, a desire to experiment, attraction to the smell of tobacco: all these things could have played a part, and all of them are part of causal chains.
Alright, a person is standing behind a table with five red balls on it, all look alike and are the same distance from them. You tell them to pick up one ball. Now you may have caused them to pick it up (they may tell you no, but well say they didn't) but they will use free will to choose the one they take.
Good example. Even if the chooser has the sense that there was 'no reason' they picked one ball rather than another, I believe that once we know enough about how the brain works, we will be able to identify a causal chain leading to that decision. Even if it turns out that genuine randomness is involved, there will still be no place for anything we could properly call free will imo.
The reason i think there will be no place for free will is that free will causes more problems that it solves: How could a genuinely free will decide between vanilla and chocolate? or between violence and non-violence? What criteria would it use to make these decisions?
[contd] If you say free will would draw on our experiences, desires, on our sense of sense of right and wrong when making a decision then our physical 'caused' thoughts can do this job perfectly well already and there is no need for free will.
Yes, but free will maybe needed when the brain has to think in the abstract. I believe the majority of our being is a collection of experiences and or memory atoms that have been past down through the ages, but the brain uses free will when there are neither of these to draw upon. This is just my opinion as you can see I don't have the intellect to banter in this arena.
When there are no experiences/memories/desires to inform a decision then the best we can hope for is a virtual 'coin toss', a random (or pseudo random) selection. There are lots of ways that the brain could break deadlocks in which several choices are equally favoured. One way would be to arbitrarily apply a "boost" to one of the options (Matti Bergstrom proposes that the brain stem acts as a 'chance generator', which can be compared a computer program that generates a pseudo random number).
seems to me you are denying a metaphysical will, starting to read that PDF, that assumption is clear from the start.
Yeah, there is no such thing, but there is still will as something else. If you accept there is no single "right" decision then you will start to see why we would in fact want a free will even though that means diverging from making perfect decisions... not a problem when your realize there are no perfect decisions.
The same is true with quantum affects... USUALLY they cancel out, but not because of "level", but lack of engineering. We see many quantum affects at out "level"... like transparency to photons, like tunnelling microscopes, like gieger counters, and on and on. Can't sweep it under the bed.
@pyrrho:"If you accept there is no single "right" decision then you will start to see why we would in fact want a free will even though that means diverging from making perfect decisions"
When you say free will are you talking about the belief that you "could have done otherwise" or about something else?
To be absolutely clear: do you think that if it was possible to 'rewind' the universe to the moment you last made a decision, that you could make that decision differently?
Ok, that's where we differ. I wonder what you make of the problem that such a free will would necessarily be divorced from our desires and experience (since these things would not be causes of that will), and so, it would be a will unrecognisable as our own.
it would not be divorced, it's exists among all those experiences... much of our "freedom" is how we process such experiences... it is not divorced from these experiences at all, but we get to decide how to weigh and frame these experiences, and those decisions drive our subsequent actions.
Either free will can be influenced by things (your memories, experiences etc), in which case it's not free at all. Or free will is divorced from our experience and desire and is unrecognisable as our own will.
"but we get to decide how to weigh and frame these experiences, and those decisions drive our subsequent actions."
I'm certain we do. But free will doesn't come into it imo. Plain old will ('natural will' or compatibilisms 'free will') is sufficient for this.
that simply does not follow... every "effect" is subject to multiple "causes"... for something to be "influenced" is not for it to be "fuly determined by" or "not free at all", it means partly limited, partly free.
it is influenced... but not determined by. You have in mind an infinite regression of causes, but I've denied the applicability of "cause". The concept of "cause" is not better made than the concept of free will, it doesn't trump.
mostly safe... it's not clear to me we can't put free will in computers much like our ancestors put "life" in us... I think computers are unable to express any free will they may have though.
but wait... we decide WHICH of our memories to weigh more or less in our decisions.
The reason in natural will to want some freedom is that there is not just ONE best answer to any problem, there are many, and trying them out is part of learning.
pyrrho "but wait... we decide WHICH of our memories to weigh more or less in our decisions."
We make decisions, and we certainly weigh factors against each other when we do so, but if we look at any decision we made in the past, we could not have decided differently.
Of course, we learn from experience. Our next decision will also be completely caused, but the causes will include what we learned from previous decisions.
my life: when I see events in the past I might have likes to decide differently...
If there is no will, the results will be random instead. I don't understand how you all can keep thinking a given state leads to just ONE resultant state when modern physics TOTALLY contradicts that premise.
Without that premise, I don't see what you have to stand on. Yeah, the brain is a machine... now, where does it say a machine cannot will?
A do believe that a machine can have will. Just not free will (except the compatibilist version of free will, which doesn't sound like free will to me!), for the reasons i talked about in the vid.
your reason seems dependant on a false idea of causality, that a single set of causes leads to a single outcome, that is not true according to the current models of physics. Inmendham predicts science will turn to determinism again, but for now we are left with trying to figure out why he/you/anyone feels that way... it is not because of physics of course, because physics doesn't support that at this time. So why?
The argument doesn't depends on a single set of causes always leading to the same outcome. If randomness is making things genuinely 'spontaneous'--ok. What we have still doesn't look like free will, nor would we want it to.
.. the pdf is very helpful in particular for showing why free will isn't something we would want anyway. This might be a more productive angle than trying to show that it's impossible.
If broad minded enough, I recommend "The Dice Man" by Luke Rhinehart. A book I could only read once but in regard to "Free will" provides an interesting (and bizarre!) slant.
Fascinating video by the way; Paradox & (the pursuit of) truth are so closely related.
Thanks. Choice and control seem to me to be the things to focus on. For me 'free will' has too much baggage, i think i prefer to call what we do have something else.
(This vid was initially made in response to a clip of a radio interview in an 'experiment' was conducted that was claimed upheld the notion of free will. From that clip it sounded to me as though the interviewer was championing the libertarian view of free will.)
Do you believe then (as i do) that our desires are caused and the freedom we have is to act according to those desires? Or do you think we could have 'done otherwise' in any given situation?
That would certainly help avoid misunderstandings, but i wanted to use only words that most ppl would be familiar with in the title. I get the sense that libertarian will _is_ the 'garden variety' free will, which was why I left out the qualifier.
2) Even in a completely deterministic universe, a lot of what happens is chaotic.
3) All laws of physics hitherto invented to describe the world produce uncomputable situations in even simple scenarios (3 body problem, for example) (more...)
4) Which basically means that the only model complex enough to describe with perfect accuracy all that happens in the univers is the universe itself, and even if it were intelligent it could not fully understand what is happening inside itself. (more...)
5) Which means that even in a deterministic universe, one's decisions are not practically predictable by anyone, no matter how powerful they are and how well they understand you. Given that and what you're saying, the natural free will you're talking about should be perfectly good enough for anyone.
Quantum indeterminism? yes (unless hidden variables are responsible), i left this out to try to keep things a bit focused. Is there a word for the position: 'determinism holds except at the quantum level' :) ?
Dunno. Not that it matters anyway; it doesn't make the will any "freer", it just means that rather than to deterministic strings, the puppet dances to random ones.
I really reject this "quantum level" talk... the laws of physics apply at all levels.
Magnetism is an effect at the atomic level... but it cancels out at our level, in general. But we know how to align the atoms in some materials to make macroscopic magnatism.
"the laws of physics apply at all levels." The laws of physics as we know them? Are you sure? Are you aware of a causal explanation for quantum fluctuations?
yes I am sure they apply at all "levels"... and when they don't seem to, it is because the affects are blurred or cancelled, but given that they don't have to blur, as with the magnetic example, we should not pretend they "don't apply".
Visible light goes through thick glass, is that not a quantum affect? at our level?
disclaimer: In case it's not clear in the vid, the rather dogmatic sounding opening sentences of the vid refer to a very specific version of free will.
I took care to spell out the exact version of free will I'm talking about at the beginning of the video, essentially the belief that in any situation we could have "done otherwise".
Hey man, this video has been reduced to 3 seconds, what's going on?
jonnyqh 8 months ago
Unfortunately I don't have the original video file anymore. Apologies to anyone who's having trouble watching. Don't know what's going on here.
bitbutter 1 year ago
The video seems to have been reduced to 3 seconds.
I recall the explanation of not having a reason for the choices we have made and wanted to watch the video again. Oh well. Unless you re-do it.
oliverscott2007 2 years ago
Seems to be working as expected for me. Perhaps it's a passing YT tech-fart.
bitbutter 2 years ago
@bitbutter
Just loaded it on Safari (i had previously been on firefox) and it worked.
oliverscott2007 2 years ago
@bitbutter 3 seconds for me too :-(
randyhelzerman 1 year ago
is your argument that consciousness is just temporal waste?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
why would we need a consciousness?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
That's a big subject. I don't know.
bitbutter 2 years ago
awareness and conciousness just seem like absolutely unneccesary attributes if our minds are reacting to nothing but desire. still you make a very good point and think you are vastly correct that the massive majority of our action don't allow free will. i'm going to start looking at it in depth, it's piqued my interest. got ome other good videos, i shall subscribe.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
I think that our understanding of consciousness is a long way from complete. I know that there are accounts of how/why it emerged (without supposing a supernatural element), but i'm not familiar with them. Thanks for the sub!
bitbutter 2 years ago
Well made video, it amazing how so many smart people don't get such a simple concept
AimiriZ 2 years ago
interesting video. I don't know where you stand on God, or what not, but your discussion on free will brings to light how many Calvinist doctrines would works.
YuGiOhDuelChannel 2 years ago
I don't believe in invisible beings.
bitbutter 2 years ago
of course not, you would have to have a desire to believe in a God
YuGiOhDuelChannel 2 years ago
Amazingly well explained!
mortenlu 3 years ago
I'm sure you can do better than that. Try your best.
bitbutter 3 years ago
I want a peanut butter sandwich and rather than ingest it immediately I wipe it on my ass go in public and eat the sandwich by licking my fingers while wearing my pocket less pants. Would you say it was necessity since I have an outfit that lacks pockets and choose to use the most natural pocket I posses being homo sapient rather than marsupial. If I continued using this natural hot pocket would I evolve a new species? Or would I rapidly go extinct by the hand of the ignorant village folk.
cdltpx 3 years ago
I was simply attempting to be fashionable and genius starting a new trend in portable foods remaining vain enough to depart the home in clothing that has little in the way of utility. By forcing me into a homosexual union b/c of my vanity would it be moral for the religious right to deny me compensation since I was trying to be self-sufficient? I thought the religious were against homosexuality yet they force multitudes of heterosexuals into homosexual relations with each extended incarceration.
cdltpx 3 years ago
ThirdIt is exactly this reason I cannot subscribe to the false religious doctrine predicated upon the belief that man possesses the ability to interpret the simple wisdom handed to us for guidance. The problem is structure we have presumptuous leaders injecting false doctrine into a economic political relationship creating an advantage between the two that will soon come to an end when the real hunger pains arrive b/c of ignorant voters choosing stupid leaders like Bush that make war for profit.
cdltpx 3 years ago
Fourth By then they will wish they had an ass of peanut butter I bet they would even eat the peanut butter out my ass saving me tons of money trying to find that girl that is just right for me. I thought I had found her but she was allergic to peanut butter what a shame. If you know a girl that may be a match please send her my way. Well any way I have to go to church I still have social needs to tend to if you shake my hand in church be assured that I have licked them clean prior to service.;)
cdltpx 3 years ago
this video and the paper you link to both put forth many great arguments, and i wish more people could be exposed to them.
one minor point to make against the paper. on page 38, Converse (author) argues that determinism gives inherent meaning to our actions because our future is determined based on what we do now. to argue this is to ignore the fact that the same argument requires the present, and our present actions, to have been brought on by events of the past which we can't control.
ATL45 3 years ago
Why does your facial hair go ridiculously low on your neck?
Xepp375 3 years ago
Choices can't be caused (completely) if they are of free will. If they are not caused they are random or baseless. Random =/= Free Will. I think that was the basic idea. I use this argument but with the conclusion that there are no remaining possibilities rather than the conclusion that free will implies random choice. I tend to like that better...both are good and follow the same basic idea.
xjr9xjr9xjr9 3 years ago
Yes that's very similar. For me it ends with the question: If the part of the will that is not determined (by desire, experience etc) isn't random, on what basis does it make it's choices?
I don't see how there could be an answer.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Bitbutter, I have to respond to your question. I have asked that exact same question on another forum on more than one occasion. I have not received any response.
My own beliefs about determinism and free will seem to correspond more closely with yours than with any other source I have read so far.
Just one thing I think I disagree with: you feel that the average believer in free will believes in "libertarian" free will....
SinginTheBluesBlues 3 years ago
I think rather that the average person believes his choices are completely free simply because it feels like they are. I feel that way myself except when I'm consciously aware and thinking about how every choice I make is totally dependent on my current mind set -- or state of being -- which in turn was determined by my previous mind set plus any external events and influences that occurred at the time.
Like you said, what else could they possibly be based on?
SinginTheBluesBlues 3 years ago
Another question I have is one that seems totally neglected in all the free will discussions I've seen: What effect does the knowledge of determinism have on the individual? I don't say "should have" because "should" seems somehow irrelevant in a discussion about determinism.
Among other effects on me, I don't feel guilt, nor do I blame. And that's very significant for me. I also sometimes feel a "sense of wonder" about this incredible universe.
SinginTheBluesBlues 3 years ago
Not at all, determinism exists no one doubts that, but so does free will, you know that. there would be no determinism without free will even to event the idea of determinism presents that fact that free will actions and free will thought exist, its ok to believe or disagree and proves that your acting in both free will and determinism they really can exist together and be seperate, like imagination and reason they need one another to survive.
jesse7037 4 years ago
"Not at all, determinism exists no one doubts that, but so does free will, you know that."
I think you might be misunderstanding what's meant by determinism, since determinism and libertarian free will (the kind traditionally associated with christianity) are mutually exclusive. If i remember correctly the PDF also outlines these ideas, and so would provide some useful background information for the discussion.
bitbutter 4 years ago
A fine theory but based on no fact my friend, i could run naked up and down the street cause= me being arrested, i could choice that but it seems stupid based on rationality, but cause and effect controls us atleast, but to help someone who can in no means help you or pay u back, where is the rationality in that?? But many people have done it all through there life....why? Just to make themselves feel good? If you have ever been to jail then u may know the meaning of choice or a prison of choice
jesse7037 4 years ago
The mistake you're making (and its a common one) is to assume that determinism precludes genuine choice. That's not the case. The excellent PDF i linked to in the about box should clear this up for you.
bitbutter 4 years ago
I find there to be a huge inconsistency here. If determinism is true, then our assertion that determinism is true can be no more rational than for instance a rock falling under the influence of gravity; given the initial conditions, it could not have been otherwise. But because it could not have been otherwise does not guarantee the truth of the assertion espoused, even if determinism is true, it gives us a reason to believe it is false and thus takes on the form of a self-defeating idea.
Hydragurum 4 years ago
"If determinism is true, then our assertion that determinism is true can be no more rational than for instance a rock falling under the influence of gravity; given the initial conditions, it could not have been otherwise."
Why do you think rationality is incompatible with determinism? (if i understood you)
"even if determinism is true, it gives us a reason to believe it is false"
what's that reason?
bitbutter 4 years ago
Lack of libertarian free will doesn't exclude making decisions/choices. Nor does it mean that persuasion is useless.
In the pdf i linked to skip to the section on "Hard Determinism, Soft Determinism, and Naturalism" for further information.
bitbutter 4 years ago
why do you post this? do you refuse to accept the nondeterministic nature of the universe?
FreiheitKampfer 4 years ago
Whether or not the universe is deterministic, free will is rejected for the same reasons.
bitbutter 4 years ago
"I suggest you find a better and more relevant example for your argument."
Your observations on the differences between humans and computers have no bearing on the point I was making with the computer example. I hope it becomes more clear for you on a second reading.
bitbutter 4 years ago
"if everything were already determined beforehand, then there was no "choice" at all in the matter."
I assume you agree that computer programs do not have free will. And yet, we are happy to talk about computer programs 'making choices' (think of an expert system, flying an airoplane). That is the sense in which i believe we also make choices.
bitbutter 4 years ago
"he can go against that inclination if, for example, he doesn't want to gain more weight and wants to be healthy in the long run, and this is a choice he makes with free will."
He was not free to choose something he did not desire to do (even an unexpected or perverse decision would be the result of some desire or other). [contd]
bitbutter 4 years ago
"and this is a choice he makes with free will."
His desires were caused, and the only sense in which we could be said to be free is that his actions were dictated by his own desires (not someone elses). I disagree with the compatibilists, I say that this is not free will.
bitbutter 4 years ago
"and i don't believe that this free decision is radical or arbitrary as you point out, because it can have long-term benefits."
Having long term benefits doesn't say anything about whether the choice we made was really free. It wasn't free because it was, at the very least, caused by our desires, which were themselves caused.
bitbutter 4 years ago
"where everything has already been determined, there is no such thing as a true choice"
I disagree. But to provide some context: I also consider that an automatic traffic routine programme makes genuine choices.
bitbutter 4 years ago
"but i want to clarify my position, and to explain that there can be no compatibility between free will and determinism."
I agree absolutely. I think the compatibilists should ditch the dusty term 'free will' with all it's baggage, and champion something else, like 'natural will' or just plain 'will'.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Thank you!!!
I have thought long and hard of this before and what you say make sense.
msituautism 4 years ago
hi msituautism, thanks for the kind comment :)
bitbutter 4 years ago
In terms of desire, obviously the stronger desire perforce wins out. However, if it were that an intermediary appeared at every decision-point and asked you whether you will or will not, even though your DESIRE motivates you unstoppably, it does not mean you are forced to an action --indeed, it is your desire unmediated by any objective force in the world.
flaze3 4 years ago
indeed, the evidence of will, of intelligence, of life, is deviating from stochastic distributions determined solely by probability.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
the things is... the most likely is not the only possibility, it is, more likely, I agree, but more likely does not ensure results.
It is most likely you will not roll double sixs 2 times in a row, but it can happen, and, in fact, does happen.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
our minds are not sufficiently like computers to draw parallels this deep, imo. Excellent video nonethelless, that is, though I disagree strongly.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Great video. I haven't heard some of these arguments before.
urbanelf 4 years ago
Thanks! glad you heard something new.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Ok, how about the very first person that decided to Smoke ? There is nothing in humans that needs smoke, as a matter of fact the human body tries to reject this smoke. So someone had to use their free well to decide to smoke. If they had free will, we have free will.
TellUaboutIt 4 years ago
Hi. The first smoker didn't use free will to decide to smoke. They used plain old will, and acted on desires which were completely caused (or partly random too, perhaps). Curiousity, a desire to experiment, attraction to the smell of tobacco: all these things could have played a part, and all of them are part of causal chains.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Alright, a person is standing behind a table with five red balls on it, all look alike and are the same distance from them. You tell them to pick up one ball. Now you may have caused them to pick it up (they may tell you no, but well say they didn't) but they will use free will to choose the one they take.
TellUaboutIt 4 years ago
Good example. Even if the chooser has the sense that there was 'no reason' they picked one ball rather than another, I believe that once we know enough about how the brain works, we will be able to identify a causal chain leading to that decision. Even if it turns out that genuine randomness is involved, there will still be no place for anything we could properly call free will imo.
bitbutter 4 years ago
The reason i think there will be no place for free will is that free will causes more problems that it solves: How could a genuinely free will decide between vanilla and chocolate? or between violence and non-violence? What criteria would it use to make these decisions?
bitbutter 4 years ago
[contd] If you say free will would draw on our experiences, desires, on our sense of sense of right and wrong when making a decision then our physical 'caused' thoughts can do this job perfectly well already and there is no need for free will.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Yes, but free will maybe needed when the brain has to think in the abstract. I believe the majority of our being is a collection of experiences and or memory atoms that have been past down through the ages, but the brain uses free will when there are neither of these to draw upon. This is just my opinion as you can see I don't have the intellect to banter in this arena.
TellUaboutIt 4 years ago
When there are no experiences/memories/desires to inform a decision then the best we can hope for is a virtual 'coin toss', a random (or pseudo random) selection. There are lots of ways that the brain could break deadlocks in which several choices are equally favoured. One way would be to arbitrarily apply a "boost" to one of the options (Matti Bergstrom proposes that the brain stem acts as a 'chance generator', which can be compared a computer program that generates a pseudo random number).
bitbutter 4 years ago
seems to me you are denying a metaphysical will, starting to read that PDF, that assumption is clear from the start.
Yeah, there is no such thing, but there is still will as something else. If you accept there is no single "right" decision then you will start to see why we would in fact want a free will even though that means diverging from making perfect decisions... not a problem when your realize there are no perfect decisions.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
The same is true with quantum affects... USUALLY they cancel out, but not because of "level", but lack of engineering. We see many quantum affects at out "level"... like transparency to photons, like tunnelling microscopes, like gieger counters, and on and on. Can't sweep it under the bed.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
@pyrrho:"If you accept there is no single "right" decision then you will start to see why we would in fact want a free will even though that means diverging from making perfect decisions"
When you say free will are you talking about the belief that you "could have done otherwise" or about something else?
bitbutter 4 years ago
yes, I do not hold that the will, or anything, can be "free" in the sense we often take "free", but we have decisions we could make differently.
We could, for example, think a lot about racism, and then the next time it comes up, not act racist.
Yes, it's a decision to have done something one way rather than another.
It is the ability to skew what would be stochastic distributions into systematic deviations from the random.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
To be absolutely clear: do you think that if it was possible to 'rewind' the universe to the moment you last made a decision, that you could make that decision differently?
bitbutter 4 years ago
yes
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Ok, that's where we differ. I wonder what you make of the problem that such a free will would necessarily be divorced from our desires and experience (since these things would not be causes of that will), and so, it would be a will unrecognisable as our own.
bitbutter 4 years ago
it would not be divorced, it's exists among all those experiences... much of our "freedom" is how we process such experiences... it is not divorced from these experiences at all, but we get to decide how to weigh and frame these experiences, and those decisions drive our subsequent actions.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Either free will can be influenced by things (your memories, experiences etc), in which case it's not free at all. Or free will is divorced from our experience and desire and is unrecognisable as our own will.
"but we get to decide how to weigh and frame these experiences, and those decisions drive our subsequent actions."
I'm certain we do. But free will doesn't come into it imo. Plain old will ('natural will' or compatibilisms 'free will') is sufficient for this.
bitbutter 4 years ago
that simply does not follow... every "effect" is subject to multiple "causes"... for something to be "influenced" is not for it to be "fuly determined by" or "not free at all", it means partly limited, partly free.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
So just considering the part that's free (ignoring the influenced part for the moment), how does it decide things? on what basis?
bitbutter 4 years ago
("parts" is wrong of course, what i mean is how does your free will decide things when it's not being influenced by experience, desire etc?)
bitbutter 4 years ago
it is influenced... but not determined by. You have in mind an infinite regression of causes, but I've denied the applicability of "cause". The concept of "cause" is not better made than the concept of free will, it doesn't trump.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I'm trying to understand your position: If free will does exist, do you think it's safe to say that computers don't have it?
bitbutter 4 years ago
mostly safe... it's not clear to me we can't put free will in computers much like our ancestors put "life" in us... I think computers are unable to express any free will they may have though.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
but wait... we decide WHICH of our memories to weigh more or less in our decisions.
The reason in natural will to want some freedom is that there is not just ONE best answer to any problem, there are many, and trying them out is part of learning.
Unpredictability is itself a tool.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
pyrrho "but wait... we decide WHICH of our memories to weigh more or less in our decisions."
We make decisions, and we certainly weigh factors against each other when we do so, but if we look at any decision we made in the past, we could not have decided differently.
Of course, we learn from experience. Our next decision will also be completely caused, but the causes will include what we learned from previous decisions.
bitbutter 4 years ago
my life: when I see events in the past I might have likes to decide differently...
If there is no will, the results will be random instead. I don't understand how you all can keep thinking a given state leads to just ONE resultant state when modern physics TOTALLY contradicts that premise.
Without that premise, I don't see what you have to stand on. Yeah, the brain is a machine... now, where does it say a machine cannot will?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
A do believe that a machine can have will. Just not free will (except the compatibilist version of free will, which doesn't sound like free will to me!), for the reasons i talked about in the vid.
bitbutter 4 years ago
your reason seems dependant on a false idea of causality, that a single set of causes leads to a single outcome, that is not true according to the current models of physics. Inmendham predicts science will turn to determinism again, but for now we are left with trying to figure out why he/you/anyone feels that way... it is not because of physics of course, because physics doesn't support that at this time. So why?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
The argument doesn't depends on a single set of causes always leading to the same outcome. If randomness is making things genuinely 'spontaneous'--ok. What we have still doesn't look like free will, nor would we want it to.
bitbutter 4 years ago
i agree that free will is impossible, but my friends don't, do you maybe know a credible source on the internet?
saftelskeren 4 years ago
Try the PDF essay i linked to in the about box. It's very persuasive and readable (but quite long also).
bitbutter 4 years ago
.. the pdf is very helpful in particular for showing why free will isn't something we would want anyway. This might be a more productive angle than trying to show that it's impossible.
bitbutter 4 years ago
If broad minded enough, I recommend "The Dice Man" by Luke Rhinehart. A book I could only read once but in regard to "Free will" provides an interesting (and bizarre!) slant.
Fascinating video by the way; Paradox & (the pursuit of) truth are so closely related.
whirlpoolzend 4 years ago
Thanks, I heard a lot about the book but didn't read it yet.
bitbutter 4 years ago
But to say that god is sovereign over all things _and_ that we are free moral agents is a contradiction.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Thanks. Choice and control seem to me to be the things to focus on. For me 'free will' has too much baggage, i think i prefer to call what we do have something else.
bitbutter 4 years ago
(This vid was initially made in response to a clip of a radio interview in an 'experiment' was conducted that was claimed upheld the notion of free will. From that clip it sounded to me as though the interviewer was championing the libertarian view of free will.)
bitbutter 4 years ago
I don't follow completely, could you summarise in what sense we are free, according you your view?
bitbutter 4 years ago
Do you believe then (as i do) that our desires are caused and the freedom we have is to act according to those desires? Or do you think we could have 'done otherwise' in any given situation?
bitbutter 4 years ago
You need to say "Libertarian freewill: be glad you don't have it"
qxdc 4 years ago
That would certainly help avoid misunderstandings, but i wanted to use only words that most ppl would be familiar with in the title. I get the sense that libertarian will _is_ the 'garden variety' free will, which was why I left out the qualifier.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Add to that the following observations:
1) The Universe doesn't appear to be *completely* deterministic. There are levels of uncertainty. (more...)
rozeboosje 4 years ago
2) Even in a completely deterministic universe, a lot of what happens is chaotic.
3) All laws of physics hitherto invented to describe the world produce uncomputable situations in even simple scenarios (3 body problem, for example) (more...)
rozeboosje 4 years ago
4) Which basically means that the only model complex enough to describe with perfect accuracy all that happens in the univers is the universe itself, and even if it were intelligent it could not fully understand what is happening inside itself. (more...)
rozeboosje 4 years ago
5) Which means that even in a deterministic universe, one's decisions are not practically predictable by anyone, no matter how powerful they are and how well they understand you. Given that and what you're saying, the natural free will you're talking about should be perfectly good enough for anyone.
rozeboosje 4 years ago
Good vid, btw ;-)
rozeboosje 4 years ago
thanks for watching, and the comments!
bitbutter 4 years ago
i should look into this some more. (i would have guessed that the more powerful models are simpler rather than more complex)
bitbutter 4 years ago
Quantum indeterminism? yes (unless hidden variables are responsible), i left this out to try to keep things a bit focused. Is there a word for the position: 'determinism holds except at the quantum level' :) ?
bitbutter 4 years ago
Dunno. Not that it matters anyway; it doesn't make the will any "freer", it just means that rather than to deterministic strings, the puppet dances to random ones.
rozeboosje 4 years ago
Yes exactly, and then determinism sounds more appealing.
bitbutter 4 years ago
I really reject this "quantum level" talk... the laws of physics apply at all levels.
Magnetism is an effect at the atomic level... but it cancels out at our level, in general. But we know how to align the atoms in some materials to make macroscopic magnatism.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
"the laws of physics apply at all levels." The laws of physics as we know them? Are you sure? Are you aware of a causal explanation for quantum fluctuations?
bitbutter 4 years ago
yes I am sure they apply at all "levels"... and when they don't seem to, it is because the affects are blurred or cancelled, but given that they don't have to blur, as with the magnetic example, we should not pretend they "don't apply".
Visible light goes through thick glass, is that not a quantum affect? at our level?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
disclaimer: In case it's not clear in the vid, the rather dogmatic sounding opening sentences of the vid refer to a very specific version of free will.
bitbutter 4 years ago
I may do a video response to this; part of our disagreement is semantic.
qtronman 4 years ago
That could well be. When i talk about undesirable free will i mean libertarianism. I'm not sure if your free will is the same variety.
bitbutter 4 years ago
I don't see that you've proven that free will is undesirable.
qtronman 4 years ago
You seem to think free will means mystical will--a will completely detached from the constraints of physical reality. This is not my position.
qtronman 4 years ago
exactly, I echo this complaint.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I took care to spell out the exact version of free will I'm talking about at the beginning of the video, essentially the belief that in any situation we could have "done otherwise".
bitbutter 4 years ago