i didn't mean to leave that comment. i'm sorry. i thought your video belonged to someone that's harassing me but it turns out they just have it favorited. i don't really believe what i wrote to you and i deleted the comment.
Awfully good video! I listened with great interest form the beginning to the end. Favoured it, because I may need to come back to some of the points you make - not because I am learning them now, but because you express them so well.
Hard free will - things which have hard free will have some degree of autonomy from the physical laws of the universe.
Regarding the desirability of hard free will: this allows for psychological satisfaction in that it provides a sense of ownership for positive attributes and activities.
Regarding the undesirability of hard free will: this imparts a sense of ownership for negative attributes and activities.
The physical laws of the universe are relationships between empirical data, which allows one to make predictions concerning other empirical data, frequently, but not necessarily, displaced in time.
To the degree that autonomy might exist, there would be no relationship between empirical data set one, and empirical data set two, where both these data sets are associated in some way to some common characteristic of the physical universe.
Well of course, but there's nothing wrong with that. All that is required is some degree of autonomy. If there are no relationships at all (complete autonomy), nothing would make any sense.
Your concept of determinism seems Newtonian and out of date. It relies on cause and effect and rules of nature. I think that fails simply because it's assumption that consciousness is purely cause and effect. Determinism based on relativity is about time: for any slice of time space there is a relative relationship with all other slices; all time space is set and all things past and present are fixed in it. In that scenario free will is an illusion. You're having the jam sandwich at 6:34.
Was that supposed to be an argument of sorts? I hope it wasn't intended as simple derision.
I am not a determinist. I am pointing out that your argument doesn't give determinism it's fair due. It is a straw man. Your mid conclusion: we feel like we have free will so that's good enough, doesn't address whether or not we actually have free will, as you admit, but why do you go on at such length just to dismiss it as mental masturbation? Sounds like the pot's calling the kettle black.
Accepting your premise, your argument that laws of nature are descriptive seems persuasive at first, but has its weaknesses. A determinist has no need to see the laws as prescriptive, consider the opposite a random free for all, or to rely on anything outside the universe. I see straw men. You conclude "the universe by definition is not deterministic." That is simply pulled out of your ass. Why didn't you just start with that and shave 16 min, 31 seconds off your video?
Wow! Can you point out the ad homs? If I poked fun that doesn't actually qualify. In fact, your response is better descriptive of ad hominem, you see, you attacked me (as someone that uses ad hominem attacks) instead of addressing any of my points.
If viewers aren't allowed to point out weaknesses in your argument, and you don't intend to respond civilly and rationally, don't even see fit to address the comments, then you should perhaps disable comments, or use CPA.
this comment was predestined the day i subscribed to you, it was predestined the day the day i first visited youtube. this comment is a direct result of my birth, of my parents birth, of the birth of an ape like creature many many years ago.
Great video rozeboosje. If its not too much of a personal question , may i ask what you for a living ?. If not , no problem , i look forward to seeing your next video.
Quantum mechanics is essentially probalistic NOT deterministic. You are NOT using the word correctly--but at least you aren't yelling at Jack. ;)
But whether things are deterministic or probalistic, AND PRACTICALLY THEY ARE BOTH, it makes no diference, there still is no room for free will.
Same old flawed argument! Internal knowledge is part of the universe so you have made no cogent point. You are misusing the word "deterministic" and the phrase "free will". I hate this!
I really hate this! You just want to give yourself and the rest of us poor shmucks the illusion that we have free will. So you are using any method you can to arrive at that position. But your arguments are kaka! We may in fact have free will, but you want to believe in God (free will) so much, that you are willing to advance all these really silly ideas appearently without embarrassment. Stop working backwards from the answer and maybe you'll come up with something better.
Sorry, you completely misunderstood. I don't care one iota whether the laws of nature are "probabilistic" or not. If you view reality as if abstract "laws of nature" determine what happens in reality, then you're separating reality into a "physical" and a "metaphysical" realm. I reject that separation, and given that, the universe cannot be deterministic. (more)
Whether this does or does not rescue free will is not really my problem. What I do know is that the argument "reality is deterministic therefore we cannot have free will" is bunk.
And yes, sadly that leaves us back at square one.
Frankly, I don't care. My original redefinition is perfectly good enough for me anyway. It is not in conflict with colloquial use of the term and it makes sense. The purists may continue navel gazing in the mean time.
I get what you're saying. I was simply point out an error you made regarding the use of the word "deterministic"
Determinism is really not at all that important. The issue should instead be, what is it about our universe that would allow for free will (not the colloquial use) to exist? This is THE question.
If you want to use the colloquial term fine, just say we have free will cause it sure feels good to say tjhat we do and be done with it. (more)
Determinism IS important if someone wants to use it as a club to beat the possibility for "free will" to death with. Alas, that's not going to work.
So far so good. But then you ask me to tell you what it is about the universe [...]. Hang on a sec. Not so fast. I told you what I consider to be a reasonable description for "free will". I actually see that as more than just "colloquial" although I note that it does not conflict with such use to a large extent.
if you want to insist on trying to rescue a "better" type of "free will", you'll first of all need to tell me what you'd like from such a mythical beast. What would you want a "true" free will to give you that my "pedestrian" version can't?
I believe that "true" free will does NOT exist except in an experiential sense. Furthermore, I believe that true free will CANNOT be defined in any sense other than experiential, and still remain consistent with mainstream scientific worldviews. True free will dictates that to some degree we are unencumbered authors of our thoughts and actions. I'm not referring to solipsism, or to redefining "we" in some superficial manner so that free will can be argued to exist. (more)
I believe that "true free will" in the way you describe it is a philosopher's wet dream and of no real use to anybody. What do you even mean when you talk about being an "unencumbered author of [one's] thoughts and actions"? That one should be able to, willy nilly, pull thoughts out of one's arse that bear no relevance to one's place in the universe? What would be the point of such an "ability"?
No, I am simply saying that hard free will means that we have some freedom. That are thoughts and actions are not completely deterministic and/or probabilistic and/or random. That we are in some small or large way, somehow separate from all the other stuff of the universe because we have minds. That mind, or consciousness is qualitatively different from other stuff. Although I do not believe this, I believe I can make a strong case for it. Who knows?
Maybe it's only boring because you can't be bothered to look into what it can do for you?
Again, how could your precious "hard" free will be of any use to anybody? What would be the point of being "separated" from reality? How would you even envisage such a thing? I thought you were a materialist?
I haven't bothered to see what God can do for me either.
I am a materialist, but I play both the dualist and the materialist in the mental chess games I play. If the world is dualistic reality encompasses all elements, so there can be no separation from reality as I understand you to mean it. But if the two are not absolutely conjoined then you can have freedom. One can influence the other, but not completely and freedom becomes a possibility. (more)
... Of course this would mean that there is some other way of describing reality beyond deterministic, beyond probalistic and beyond random. While we may find that hard to imagine, who could have ever imagined something as crazy as the quantum world. Who knows?
Reality describes itself by doing what it does. We get a pretty decent handle on it with our science, our "laws of nature". It's like picking up an eel out of a bucket of snot by carefully cupping your hands under it and taking the eel out by letting it rest in your cupped hands. But then you get greedy and you want to really GRAB that eel and it just squirts out of your hands and back into the bucket.
Again, why would such a "freedom" be desirable? How is it "better" than the "soft" freedom you so haughtily dismiss? What would you get out of possessing such "freedom"?
I have made no statements as to desirablity, one way or the other, because I have not thought about this topic, except in reference to what I perceive to be your feelings on this matter.
Now the whole argument of beating down true (hard) free will with determinism is very anachronistic. It deals with only part of the problem and is at best a rather lame attack in the light of our current understanding of the quantum theory.
The issue more generally is, given our current world view is there any room for hard free will. Yes I made a vid on this (a response to one of your vids), and my answer was: absolutely not! I have seen any wiggle room here, nor has anyone given me (more)
Please define "true (hard) free will" in a way that would make it something that anybody who has any sense would consider desirable, so we can properly mourn its absence from our lives.
... any reason to expect any, short of changing my world view. To me, this is the interesting part. Although I don't buy it (currently) some versions of quantum "philosophy" posit mind as an element in the quantum "soup". If mind was in some nonsuperficial way distinct from other "stuff" than hard free will may have a chance.
As far as soft free will—that's pop psychology designed for those that can't stomach the possibility that what they wish they were, may not be what they are.
Well, you can trip over hard bullshit, but soft bullshit makes a very satisfying squishy sound and it leaves your legs covered in fragrant dampness. Oh the joys.
Sorry I get a bit aggressive at times. I thought I did define my terms, but I was very rushed yesterday. I'm going to go out for a bit. If you would care to ask me to further define some terms I will. I might even look at all these comments if you don't. I play table tennis the same way I argue. Its fun for me, but some folks get offended. Again, sorry.
Its pretty clear that the universe, to some degree, is probalistic, possibly it is 100% probablistic, with determinism being a limiting case of probalism. But probalism, upon reasoned reflection, offers no hope for resurrecting free will. Whether deterministic or probalistic "we" have as much to do with our thoughts and actions as every other component of the universe. We do not occupy a privileged position.
Now I'm a materialist, which leaves no room, that I can see, for free will. (more)
I agree, as I have told you before. Hanging one's hopes for "free will" on a "probabilistic" nature of the universe is futile. A puppet dancing to randomly moving strings is still just a puppet.
But, what is a "materialist" and - provided you answer my question on what you would want from "free will" I can then tell you what I think about your assertion that it leaves no room for "free will". I might wholeheartedly agree.
A materialist is one that believes that all phenomenum are the result of "the physical" ... damn, I've got to go tutor right now. I'll pick it up later. I want to ask you why you comingle the colloquial with the philosophical in the same vid. Be back soon. Will expand on my answer.
But if mind and matter are distinct, in a nonsuperficial, noncolloquial way (damn, I'm developing a Dawkinsian snarkiness ;), then free will may be more than just a feeling.
er. No. I don't think so, but even more importantly, I don't think Nature and what happens, what we like to think of as "laws of nature", its regularity, its consistency can be separated at the most basic level. I "comingle" the colloquial with the philosophical because there is only one reality. The two are one.
When you start with the hunch that the speed of light is constant, and then work from there. Granted not a perfect analogy, so here's more. When you assume something is true, as in math, and by working backwards you eventually find logical contradictions, and prove that it must be false.
Also, in most problems the number of possible paths from the answer to the starting conditions is fewer than in the reverse direction. (more)
But I suppose my point was that I perceived a bias in how the info in this vid was being analysed and presented. It is fuzzy around the edges, and I believe the reason for this is that a particular outcome is desired.
I think that un-fuzzing the edges would require considerably more than 16 minutes!
// a particular outcome is desired //
What do you take the desired outcome to be?
I'm not being provocative. I simply suspect that we have all "read" a slightly different desired outcome into the video. This illustrates why essays have an introductory paragraph!
I find the lines of argument in this and in a previous vid Pino has made about free will as fuzzy. This is not due to lack of length. It involves inaccuracies concerning our current understanding of the universe, and the fixation on determinism, which is clearly a term which Pino has misappropriated regarding quantum theory. It is the commingling of hard and soft definitions of free will, and the commingling of philosophy with pop psychology.
... to create a psychological salve, by which we can redefine free will so that we may feel good. That's fine, but this is a stew of ideas all mixed together which does not suit my taste. Its not the result that matters, hell I spend 50% of the time in the comments arguing for free will and 50% of the time arguing against it. Either way, my line of arguments are clean.
Now if this was to be a pop psychology talk, that's fine too, as long as that too is clean.
// psychological salve, by which we can redefine free will so that we may feel good //
"Psychological salve" describes an end-point, not a mechanism of definition. However, I understand what you are trying to say.
The point is that philosophy attempts to interpret (or should!) reality, but does not create reality. So, no definition can alter the fact of whether or not we do have free will. Inaccurate definitions, though, fail to reflect reality, and, as such, are utterly worthless.
2 I think that the worst definitions of free will employ computing analogies. The advocates of these analogies resort to we-are-programmed analogies to argue that we lack even cognitive free will.
If IT had even come remotely close to creating human-simulating AI algorithms, this would still say nothing about whether or not *we* have cognitive free will. Analogies illustrate, not constrain.
Alfred Adler was one of the first to point out that we program ourselves. ...
3 In essence, we write our own personal cognitive algorithms in response to experience. I am speaking of the neocortex here. The cortical neurons of neonates are disconnected. Physical process provide only the computing substrate. In essence, we write our own personal "cognitive-algorithms in response to experience.
On the other hand, unconscious brainstem and midbrain functions are "pre-programmed", which is why I say that we lack free will for drives.
Air, Pino directed us to another video on free will. I did not watch that one, though perhaps I ought to have checked it out. This one, if memory serves, really did not define free will. How do you define it?
The problem, aiui, is that some people argue against the possibility of free will by superimposing deterministic expectations on the macro scale of neural output. Even if determinism obtains at the quantum level, neural output is many orders of magnitude removed. Penrose notwithstanding.
In the context of this discussion you will find my definition of free will when arguing as a materialist, in a comment I made 1 day ago here starting with... I believe that "true" free will
I have a somewhat different definition when arguing as a duelist, which is really not fair but If no one challenges me on this...
I suppose by reading all my comments you will see that the less bias definition is that of the duelist... see comments that deal with the concept of autonomy.
I believe that the dualist has the better definition, but that the dualist worldview will turn out not to represent our future notion of reality.
I found Penrose's The Emperors to New Mind to be a humongous stretch. I love, no LOVE, GEB by Hoffsteader, but there's still the question of how the hell consciousness can ever be an emergent phenomenon. That's the dualist opening!
The dualist worldview is really the *past* notion of reality. It is a convenient over-simplification because it employs need-not-be-explained supernatural-type concepts to spackle the gaps in current explanations. Dualism is easy to grasp because it tosses in the undefinable answer-to-everything. (It has the added advantage of an illusory afterlife.)
Humongous stretch sums up quantum-consciousness! I liked GEB. I shall have to ponder what books I have LOVED.
My version of dualism has no afterlife. Remember, just because some got their notion of the idea wrong, doesn't mean the idea was wrong. After all Democritus believed that stuff was made of atoms. HIs reasons for doing so were a humongous stretch, worst than Penrose's. Turns out he was right about atoms, but his rational was non-empirical and highly speculative. He got lucky. The Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether folks were not as fortunate.
But you just said, "I am a monist, a materialist". Either monism obtains or dualism obtains. It isnt logical to attempt to have it both ways and to conveniently appropriate segments of magical-thinking to "explain" the yet-unexplained. Just wait for the answers.
I think that dualism is a tempting, cotton-lined trap. It might be about something, it might feel like an explanation, but it actually explains nothing. That, to me, is fuzzy illogic.
Let me explain it this way if dualism (material plus supernatural) were the case, then monism (materialism) would be a subset of dualism. So, you are either a dualist or a monists.
I suppose that you could be a duelist too, but I wouldn't advise it ;)
As it is, you appear to believe something analogous to the notion that a woman can be a "little bit pregnant".
(I also enjoy "bare with me" and "tenants of the faith".)
If you plan to become a physician then you must retain your materialist concepts. Even as a 'shrink', I remain a materialist.
Dualism is a non-starter, so cannot form the basis for a cogent argument (untrue premises). Dualism is a naive, intuitive assumption that fails to adequately account for the evidence.
// I believe that "true" free will does NOT exist except in an experiential sense //
I will take experience to mean conscious experience. Whoever (of any credibility) has said that free will is exclusive of conscious experience? That is what it is *about*.
// True free will dictates that to some degree we are unencumbered authors of our thoughts and actions.//
No, it does not dictate this, it *inheres* this. Quite different.
2 // thoughts and actions are not completely deterministic and/or probabilistic and/or random //
What other alternative exists?
// mind, or consciousness is qualitatively different from other stuff I do not believe this //
Unless I misunderstand what you wrote, I have to say, 'speak for your self on this one". My consciousness is qualitatively different than a carbon atom, for example.
I am a monist, a materialist, but I believe I can make a powerful argument for dualism. Not the old school variety, but one that attacks current issues in QM, consciousness, and cosmology, and suggests that many unexplained phenomena of materialists, MAY, got no evidence yet, but then neither do the materialists, be more readily explainable from a dualistic perspective. I'll probably make a vid about it sometime soon. Its fun to disagree with myself—No its not! ;)
If dualism obtained, then there would be no need for a powerful argument, rather there would be evidence. We do have direct evidence for monism.
You appear to be extrapolating from the fact that immensely complex processes are not fully explicated. A subtle version of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy -- we dont have the answer, therefore X is valid. X-insertions are magical thinking and only provide pseudo-answers.
2 Obviously, the most prevalent example of such thinking is the goddidit non-explanation.
I have spent a lot of time debating religionists and creationists. Not because they have any knowledge to impart, but precisely because they don't. When we are certain that a person's facts are wrong, then we can be sure that their arguments are faulty. Thus, creationists are great research material on cognitive disorders --- into the how and why of "backwards" thinking.
Yes you are correct. In order to attempt to make a persuasive argument I would need to first point out circumstances in which empirical evidence eventually caused a radical shift in the scientific consensus worldview.
Then I would need to point out serious problems in our current worldview and show that they are all converging in such a way that indicates a similar paradigm shift. (more)
Prior to the elucidation of quantum mechanisms, ignorance might have suggested "dualism" to someone who believed that the yet-unexplained must indicate the supernatural.
Just curious, what direct evidence do we have that there is no God—sorry, I meant what evidence do we have for monism? (The lack of evidence for dualism?)
Thanks, pm2. That's not exactly what I meant by "backwards". I was too brief to be clear. I meant those opinions that are built upon, and attempt to justify inaccurate conceptualizations -- the result is internal inconsistency and false metaphysics (eg, gods).
I think that you are actually describing the types of axiomatic, starting-point assumptions that are necessary for moving forward from evidence.
I agree that logical contradictions indicate that the concept is awry (eg, gods).
2 // the number of possible paths from the answer to the starting conditions //
I take you to be saying that there are more possibilities in the "backwards" direction than "forwards".
Thus, using the god analogy, tens of thousands of gods have been invented "backwards". The (lack of ) evidence suggests that there is no deity. Rather, the evidence requires many internally-consistent "forwards" explanations that ultimately boil down to the fundamental "laws" of physics.
10:38 Who says that the universe is externally governed as-a-whole -- in other words, as a unit -- by the laws of nature? They operate *within* the physical realm that we call "universe".
The operation of free will is a matter of scale and complexity --- many orders of magnitude removed from laws of nature. Xians stupidly employed the reality of cognitive (not drive) free will in an illogical excuse for an internally inconsistent indifferent / loving / punitive deity.
"Who says [...]" - Anybody who claims that the laws of nature can stand apart from reality. The laws of nature are emergent, they don't "operate", they are "expressed".
// Anybody who claims that the laws of nature can stand apart from reality.//
I have not personally seen that claim made. However, I have encountered some incredibly disordered creationist "thinking" on YT, so I would not be at all surprised ;@
Operate vs expressed? I think that this is semantic. Let's imagine that there were a "law" that produced no physical effect. Such a "law" would be indiscernable, and hence would not come to be described. In other word, operate=discernable effect.
No. Let's imagine that there were a "law" that DID produce a physical effect. What is that law "written" in? How does it proceed to *produce* the effect? How, in other words, do the "maths", the formulas that make up the law get "translated" into what happens in reality. That is how it would be if it was the LAW that produced the effect. If, however, the law is merely *descriptive* then the effect is just what it is, and the law is just our best attempt to describe what we see. (more)
Normally, OF COURSE, you would be quite right. It would be just semantic. Until one starts drawing conclusions such as "free will cannot exist because the universe is deterministic". Then one has taken it too far.
You probably realize that I put "law" into quotes for a reason. I also said "discernable effect" and "come to be described". We are in basic agreement.
I think that there is another key point about "determinism". It is often taken, simplistically, as manifesting at all levels throughout the physical universe. That is, as a simple cause-effect relationship in which *all* is assumed to be at the same fundamental level.
2 Those who make "deterministic" arguments against free will: a) fail, as you imply, to understand the limitations of "determinism", or b) know zip about neuroscience, or c) Are attacking a smoke-screen, or d) Cannot see reality for philosophical abstractions (all too common a problem), or e) mistakenly think this disproves "God", or f) some or all of the above, and / or g) another explanation that has not occurred to me.
For once I'm not so sure I agree with you unfortunately, Pino.
I'm undecided whether I think free will exists myself, but currently I'm definitely leaning towards hard determinism for reasons that require more than a 500 character comment box to articulate :P
I find the topic interesting though and would be keen to describe my take on it and discuss via PM if you're interested.
The argument that I'm putting forward here is that determinism requires rules to be externally imposed on reality. That invokes something that is "external" to reality, which is absurd.
I'm sorry perhaps I phrased what I said the wrong way. I agree the idea of something "external" to reality does seem absurd.
I suppose what I mean is that given, as you said, we live in an internally consistent universe of cause and effect, at present I don't think our minds are free from that same cause and effect. It seems the only difference is that there are almost an infinite amount of extra variables.
As I said though, at this point I'd still technically classify myself as undecided :)
"Cause" and "effect" are funny words. If you look at them closely you'll start to realise that they were invented originally to signify the interaction between agents and the world. An agent makes a decision, it acts, and this act then "causes" something to happen in reality, the "effect" of its action.
In actual laws of physics those terms do not exist. Of course it doesn't help that colloquially people are quite happy to use them: (more)
"the tile fell off the roof causing a huge dent in the car parked underneath". There is nothing wrong with saying that, normally, but if you formally describe what happens using "laws of nature", they just describe energy transfers and conversions. "cause" and "effect" don't enter the equation.
All of which is much more succinct than Hume's exposition on the subject ;)
It strikes me that, in the intervening centuries, most of us have learned to express concepts more efficiently. On the other hand, it may be that we understand the current modes of expressing ideas.
Phaedrus in the story starts off by developing this really interesting idea about "quality". He takes it to quite dizzying heights. A lot of what he says makes a lot of sense. And then he goes on and takes it into lala land and he follows in its wake, and goes stark staring mad in the process.
This is off on somewhat of a tangent, but as long as we are discussing philosophy, do you think it's possible for someone to think their existence away? "I think therefore I am" is core to western philosophy, but I imagine that with advancements in AI, we'll eventually have a model so similar to ourselves that its study will be deeply troubling. Self aware but only sensing and affecting the world with the faculties we give it. Could it trust us not to deceive it when it asked what it was?
I couldn't imagine how it could do such a thing, but that may be my imagination failing me ;-)
I would say that if we create a self aware artificial intelligence, we've created a "person", with all the moral implications that entails. I would, for example, consider it immoral to switch such an entity off. But then again ... if it's not aware of "mortality" then the idea of a "switchoff" won't bother it, and blinking out of existence IT will be the only thing that will never know.
It get's a lot more complicated then that. Programming such a thing would involve us answering the fundamental question of what an "Idea" is. We haven't gotten that far with the concept since Plato. A self aware being with no inborn sense of morality or empathy is another problem. I guess that what brings it back full circle is that the possibility of a benevolent, omnipotent being is the least likely of least likely possibilities and that we could never fathom this without reason.
I'm not sure where the omnipotence comes into it. Self-awareness in its most rudimentary form would entail the entity having an internal representation of the world and entities that exist in the world, including an internal representation of itself.
The omnipotence part was just a mental exercise. I disagree with your definition. Most human beings don't know that they can have no external perception of the world. You can only believe that your internal representations somehow apply to the real world. What I see before my eyes is actually being "seen" in my occipital lobe in the back of my head. Same with my other senses. To understand that you are not the same thing as your function is self awareness. That's my definition.
// To understand that you are not the same thing as your function is self awareness. //
Hmmm. If I read that sentence correctly, it strikes me as an odd definition of self-awareness. The usual definition is "the state or property of being self-aware".
I think that this is at a different level than the science-acquired knowledge that we reconstruct reality within our sensory-input-integrating neocortex. We cannot be "aware" of the physiologic and neuro-anatomic generation of a sense of "self".
... I listened through this whole vid and you never said a damn thing about what choise the dolphin made... I hope he made it... cliffhanger... :( ...
... " Free Willy " ... the one in the movie... just fucking around.. :) ... Having a silly morning,,, too early for me to wrap my mind around toy dogs ...
As with some of the others, I agree with you about everything, with the minor exception that most people will think you're talking about what THEY believe "free will" means, and not what you were ACTUALLY talking about.
Also, I like that in your definition of free will in the video, the robot dog WOULD have "free will", assuming it had the ability to make choices. All too often people conflate "free will" to such lengths that by definition only humans could have it, which is just silly.
Oh, and I suppose I'm further into the "determinism" camp than you are...though I think that may be the result of another of the "how to YOU define the term" issues, rather than actually disagreeing...either way, it's nearly inconsequential in any practical sense...so...meh :)
I'm not sure whether any artificial intelligence is yet advanced enough that you can say that it could have "free will" in any meaningful sense. Computers at the moment still very clearly process data according to rules that have been imposed on them externally (by programmers). Still, there is some exciting work going on that may be nudging us in that direction. But so far the robot dog will still only be a toy :-)
I suppose that would depend on what you'd define as "meaningful". It could be argued (and pretty well I think) that WE are simply processing data according to rules that have been imposed on us in the forms of the physical laws of biology/chemistry/etc...though, of course, to a much more complex degree than any (current) robot.
That's more a philosophical issue than a practical one at this point though. :)
argued [...] that WE are simply processing data according to rules that have been imposed on us in the forms of the physical laws of biology/chemistry/etc
No laws needed, just consistent results in specific situations. The "laws" (if they really are laws, which I wouldn't argue for) didn't "come" from anywhere necessarily, nor are they necessarily ALWAYS consistent in every situation, but we do know enough about how the stuff in the universe works in regards to the Earth biology/chemistry/etc to see that they are VERY consistent much of the time in specific areas, which (I would argue, at least) includes the brain, and so includes consciousness.
I'm definitely not denying that what happens in the universe is consistent. But it's not deterministic. Our laws of nature, of course, ARE deterministic, but that is a limitation of what we are capable of knowing about the universe. It doesn't make such laws useless. FAR from it. But don't mistake them for a complete description of reality.
Agreed, but the universe need not be deterministic for certain aspects of those "laws" to be valid in specific situations to the point that they act on specific chunks of the universe (in this case the brain) in ways that could be called "deterministic for all practical purposes" in that case. That is to say, the laws might not ALWAYS be valid, but that doesn't mean they NEVER are.
Certainly. Look at a computer. By programming it we make it behave according to a deterministic set of rules. I'm not arguing against that. It is quite possible that our brains, too, are subjected to restrictions that allow them, too, to only behave in a deterministic manner. All of that is certainly possible, and I'm not arguing against that. (more)
What I'm arguing against is the argument "We cannot have free will because the universe, or reality, or (even worse) the laws of nature is/are deterministic". The universe is not deterministic even if all our laws of nature are, and the argument is therefore invalid. Showing that the argument is wrong does, of course, prove nothing. It actually puts us back on square one. But hey, I'm not complaining.
Free will has very little (if anything) to do with whether or not the universe is deterministic, so it really doesn't matter either way...and that argument would take too long anyway hehe. Free will is incompatible with physics simply because it would require consciousness to influence our brains in a way contrary to causality (ie. our brains affect our consciousness, not the other way around...as far as we can tell at least). There are some hypotheses that argue against that, but not well imo)
Causality? There is no causality in any of the laws of physics we have been able to formulate. It may often be convenient to talk about the world in terms of "cause" and "effect" but it doesn't hold water when you get to the nitty gritty of it.
Uh, I think you'll find that all but the craziest physicists would disagree with you. I'd be greatly interested in hearing why you think there is no causality in "any" of the laws of physics we have developed, given that causality in one form or another is at the root of the predictable and reproducible results REQUIRED for "laws" of physics to be called "laws" in the first place.
Au contraire. One thing that bugs a lot of scientists is that many of the laws of physics we have established seem to have NO temporal preference whatsoever. They work just as well going "backward" as they do going forward. And if you don't believe ME saying that, perhaps you might like to check out such "crazy" scientists like John D. Barrow or Martin Amis who explain this quite eloquently in their books.
Causality and Temperal directionality are two VERY different things...especially in physics. You're right that there are many things in physics in which there is no reason (or at least no reason we can find thus far) to think they can't go in either direction in time, but they would still be in a causal relationship, it would just be that the cause happened after the effect. There are very few things even theoretically acausal...regardless of directionality in time.
And even if there are acausal or temporally bi-directional laws of physics, there's no reason (so far at least) to think anything to do with the brain and consciousness include such things without having to discard and explain away decades of neurology, chemistry, etc. Certainly POSSIBLE...but hardly rational without good reasons being given to do so.
// it would require consciousness to influence our brains in a way contrary to causality //
Huh?
// our brains affect our consciousness //
Our brains *effect* our consciousness. The jury really should not be out on this one. However, to illustrate "jury" problems, we still have creationists.
Of course, many people are "creative" thinkers, so they concoct all manner of "hypotheses". Dualism is a myth that permits "explanations" that are intuitively comprehensible to most people.
// Please explain causality in terms of theoretical physics //
Uh...something happens that causes something else...what else could "causality" mean?
// Huh? //
For freewill to exist beyond the practical level (as in, we FEEL like we have it), our conscious thoughts would have to effect the physical matter in our brains. Currently science points to consciousness being a byproduct of the brain, so that would be backwards..according to current theories at least.
I suppose I'll have to dig out my old webcam and put something together...comment boxes are FAR too short for this sort of thing, I'm surely just causing needless confusion at this point. Good excuse to get back at making vids I suppose :D
You seem to be answering two different sets of comments.
"Feel" usually applies to emotions. I take it that you mean "believe" or "perceive" ourselves to have free will.
Actually, for free will to exist at the practical level (excluding arguments about external constraints) we merely need to have the cognitive freedom to make personal choices. This merely means that we are not robotically-programmed to make particular choices. This does not require that thoughts direct our brain.
2 Thus, free will merely involves using our enormously variable neural-net combinations to generate decisions in accord with our drives and priorities. "I want to eat the entire cake, but I don't want to buy new clothes, so I'll compromise with a small slice / large slice / eat none / etc." (It's supper time, so I have descended into food analogies.)
Neural circuits generating thoughts, not thoughts altering our physical brains. (Physical alteration is confined to neurogenesis and learning.)
life is indeed what we make of it. I'm gonna go now and make mine into a tea cosy. Well at least it's something useful. Crap..that means I'm going to have to go out and buy a teapot. Oh...excellent video by the way!
I know of one that's hanging out beyond the orbit of Jupiter. Nobody has ever seen it, but I know that it's there. I have faith. It can be yours if you just believe.
and i thought this was the malcolm in the middle song :(
StevexOwnz 1 year ago 3
@StevexOwnz Sorry
rozeboosje 1 year ago
┫━━ ┃ ━━┣┛ ┣┫ Copia esto si te
┃ ━━━━━ ┃ ┏┳┫┣┳ cagan los pendejos
┗━━┳━┳━━┛ ┃ ┃ que continuan
━━━┃ ┃━━━━┗━┳┳━ subiendo mamadas a youtube
scalero789 1 year ago
lol kerel... dit is egt vaag!
theofficialJJchannel 2 years ago
ongijs vaag?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
i didn't mean to leave that comment. i'm sorry. i thought your video belonged to someone that's harassing me but it turns out they just have it favorited. i don't really believe what i wrote to you and i deleted the comment.
rickyshore 2 years ago
LOL - Don't worry about. In actual fact you didn't say anything that wasn't perfectly true XD
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Comment removed
rickyshore 2 years ago
"And determinism is a myth." --- Very good. I like that opinion.
yupiie 2 years ago
:-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Awfully good video! I listened with great interest form the beginning to the end. Favoured it, because I may need to come back to some of the points you make - not because I am learning them now, but because you express them so well.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
Thanks! Let me know what you think.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I will. And I will have something to tentatively add, But it will take me some time.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
Definitions I
Materialist - one who believes all manifestations of reality can be reduced to physical processes.
premed2 2 years ago
Definitions II
Hard free will - things which have hard free will have some degree of autonomy from the physical laws of the universe.
Regarding the desirability of hard free will: this allows for psychological satisfaction in that it provides a sense of ownership for positive attributes and activities.
Regarding the undesirability of hard free will: this imparts a sense of ownership for negative attributes and activities.
premed2 2 years ago
What are the "physical laws of the universe"?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
The physical laws of the universe are relationships between empirical data, which allows one to make predictions concerning other empirical data, frequently, but not necessarily, displaced in time.
premed2 2 years ago
Ok. And what would "autonomy" from such relationships be like?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
To the degree that autonomy might exist, there would be no relationship between empirical data set one, and empirical data set two, where both these data sets are associated in some way to some common characteristic of the physical universe.
premed2 2 years ago
Doesn't that constitute a relationship though?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Well of course, but there's nothing wrong with that. All that is required is some degree of autonomy. If there are no relationships at all (complete autonomy), nothing would make any sense.
premed2 2 years ago
Indeed
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Your concept of determinism seems Newtonian and out of date. It relies on cause and effect and rules of nature. I think that fails simply because it's assumption that consciousness is purely cause and effect. Determinism based on relativity is about time: for any slice of time space there is a relative relationship with all other slices; all time space is set and all things past and present are fixed in it. In that scenario free will is an illusion. You're having the jam sandwich at 6:34.
Blackmark52 2 years ago
You might want to scan over the comments. Enjoy the jam sandwich.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Was that supposed to be an argument of sorts? I hope it wasn't intended as simple derision.
I am not a determinist. I am pointing out that your argument doesn't give determinism it's fair due. It is a straw man. Your mid conclusion: we feel like we have free will so that's good enough, doesn't address whether or not we actually have free will, as you admit, but why do you go on at such length just to dismiss it as mental masturbation? Sounds like the pot's calling the kettle black.
Blackmark52 2 years ago
Accepting your premise, your argument that laws of nature are descriptive seems persuasive at first, but has its weaknesses. A determinist has no need to see the laws as prescriptive, consider the opposite a random free for all, or to rely on anything outside the universe. I see straw men. You conclude "the universe by definition is not deterministic." That is simply pulled out of your ass. Why didn't you just start with that and shave 16 min, 31 seconds off your video?
Blackmark52 2 years ago
Ok. Drop the ad homs and try again.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Wow! Can you point out the ad homs? If I poked fun that doesn't actually qualify. In fact, your response is better descriptive of ad hominem, you see, you attacked me (as someone that uses ad hominem attacks) instead of addressing any of my points.
If viewers aren't allowed to point out weaknesses in your argument, and you don't intend to respond civilly and rationally, don't even see fit to address the comments, then you should perhaps disable comments, or use CPA.
Blackmark52 2 years ago
I'm afraid you are actually not the boss of me either. Sorry.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Fine, if you can't respond but to be dismissive and abrasive, I can't learn anything here. I'll unsubscribe.
Blackmark52 2 years ago
Fare thee well.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
your interesting words destined me to comment.
this comment was predestined the day i subscribed to you, it was predestined the day the day i first visited youtube. this comment is a direct result of my birth, of my parents birth, of the birth of an ape like creature many many years ago.
on the other hand, i have free will. sooo...
Rat shit, Bat shit
Dirty old twat
69 assholes tied in a knot.
Hooray!
Lizard shit!
FUCK!
PoisonedAntidote 2 years ago
w00t!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
xxxxxxx
ezmereldagreen 2 years ago
:-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Great video rozeboosje. If its not too much of a personal question , may i ask what you for a living ?. If not , no problem , i look forward to seeing your next video.
Regards,
Zen
Zenithstrife 2 years ago
I'm a computer programmer. A code monkey. A Professional Nerd. :P
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Quantum mechanics is essentially probalistic NOT deterministic. You are NOT using the word correctly--but at least you aren't yelling at Jack. ;)
But whether things are deterministic or probalistic, AND PRACTICALLY THEY ARE BOTH, it makes no diference, there still is no room for free will.
Same old flawed argument! Internal knowledge is part of the universe so you have made no cogent point. You are misusing the word "deterministic" and the phrase "free will". I hate this!
More...
premed2 2 years ago
I really hate this! You just want to give yourself and the rest of us poor shmucks the illusion that we have free will. So you are using any method you can to arrive at that position. But your arguments are kaka! We may in fact have free will, but you want to believe in God (free will) so much, that you are willing to advance all these really silly ideas appearently without embarrassment. Stop working backwards from the answer and maybe you'll come up with something better.
I still love you.
premed2 2 years ago
Sorry, you completely misunderstood. I don't care one iota whether the laws of nature are "probabilistic" or not. If you view reality as if abstract "laws of nature" determine what happens in reality, then you're separating reality into a "physical" and a "metaphysical" realm. I reject that separation, and given that, the universe cannot be deterministic. (more)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Whether this does or does not rescue free will is not really my problem. What I do know is that the argument "reality is deterministic therefore we cannot have free will" is bunk.
And yes, sadly that leaves us back at square one.
Frankly, I don't care. My original redefinition is perfectly good enough for me anyway. It is not in conflict with colloquial use of the term and it makes sense. The purists may continue navel gazing in the mean time.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I get what you're saying. I was simply point out an error you made regarding the use of the word "deterministic"
Determinism is really not at all that important. The issue should instead be, what is it about our universe that would allow for free will (not the colloquial use) to exist? This is THE question.
If you want to use the colloquial term fine, just say we have free will cause it sure feels good to say tjhat we do and be done with it. (more)
premed2 2 years ago
Determinism IS important if someone wants to use it as a club to beat the possibility for "free will" to death with. Alas, that's not going to work.
So far so good. But then you ask me to tell you what it is about the universe [...]. Hang on a sec. Not so fast. I told you what I consider to be a reasonable description for "free will". I actually see that as more than just "colloquial" although I note that it does not conflict with such use to a large extent.
So then (more)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
if you want to insist on trying to rescue a "better" type of "free will", you'll first of all need to tell me what you'd like from such a mythical beast. What would you want a "true" free will to give you that my "pedestrian" version can't?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I believe that "true" free will does NOT exist except in an experiential sense. Furthermore, I believe that true free will CANNOT be defined in any sense other than experiential, and still remain consistent with mainstream scientific worldviews. True free will dictates that to some degree we are unencumbered authors of our thoughts and actions. I'm not referring to solipsism, or to redefining "we" in some superficial manner so that free will can be argued to exist. (more)
premed2 2 years ago
I believe that "true free will" in the way you describe it is a philosopher's wet dream and of no real use to anybody. What do you even mean when you talk about being an "unencumbered author of [one's] thoughts and actions"? That one should be able to, willy nilly, pull thoughts out of one's arse that bear no relevance to one's place in the universe? What would be the point of such an "ability"?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
No, I am simply saying that hard free will means that we have some freedom. That are thoughts and actions are not completely deterministic and/or probabilistic and/or random. That we are in some small or large way, somehow separate from all the other stuff of the universe because we have minds. That mind, or consciousness is qualitatively different from other stuff. Although I do not believe this, I believe I can make a strong case for it. Who knows?
As far as soft free will—boring.
premed2 2 years ago
Maybe it's only boring because you can't be bothered to look into what it can do for you?
Again, how could your precious "hard" free will be of any use to anybody? What would be the point of being "separated" from reality? How would you even envisage such a thing? I thought you were a materialist?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I haven't bothered to see what God can do for me either.
I am a materialist, but I play both the dualist and the materialist in the mental chess games I play. If the world is dualistic reality encompasses all elements, so there can be no separation from reality as I understand you to mean it. But if the two are not absolutely conjoined then you can have freedom. One can influence the other, but not completely and freedom becomes a possibility. (more)
premed2 2 years ago
... Of course this would mean that there is some other way of describing reality beyond deterministic, beyond probalistic and beyond random. While we may find that hard to imagine, who could have ever imagined something as crazy as the quantum world. Who knows?
premed2 2 years ago
Reality describes itself by doing what it does. We get a pretty decent handle on it with our science, our "laws of nature". It's like picking up an eel out of a bucket of snot by carefully cupping your hands under it and taking the eel out by letting it rest in your cupped hands. But then you get greedy and you want to really GRAB that eel and it just squirts out of your hands and back into the bucket.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
from a fortune cookie?
premed2 2 years ago
Again, why would such a "freedom" be desirable? How is it "better" than the "soft" freedom you so haughtily dismiss? What would you get out of possessing such "freedom"?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I have made no statements as to desirablity, one way or the other, because I have not thought about this topic, except in reference to what I perceive to be your feelings on this matter.
premed2 2 years ago
Now the whole argument of beating down true (hard) free will with determinism is very anachronistic. It deals with only part of the problem and is at best a rather lame attack in the light of our current understanding of the quantum theory.
The issue more generally is, given our current world view is there any room for hard free will. Yes I made a vid on this (a response to one of your vids), and my answer was: absolutely not! I have seen any wiggle room here, nor has anyone given me (more)
premed2 2 years ago
Please define "true (hard) free will" in a way that would make it something that anybody who has any sense would consider desirable, so we can properly mourn its absence from our lives.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
... any reason to expect any, short of changing my world view. To me, this is the interesting part. Although I don't buy it (currently) some versions of quantum "philosophy" posit mind as an element in the quantum "soup". If mind was in some nonsuperficial way distinct from other "stuff" than hard free will may have a chance.
As far as soft free will—that's pop psychology designed for those that can't stomach the possibility that what they wish they were, may not be what they are.
premed2 2 years ago
Well, you can trip over hard bullshit, but soft bullshit makes a very satisfying squishy sound and it leaves your legs covered in fragrant dampness. Oh the joys.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
:-)
premed2 2 years ago
There are few joys in life that would exceed a good crap.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I'm going to avoid making a pun here, concerning what I think of some of your arguments. ;p
premed2 2 years ago
By all means do, seein as you are continuing to make definitive statements based on assumptions that you refuse to define properly.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Please help me. What is it you wish for me to define?
premed2 2 years ago
You can read the comments, can't you?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Sorry I get a bit aggressive at times. I thought I did define my terms, but I was very rushed yesterday. I'm going to go out for a bit. If you would care to ask me to further define some terms I will. I might even look at all these comments if you don't. I play table tennis the same way I argue. Its fun for me, but some folks get offended. Again, sorry.
premed2 2 years ago
Its pretty clear that the universe, to some degree, is probalistic, possibly it is 100% probablistic, with determinism being a limiting case of probalism. But probalism, upon reasoned reflection, offers no hope for resurrecting free will. Whether deterministic or probalistic "we" have as much to do with our thoughts and actions as every other component of the universe. We do not occupy a privileged position.
Now I'm a materialist, which leaves no room, that I can see, for free will. (more)
premed2 2 years ago
I agree, as I have told you before. Hanging one's hopes for "free will" on a "probabilistic" nature of the universe is futile. A puppet dancing to randomly moving strings is still just a puppet.
But, what is a "materialist" and - provided you answer my question on what you would want from "free will" I can then tell you what I think about your assertion that it leaves no room for "free will". I might wholeheartedly agree.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
A materialist is one that believes that all phenomenum are the result of "the physical" ... damn, I've got to go tutor right now. I'll pick it up later. I want to ask you why you comingle the colloquial with the philosophical in the same vid. Be back soon. Will expand on my answer.
premed2 2 years ago
But if mind and matter are distinct, in a nonsuperficial, noncolloquial way (damn, I'm developing a Dawkinsian snarkiness ;), then free will may be more than just a feeling.
premed2 2 years ago
er. No. I don't think so, but even more importantly, I don't think Nature and what happens, what we like to think of as "laws of nature", its regularity, its consistency can be separated at the most basic level. I "comingle" the colloquial with the philosophical because there is only one reality. The two are one.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
// Stop working backwards from the answer //
I think that you are saying that understanding requires that we work forward from facts. Yes? No?
Fact: we do have cognitive free will, but we don't have free will for drives. (Basic neuroscience)
Fact: Xians were faced with the dilemma of explaining how a "loving" god could be indifferent or punitive.
Think forward from the facts.
The deterministic attacks on free will are merely tilting at straw windmills.
saliental 2 years ago
Yes, not that working backward can't at times be useful.
premed2 2 years ago
When is it useful?
saliental 2 years ago
When you start with the hunch that the speed of light is constant, and then work from there. Granted not a perfect analogy, so here's more. When you assume something is true, as in math, and by working backwards you eventually find logical contradictions, and prove that it must be false.
Also, in most problems the number of possible paths from the answer to the starting conditions is fewer than in the reverse direction. (more)
premed2 2 years ago
But I suppose my point was that I perceived a bias in how the info in this vid was being analysed and presented. It is fuzzy around the edges, and I believe the reason for this is that a particular outcome is desired.
premed2 2 years ago
// It is fuzzy around the edges //
I think that un-fuzzing the edges would require considerably more than 16 minutes!
// a particular outcome is desired //
What do you take the desired outcome to be?
I'm not being provocative. I simply suspect that we have all "read" a slightly different desired outcome into the video. This illustrates why essays have an introductory paragraph!
saliental 2 years ago
I find the lines of argument in this and in a previous vid Pino has made about free will as fuzzy. This is not due to lack of length. It involves inaccuracies concerning our current understanding of the universe, and the fixation on determinism, which is clearly a term which Pino has misappropriated regarding quantum theory. It is the commingling of hard and soft definitions of free will, and the commingling of philosophy with pop psychology.
The desired outcome is... (more)
premed2 2 years ago
... to create a psychological salve, by which we can redefine free will so that we may feel good. That's fine, but this is a stew of ideas all mixed together which does not suit my taste. Its not the result that matters, hell I spend 50% of the time in the comments arguing for free will and 50% of the time arguing against it. Either way, my line of arguments are clean.
Now if this was to be a pop psychology talk, that's fine too, as long as that too is clean.
premed2 2 years ago
// psychological salve, by which we can redefine free will so that we may feel good //
"Psychological salve" describes an end-point, not a mechanism of definition. However, I understand what you are trying to say.
The point is that philosophy attempts to interpret (or should!) reality, but does not create reality. So, no definition can alter the fact of whether or not we do have free will. Inaccurate definitions, though, fail to reflect reality, and, as such, are utterly worthless.
saliental 2 years ago
2 I think that the worst definitions of free will employ computing analogies. The advocates of these analogies resort to we-are-programmed analogies to argue that we lack even cognitive free will.
If IT had even come remotely close to creating human-simulating AI algorithms, this would still say nothing about whether or not *we* have cognitive free will. Analogies illustrate, not constrain.
Alfred Adler was one of the first to point out that we program ourselves. ...
saliental 2 years ago
3 In essence, we write our own personal cognitive algorithms in response to experience. I am speaking of the neocortex here. The cortical neurons of neonates are disconnected. Physical process provide only the computing substrate. In essence, we write our own personal "cognitive-algorithms in response to experience.
On the other hand, unconscious brainstem and midbrain functions are "pre-programmed", which is why I say that we lack free will for drives.
saliental 2 years ago
Air, Pino directed us to another video on free will. I did not watch that one, though perhaps I ought to have checked it out. This one, if memory serves, really did not define free will. How do you define it?
The problem, aiui, is that some people argue against the possibility of free will by superimposing deterministic expectations on the macro scale of neural output. Even if determinism obtains at the quantum level, neural output is many orders of magnitude removed. Penrose notwithstanding.
saliental 2 years ago
In the context of this discussion you will find my definition of free will when arguing as a materialist, in a comment I made 1 day ago here starting with... I believe that "true" free will
I have a somewhat different definition when arguing as a duelist, which is really not fair but If no one challenges me on this...
I suppose by reading all my comments you will see that the less bias definition is that of the duelist... see comments that deal with the concept of autonomy.
(more)
premed2 2 years ago
I believe that the dualist has the better definition, but that the dualist worldview will turn out not to represent our future notion of reality.
I found Penrose's The Emperors to New Mind to be a humongous stretch. I love, no LOVE, GEB by Hoffsteader, but there's still the question of how the hell consciousness can ever be an emergent phenomenon. That's the dualist opening!
premed2 2 years ago
The dualist worldview is really the *past* notion of reality. It is a convenient over-simplification because it employs need-not-be-explained supernatural-type concepts to spackle the gaps in current explanations. Dualism is easy to grasp because it tosses in the undefinable answer-to-everything. (It has the added advantage of an illusory afterlife.)
Humongous stretch sums up quantum-consciousness! I liked GEB. I shall have to ponder what books I have LOVED.
saliental 2 years ago
My version of dualism has no afterlife. Remember, just because some got their notion of the idea wrong, doesn't mean the idea was wrong. After all Democritus believed that stuff was made of atoms. HIs reasons for doing so were a humongous stretch, worst than Penrose's. Turns out he was right about atoms, but his rational was non-empirical and highly speculative. He got lucky. The Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether folks were not as fortunate.
premed2 2 years ago
// My version of dualism //
But you just said, "I am a monist, a materialist". Either monism obtains or dualism obtains. It isnt logical to attempt to have it both ways and to conveniently appropriate segments of magical-thinking to "explain" the yet-unexplained. Just wait for the answers.
I think that dualism is a tempting, cotton-lined trap. It might be about something, it might feel like an explanation, but it actually explains nothing. That, to me, is fuzzy illogic.
saliental 2 years ago
// But you just said, "I am a monist, a materialist" //
I argue both positions against myself. So far I think I'm winning. :P
Just because I believe in monism is no reason for me not to make the strongest case against myself. After all this is much like chess.
premed2 2 years ago
Let me explain it this way if dualism (material plus supernatural) were the case, then monism (materialism) would be a subset of dualism. So, you are either a dualist or a monists.
I suppose that you could be a duelist too, but I wouldn't advise it ;)
As it is, you appear to believe something analogous to the notion that a woman can be a "little bit pregnant".
.. contd
saliental 2 years ago
Strictly speaking, if you want to argue *dualistic mechanisms for anything*, then you are a dualist, even if you acknowledge material mechanisms.
Monism = one (mono-)
Dualism = two (duo-)
Do you see it? If not, a Venn diagram might help.
saliental 2 years ago
I'll look for your definition.
// arguing as a duelist //
With swords or pistols?
Sorry, couldn't resist ;)
(I also enjoy "bare with me" and "tenants of the faith".)
If you plan to become a physician then you must retain your materialist concepts. Even as a 'shrink', I remain a materialist.
Dualism is a non-starter, so cannot form the basis for a cogent argument (untrue premises). Dualism is a naive, intuitive assumption that fails to adequately account for the evidence.
saliental 2 years ago
I found it:
// I believe that "true" free will does NOT exist except in an experiential sense //
I will take experience to mean conscious experience. Whoever (of any credibility) has said that free will is exclusive of conscious experience? That is what it is *about*.
// True free will dictates that to some degree we are unencumbered authors of our thoughts and actions.//
No, it does not dictate this, it *inheres* this. Quite different.
contd.
saliental 2 years ago
2 // thoughts and actions are not completely deterministic and/or probabilistic and/or random //
What other alternative exists?
// mind, or consciousness is qualitatively different from other stuff I do not believe this //
Unless I misunderstand what you wrote, I have to say, 'speak for your self on this one". My consciousness is qualitatively different than a carbon atom, for example.
saliental 2 years ago
I am a monist, a materialist, but I believe I can make a powerful argument for dualism. Not the old school variety, but one that attacks current issues in QM, consciousness, and cosmology, and suggests that many unexplained phenomena of materialists, MAY, got no evidence yet, but then neither do the materialists, be more readily explainable from a dualistic perspective. I'll probably make a vid about it sometime soon. Its fun to disagree with myself—No its not! ;)
premed2 2 years ago
// make a powerful argument for dualism //
If dualism obtained, then there would be no need for a powerful argument, rather there would be evidence. We do have direct evidence for monism.
You appear to be extrapolating from the fact that immensely complex processes are not fully explicated. A subtle version of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy -- we dont have the answer, therefore X is valid. X-insertions are magical thinking and only provide pseudo-answers.
saliental 2 years ago
2 Obviously, the most prevalent example of such thinking is the goddidit non-explanation.
I have spent a lot of time debating religionists and creationists. Not because they have any knowledge to impart, but precisely because they don't. When we are certain that a person's facts are wrong, then we can be sure that their arguments are faulty. Thus, creationists are great research material on cognitive disorders --- into the how and why of "backwards" thinking.
saliental 2 years ago
// You appear to be extrapolating //
Yes you are correct. In order to attempt to make a persuasive argument I would need to first point out circumstances in which empirical evidence eventually caused a radical shift in the scientific consensus worldview.
Then I would need to point out serious problems in our current worldview and show that they are all converging in such a way that indicates a similar paradigm shift. (more)
premed2 2 years ago
Of course if anyone had ever described quantum theory before the 20th century they would have been considered certifiably mad.
premed2 2 years ago
Yes, but quantum theory falls within monism.
Prior to the elucidation of quantum mechanisms, ignorance might have suggested "dualism" to someone who believed that the yet-unexplained must indicate the supernatural.
saliental 2 years ago
// We do have direct evidence for monism. //
Just curious, what direct evidence do we have that there is no God—sorry, I meant what evidence do we have for monism? (The lack of evidence for dualism?)
premed2 2 years ago
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You seem not to understand that it is logically impossible to disprove a postulated existence that does not exist outside conceptualization.
Perhaps you do, but you appear not to.
Regardless, your challenge fails on the grounds that it is a fallacy of logic.
saliental 2 years ago
i'm not saying i believe in anything but;
the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
BaronVonBingBong 2 years ago
Thanks, pm2. That's not exactly what I meant by "backwards". I was too brief to be clear. I meant those opinions that are built upon, and attempt to justify inaccurate conceptualizations -- the result is internal inconsistency and false metaphysics (eg, gods).
I think that you are actually describing the types of axiomatic, starting-point assumptions that are necessary for moving forward from evidence.
I agree that logical contradictions indicate that the concept is awry (eg, gods).
saliental 2 years ago
2 // the number of possible paths from the answer to the starting conditions //
I take you to be saying that there are more possibilities in the "backwards" direction than "forwards".
Thus, using the god analogy, tens of thousands of gods have been invented "backwards". The (lack of ) evidence suggests that there is no deity. Rather, the evidence requires many internally-consistent "forwards" explanations that ultimately boil down to the fundamental "laws" of physics.
saliental 2 years ago
10:38 Who says that the universe is externally governed as-a-whole -- in other words, as a unit -- by the laws of nature? They operate *within* the physical realm that we call "universe".
The operation of free will is a matter of scale and complexity --- many orders of magnitude removed from laws of nature. Xians stupidly employed the reality of cognitive (not drive) free will in an illogical excuse for an internally inconsistent indifferent / loving / punitive deity.
saliental 2 years ago
"Who says [...]" - Anybody who claims that the laws of nature can stand apart from reality. The laws of nature are emergent, they don't "operate", they are "expressed".
rozeboosje 2 years ago
// Anybody who claims that the laws of nature can stand apart from reality.//
I have not personally seen that claim made. However, I have encountered some incredibly disordered creationist "thinking" on YT, so I would not be at all surprised ;@
Operate vs expressed? I think that this is semantic. Let's imagine that there were a "law" that produced no physical effect. Such a "law" would be indiscernable, and hence would not come to be described. In other word, operate=discernable effect.
saliental 2 years ago
No. Let's imagine that there were a "law" that DID produce a physical effect. What is that law "written" in? How does it proceed to *produce* the effect? How, in other words, do the "maths", the formulas that make up the law get "translated" into what happens in reality. That is how it would be if it was the LAW that produced the effect. If, however, the law is merely *descriptive* then the effect is just what it is, and the law is just our best attempt to describe what we see. (more)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Normally, OF COURSE, you would be quite right. It would be just semantic. Until one starts drawing conclusions such as "free will cannot exist because the universe is deterministic". Then one has taken it too far.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
You probably realize that I put "law" into quotes for a reason. I also said "discernable effect" and "come to be described". We are in basic agreement.
I think that there is another key point about "determinism". It is often taken, simplistically, as manifesting at all levels throughout the physical universe. That is, as a simple cause-effect relationship in which *all* is assumed to be at the same fundamental level.
... contd.
saliental 2 years ago
Yes indeed. I think you're right there.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
saliental 2 years ago
Search Youtube on "Daniel Dennett lecture on "Free Will""
You might like it...
Danthaman1971 2 years ago
I read "Freedom Evolves". Loved it.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
For once I'm not so sure I agree with you unfortunately, Pino.
I'm undecided whether I think free will exists myself, but currently I'm definitely leaning towards hard determinism for reasons that require more than a 500 character comment box to articulate :P
I find the topic interesting though and would be keen to describe my take on it and discuss via PM if you're interested.
jtbovis 2 years ago
The argument that I'm putting forward here is that determinism requires rules to be externally imposed on reality. That invokes something that is "external" to reality, which is absurd.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I'm sorry perhaps I phrased what I said the wrong way. I agree the idea of something "external" to reality does seem absurd.
I suppose what I mean is that given, as you said, we live in an internally consistent universe of cause and effect, at present I don't think our minds are free from that same cause and effect. It seems the only difference is that there are almost an infinite amount of extra variables.
As I said though, at this point I'd still technically classify myself as undecided :)
jtbovis 2 years ago
Not at all, it's absolutely fascinating.
"Cause" and "effect" are funny words. If you look at them closely you'll start to realise that they were invented originally to signify the interaction between agents and the world. An agent makes a decision, it acts, and this act then "causes" something to happen in reality, the "effect" of its action.
In actual laws of physics those terms do not exist. Of course it doesn't help that colloquially people are quite happy to use them: (more)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
"the tile fell off the roof causing a huge dent in the car parked underneath". There is nothing wrong with saying that, normally, but if you formally describe what happens using "laws of nature", they just describe energy transfers and conversions. "cause" and "effect" don't enter the equation.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
All of which is much more succinct than Hume's exposition on the subject ;)
It strikes me that, in the intervening centuries, most of us have learned to express concepts more efficiently. On the other hand, it may be that we understand the current modes of expressing ideas.
saliental 2 years ago
Interesting perspective.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Cheers
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I think that last bit was a bit beyond me. maybe il understand when i'm older and smarter.
good stuff man.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
:-)
I'm 43 and I'm still confused. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. MWahahahahahaaa!!!!HAHAH!!!! HA!!!! (cough) HAHA!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Philosophy fucks with ya doesn't it. i really should have waited til i was 20 to start...
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
LOL
A perfect example of this: have you read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance"?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Phaedrus in the story starts off by developing this really interesting idea about "quality". He takes it to quite dizzying heights. A lot of what he says makes a lot of sense. And then he goes on and takes it into lala land and he follows in its wake, and goes stark staring mad in the process.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
This is off on somewhat of a tangent, but as long as we are discussing philosophy, do you think it's possible for someone to think their existence away? "I think therefore I am" is core to western philosophy, but I imagine that with advancements in AI, we'll eventually have a model so similar to ourselves that its study will be deeply troubling. Self aware but only sensing and affecting the world with the faculties we give it. Could it trust us not to deceive it when it asked what it was?
similaritiesendhere 2 years ago
I couldn't imagine how it could do such a thing, but that may be my imagination failing me ;-)
I would say that if we create a self aware artificial intelligence, we've created a "person", with all the moral implications that entails. I would, for example, consider it immoral to switch such an entity off. But then again ... if it's not aware of "mortality" then the idea of a "switchoff" won't bother it, and blinking out of existence IT will be the only thing that will never know.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
It get's a lot more complicated then that. Programming such a thing would involve us answering the fundamental question of what an "Idea" is. We haven't gotten that far with the concept since Plato. A self aware being with no inborn sense of morality or empathy is another problem. I guess that what brings it back full circle is that the possibility of a benevolent, omnipotent being is the least likely of least likely possibilities and that we could never fathom this without reason.
similaritiesendhere 2 years ago
I'm not sure where the omnipotence comes into it. Self-awareness in its most rudimentary form would entail the entity having an internal representation of the world and entities that exist in the world, including an internal representation of itself.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
The omnipotence part was just a mental exercise. I disagree with your definition. Most human beings don't know that they can have no external perception of the world. You can only believe that your internal representations somehow apply to the real world. What I see before my eyes is actually being "seen" in my occipital lobe in the back of my head. Same with my other senses. To understand that you are not the same thing as your function is self awareness. That's my definition.
similaritiesendhere 2 years ago
Don't forget that I added "in its most rudimentary form". What you're talking about is a much heightened form of same.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
// To understand that you are not the same thing as your function is self awareness. //
Hmmm. If I read that sentence correctly, it strikes me as an odd definition of self-awareness. The usual definition is "the state or property of being self-aware".
I think that this is at a different level than the science-acquired knowledge that we reconstruct reality within our sensory-input-integrating neocortex. We cannot be "aware" of the physiologic and neuro-anatomic generation of a sense of "self".
saliental 2 years ago
nah sorry man
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
... I listened through this whole vid and you never said a damn thing about what choise the dolphin made... I hope he made it... cliffhanger... :( ...
Mrwrinkleintime 2 years ago
er? Dolphin?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
... " Free Willy " ... the one in the movie... just fucking around.. :) ... Having a silly morning,,, too early for me to wrap my mind around toy dogs ...
Mrwrinkleintime 2 years ago
ah yes.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
:-) But puppy love is still nice.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Absolutely FANTASTIC video!!!
SSanf 2 years ago
Thank you!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
As with some of the others, I agree with you about everything, with the minor exception that most people will think you're talking about what THEY believe "free will" means, and not what you were ACTUALLY talking about.
Also, I like that in your definition of free will in the video, the robot dog WOULD have "free will", assuming it had the ability to make choices. All too often people conflate "free will" to such lengths that by definition only humans could have it, which is just silly.
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
Oh, and I suppose I'm further into the "determinism" camp than you are...though I think that may be the result of another of the "how to YOU define the term" issues, rather than actually disagreeing...either way, it's nearly inconsequential in any practical sense...so...meh :)
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
Indeed.
I'm not sure whether any artificial intelligence is yet advanced enough that you can say that it could have "free will" in any meaningful sense. Computers at the moment still very clearly process data according to rules that have been imposed on them externally (by programmers). Still, there is some exciting work going on that may be nudging us in that direction. But so far the robot dog will still only be a toy :-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I suppose that would depend on what you'd define as "meaningful". It could be argued (and pretty well I think) that WE are simply processing data according to rules that have been imposed on us in the forms of the physical laws of biology/chemistry/etc...though, of course, to a much more complex degree than any (current) robot.
That's more a philosophical issue than a practical one at this point though. :)
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
argued [...] that WE are simply processing data according to rules that have been imposed on us in the forms of the physical laws of biology/chemistry/etc
Who wrote those laws? Where did they come from?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
No laws needed, just consistent results in specific situations. The "laws" (if they really are laws, which I wouldn't argue for) didn't "come" from anywhere necessarily, nor are they necessarily ALWAYS consistent in every situation, but we do know enough about how the stuff in the universe works in regards to the Earth biology/chemistry/etc to see that they are VERY consistent much of the time in specific areas, which (I would argue, at least) includes the brain, and so includes consciousness.
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
I'm definitely not denying that what happens in the universe is consistent. But it's not deterministic. Our laws of nature, of course, ARE deterministic, but that is a limitation of what we are capable of knowing about the universe. It doesn't make such laws useless. FAR from it. But don't mistake them for a complete description of reality.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Agreed, but the universe need not be deterministic for certain aspects of those "laws" to be valid in specific situations to the point that they act on specific chunks of the universe (in this case the brain) in ways that could be called "deterministic for all practical purposes" in that case. That is to say, the laws might not ALWAYS be valid, but that doesn't mean they NEVER are.
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
Certainly. Look at a computer. By programming it we make it behave according to a deterministic set of rules. I'm not arguing against that. It is quite possible that our brains, too, are subjected to restrictions that allow them, too, to only behave in a deterministic manner. All of that is certainly possible, and I'm not arguing against that. (more)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
What I'm arguing against is the argument "We cannot have free will because the universe, or reality, or (even worse) the laws of nature is/are deterministic". The universe is not deterministic even if all our laws of nature are, and the argument is therefore invalid. Showing that the argument is wrong does, of course, prove nothing. It actually puts us back on square one. But hey, I'm not complaining.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Free will has very little (if anything) to do with whether or not the universe is deterministic, so it really doesn't matter either way...and that argument would take too long anyway hehe. Free will is incompatible with physics simply because it would require consciousness to influence our brains in a way contrary to causality (ie. our brains affect our consciousness, not the other way around...as far as we can tell at least). There are some hypotheses that argue against that, but not well imo)
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
Causality? There is no causality in any of the laws of physics we have been able to formulate. It may often be convenient to talk about the world in terms of "cause" and "effect" but it doesn't hold water when you get to the nitty gritty of it.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Uh, I think you'll find that all but the craziest physicists would disagree with you. I'd be greatly interested in hearing why you think there is no causality in "any" of the laws of physics we have developed, given that causality in one form or another is at the root of the predictable and reproducible results REQUIRED for "laws" of physics to be called "laws" in the first place.
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
Au contraire. One thing that bugs a lot of scientists is that many of the laws of physics we have established seem to have NO temporal preference whatsoever. They work just as well going "backward" as they do going forward. And if you don't believe ME saying that, perhaps you might like to check out such "crazy" scientists like John D. Barrow or Martin Amis who explain this quite eloquently in their books.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Causality and Temperal directionality are two VERY different things...especially in physics. You're right that there are many things in physics in which there is no reason (or at least no reason we can find thus far) to think they can't go in either direction in time, but they would still be in a causal relationship, it would just be that the cause happened after the effect. There are very few things even theoretically acausal...regardless of directionality in time.
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
And even if there are acausal or temporally bi-directional laws of physics, there's no reason (so far at least) to think anything to do with the brain and consciousness include such things without having to discard and explain away decades of neurology, chemistry, etc. Certainly POSSIBLE...but hardly rational without good reasons being given to do so.
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
Please explain causality in terms of theoretical physics. I'm intrigued. Especially in cases where there is no temporal element involved.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
// it would require consciousness to influence our brains in a way contrary to causality //
Huh?
// our brains affect our consciousness //
Our brains *effect* our consciousness. The jury really should not be out on this one. However, to illustrate "jury" problems, we still have creationists.
Of course, many people are "creative" thinkers, so they concoct all manner of "hypotheses". Dualism is a myth that permits "explanations" that are intuitively comprehensible to most people.
saliental 2 years ago
Exactly.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
// Please explain causality in terms of theoretical physics //
Uh...something happens that causes something else...what else could "causality" mean?
// Huh? //
For freewill to exist beyond the practical level (as in, we FEEL like we have it), our conscious thoughts would have to effect the physical matter in our brains. Currently science points to consciousness being a byproduct of the brain, so that would be backwards..according to current theories at least.
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
I suppose I'll have to dig out my old webcam and put something together...comment boxes are FAR too short for this sort of thing, I'm surely just causing needless confusion at this point. Good excuse to get back at making vids I suppose :D
AtheistInTheHat 2 years ago
// comment boxes are FAR too short for this sort of thing //
True! It might explain why YT imposes this discussion-crippling limit. Mind you, it's long enough for a kid to write "she's hot" on a Shakira vid ;)
saliental 2 years ago
You seem to be answering two different sets of comments.
"Feel" usually applies to emotions. I take it that you mean "believe" or "perceive" ourselves to have free will.
Actually, for free will to exist at the practical level (excluding arguments about external constraints) we merely need to have the cognitive freedom to make personal choices. This merely means that we are not robotically-programmed to make particular choices. This does not require that thoughts direct our brain.
..
saliental 2 years ago
2 Thus, free will merely involves using our enormously variable neural-net combinations to generate decisions in accord with our drives and priorities. "I want to eat the entire cake, but I don't want to buy new clothes, so I'll compromise with a small slice / large slice / eat none / etc." (It's supper time, so I have descended into food analogies.)
Neural circuits generating thoughts, not thoughts altering our physical brains. (Physical alteration is confined to neurogenesis and learning.)
saliental 2 years ago
Thanks. This is anothor great video that makes one think twice :)
Vogter2100 2 years ago
You're welcome!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Oh, damn Pino! I let that "governed" slide, I inserted "descriptive" and moved on...
I do not listen careful enough. *DOH!*
Now I feel worse than I would if I had simply been had.
Thank you?
Paxmax 2 years ago
[wink] and cheers.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
life is indeed what we make of it. I'm gonna go now and make mine into a tea cosy. Well at least it's something useful. Crap..that means I'm going to have to go out and buy a teapot. Oh...excellent video by the way!
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
I know of one that's hanging out beyond the orbit of Jupiter. Nobody has ever seen it, but I know that it's there. I have faith. It can be yours if you just believe.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
LOL
rozeboosje 2 years ago