Determinism vs Free Will (2/2)

[mahmoudyzadeh]

Deep, deep down of course there's no free will, but at higher(?) levels we do have free will. Does God have free-will? Is it possible to conceive of a being with total free will? Presonally I don;t think so (and I don;t believe in God BTW)

[mystersamuel]

Isn't telling someone to read a certain book an appeal to authority and/or laziness or not knowing good points?

[George4943]

Of course @ 2:30 I am a wind-up toy. Well quite a bit more complicated; actually a sophisticated robot. As it happens a biological robot. I have a biological hardware system called my "body." I have a biological software that realizes the self-concept. And makes plans about that self-concept. And takes steps to realize those plans. All quite deterministically. The programs of others, although deterministic too, often surprise.

[pickupthePWN]

poor guy on the right

[pompousprick]

I guess Jeff had no choice in being a complete fucking dick.

[niggaids]

If determinism is true how do we know we're being "logical?" If the only one we have to judge is ourselves, that's already in question?

[OutOfTheBoxThinker]

To quote Terry Pratchett's Hogfather : "take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged. [...] You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" We make up concepts like free will or justice to makes sense of life !!

[OutOfTheBoxThinker]

The called makes perfect sense. Our brains operate according to a deterministic patterns and our choices are determined by the operation of our brains. In that sense, our choices are determined and not free. However, to make sense of reality and prevent chaos we must apply the illusion of free will in our daily lives.

[deathmetalterrorist]

at 1:38 the guy on the right just got mind fucked

[Singlerity]

1st time I disagree with the hosts! :D Caller thinks exactly as I do

[gulbirk]

I disagree with Jeff on the shut up thing. You need people to disagree with each other for it to be funny, LOL.

Also, why do you cear if you are wined up or not. It doesnt change the fact that we are here, and we still exist.

[Freethinker12341]

Russel's such a frigin loser

[andrewh817]

@4:00, I disagree. Making positive claims about something unproven for reasons of convenience is not something I support. This caller is confusing because he says he doesn't technically believe in free will, but yet says we have to hold people accountable for what they do.

Here's another great video response to determinism:

/watch?v=G3UYZcwUEfw

[crowbs90]

First of all, being aggressive with someone isn't likely to convince them of anything. It is likely to make them defensive and less willing to change their position. That much is pretty much common sense. Secondly, intelligence isn't strongly related to religious belief or lack thereof. Religion is a cultural phenomenon. Intelligence might help a person see the flaws in religion, but if they are indoctrinated into a faith there is a high chance they will never properly question it.

[vspqbd]

/watch?v=3kXXbjEBTMs

[ElNerdoLoco]

I've always hated the free will debate. It seems each side has a different definition of the term. Yes, we are free to make personal choices. Yes, these choices may be purely the result of our neurological development in regard to our perceptions. Is free will the ability to make these personal decisions independent of the wills of others, or the ability to defy our experiences and selves at a basic level? I suppose I am more a conditionalist than a compatabilitist.

[tempemonkey2323]

According to compatibalists, and Dee, programmed things have free will!!! This is such an obvious flaw with their argument...

Imagine a scientist put probes on your head and he could control your mood, your thoughts and absolutely everything about you. Imagine that he flipped a switch and you really did want to, it was your nature, your brain and chemicals were changed dramatically, and you wanted to go and kill your neighbor... Guess what, the laws of nature is that scientist.

[PosFlow]

@tempemonkey2323 I think the distinction comes in where you talk about a scientist doing things to control you. Your body isn't an outside thing forcing whatever it wants to do through you. "You" and your brain and body are indistinguishable, so the thought is that just because you would do the same thing over again doesn't mean the outcome is being forced upon you. It's still free will. Does that make sense?

[tempemonkey2323]

@PosFlow I understand how there is no humunculus being caused by outside forces. That is to say, you are your, non free biological makeup.....

However, wether a scientists determines the reactions you actually go through or the laws of nature decide..... It makes no difference...

[tempemonkey2323]

Dee really isn't as smart as he thinks he is... Especially with this issue... I wish he would go away from this scene actually..... You need to rehabilitate people and take them out of society even if they are determined but.... They are not MORALLY responsible because they could not have done otherwise....

The non prophets really did a shitty job with the issue as well... I would love to debate Dee concerning this issue... "Freedom evolves" by Dennet is bullshit

[chrisx2k6]

Fatalism is the only logical conclusion, and having this outlook makes it very difficult to enjoy anyting w/ out the intrusive thought of how meaningless and inconsequential it all is.

[projectoz88]

@chrisx2k6 Wow. I completly agree with you.

[chrisx2k6]

This idea of crime and punishment is an interesting one. But, if everything is deterministic(w/ random influences at the quantum level) then there really is no such thing as responsibility...In fact, there's really no point to anything if we're buggy wind up toys...With all of the discussions I've heard/read, I still see no way around this...

[AnDr3W91]

If I were to add anything to what the caller was talking about, I'd like to point one thing. If there was possible to go out side the bounderies of the universe, so that there would not be possible to have any intercation or influence within the radius of the results of the big bang. Given that this was the case AND that at this place, you had complete knowledge of all physical activity within this aera. (given that the theory of randomness within the quantummecanics was non-existent)

[AnDr3W91]

my question is then: do you think it would be possible to forsee what was going to happened, given (once again) that you knew exactly where everything was going based on a predictable physical world? In other words: wouldn't this be the "determinism" that he talked about. That the world allready is predetermined to unfold in the exact way you could forsee based on the facts you were given in this non-influencing place? would that cancle out the "free will" theory?

[AnDr3W91]

Haha... I just ran this through Word so I could save it. Not the best grammar :P Sorry for the spelling mistakes :)

[OberDesiah]

If you set up ten "Big Bangs" or whatever created the universe as we know it, with the exact same initial conditions in every aspect, you would get ten equal stories, down to the single atom. Where would any differences come from? It makes perfect sense.

[omnissient]

The caller is making the typical mistake that leads people to believe in free will. People need to be responsible for their actions. So people have made up free will. Now he thinks without free will they re not. but this is not true. People are accountable for their actions. It doesnt require free will.

[Aphex217Twin]

I think the key point to make is that people are still free to do what they WANT wether or not they are free from the laws of physics. You just need to be free from coercion in order to do what you want, not cause and effect. Like, for example, I will choose to eat a brownie over broccoli if I'm free to do what I want, because I like the brownie more, but I don't make myself want the brownie more, it's biological determinism.

[spartan0187]

Say you chose to have fish for lunch (out somewhere at a restaurant) 4 days in a row and on the 4th day that you ate fish you could barely finish the meal because you were getting tired of the taste of fish. Okay. On the 5th day, when you go out for lunch, if you decide to eat something else, is that based on free will, or previous events? I'm going to say previous events, and that every simple decision (vs. a decision about life or truth) is based on causation, not free will.

[Venaloid]

I like this caller; his thoughts mirror mine and he was able to see the hosts' views on his own, although I think the hosts' are slightly roundabout/overcomplicated in some areas.

[robvlob]

Caller talks about accountability and determinism.

With the idea of determinism, accountability is just a definition of something that couldn't be or isn't.

If everything is predetermined, the threat of accountability wouldn't matter and/or be needed just the punishment(which is also predetermined)for the illusion of accountability.

On the other hand if you could relive any moment etc over again and the outcome turns out diff  this wouldn't prove freewill since it could just be determinism

[RLore18]

I think that, when debating, making long statements is not as effective as asking a series of short questions. Asking a question to your opponent forces them to logically evaluate what you are saying, because it puts them on the spot to answer the question. While in contrast, a long explanatory statement is just easier to ignore. And the only way to get an opponent to understand is to help them build the idea in their mind. Something like "Isn't there a 100% chance the windup toy will kill?"

[spydrebyte]

Just like we do not know the ending to a film, we do not know the outcomes of our choices. Since we can not know either way we should take the neutral position, of non belief. If its true then my non-belief was already determined, but its irrelevant as i still must live life, and the outcomes are unknown. Even if free will is just an illusion, for all we know life could just be an illusion. This is something whcih is unknowable, just like asking if there is a god.

[Rybot9000]

On responsibility, check out the view of "consequentialism" it seems to be where you are going in this video. Check out Johnathan Cohen or Joshua Greene for ideas on that.

FYI; "Freedom Evolves" by Dan Dennett, is not my favourite book on this subject. Certainly does NOT cover all the issues.

[Rybot9000]

How to talk to people who are crazy: I've struggled with this a lot, honestly, I've got this as the best answer; LOVE THEM.

They won't listen to you if you are offending them or trying to subdue them. Their ego will get defensive and won't listen to a word you say. Love is the answer, and i know that sounds flighty, new-agey, or religious, but its also true.

[ANDREWSABAT]

This guy on the left who thinks he is well educated on the this debate is very mistaken.

[SPACKlick]

I really cannot stand dennet's compatiblism.

I agree with dennet 100% about everything up until the point where he calls it free will.

I am a determinist, but i still believe in responsibility of action. I just don't think it is accurate to call that FREEDOM. raaaargh.

[Rybot9000]

Its a word-trick, a misnomer. I think Dennett is just trying to persuade with "Freedom Evolves". Its really determinism, as most "compatibilism" is.

[johngeetar]

As much as I try not to, I can't stand jeff dee. I really wanted to hear what russell had to say but jeff wouldn't give him any room to talk.

[shawndimery]

I feel exactly the same as this caller, i have thought this for a while, So this is determinism?

[HybridD91]

How do we have free will when our choices are always influenced by another effect?

[Acrimonator]

Because where not deeply conscious of that, and even trying to change our "choices" to trick the determinism would be pre-determined to by being conscious of it, at a certain level... ^^

BTW, i'm determinist and idealist...

[SupermarketsRevil]

YOu pussy...of course we all have past experience and influences, but you can still choose, you dumb shit....stop being a retard

[wizardtree]

because they are choices, whether or not you truly from a hypothetical, impossible to reach point of view have a choice (some kind of "pure" objectivity/out of body observation of your life) , you, right now, make choices, like everyone else, and it's called free will and is definitely real. The rest is just assumptions, hypothesis, or just plain crazy (from complete determinism to absolutely free free will).

[adolthitler]

@LFWOL

No determinism and fatalism are different.

Determinism means your potential is determined, fatalism means there is no point making an effort. Maybe your potential is you will be hit by a truck and killed in an hour. Maybe your decision not to make an effort makes your potential, a lump on your couch.

[adolthitler]

The caller presented proof that we are responsible, while not knowing he did.

He stated that we must pretend people are responsible, so they do not run amok if they thought they would not be held responsible. Therefore people do have freewill, and knowledge does inform your actions, if we establish the right consequences, we should attain utopia. Now the question is what are those consequences for our actions?

[leathan7]

I would finish this video if the guy actually takes 2 minnutes out of his day to read about determinism... The anger would not be his fault... fault would be an anthropic notion which is as existence is defined an existence.... jealous fucking Christ do you realize you are one of these "annoyances" Go read and educate yourself....

[Saerain]

If anyone is interested in Dennett's position on determinism versus free will yet unable or unwilling to find or read the book the hosts recommend, then I recommend his lecture at Edinburgh University, hosted by RabidApe here on YouTube: /watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E

[shawndimery]

Thanks for the link!

[JuriDee]

The hosts fail big time!

"Read his book"

"This happened because of quantum mechanics"

"This is what christians said..."

These people claim to be atheists and still lower themselves on this level. This is exactly what theists & deists do! You have to show evidence for your arguments. This is unacceptable.

[adolthitler]

@JuriDee

+You have to show evidence for your arguments.+

Present evidence for this, so far its just your assertion. 8-))

[JuriDee]

Well. I assumed that you watched the video. Ýou didn't watch it?

The three quotes can be found from the video.

[villeppi]

I love when the hosts don't agree :)

[Censeo]

You making the same decisions under exact same circumstances is a result of the exact same wishes and priorities being present (those things needs to be exactly the same for it to be the same circumstance). If anything can be different in the choice, it couldn't be anything but randomness altering it, which would not enhance responsibility anyway.

[adolthitler]

@Censeo

Yes who says that quantum uncertainty means that a quantum fluctuation is random. If we wind back time and again and again and watch a quantum fluctuation. The initial fluctuation we won't know which way it will go, but for each replay it repeats its decision, whatever drives the fluctuation to its decision will be repeated just like the trajectory of a ball would repeat time and again.

So it is with our freewill, every choice will be repeated, but if we are not replaying then we R free.

[tempemonkey2323]

3

My overall point is that the word "predeterminism" may cause people to think along the terms of predestination which is much diffferent than determinsim, or ideas such as actions in the past have made you act, and others act, and all act and react to eachother in specific ways....

Using the term STRONG determinism captures the idea you are trying to communicate. Again, I dont think literature misses those ideas you present using the term determinism, especially "Strong determinism".

[tempemonkey2323]

2

If you have ever read any peer review or scholarly books that use the word predeterminism, please let me know...

The theory of determinism as presented by Hume, Spinoza or even Searle and PInker (I think even Nozic, but Im not too sure) all account for the fact that all of our actions were predetermined from the past, or even from the big bang. That is no illusion or secret hidden from the theoory of determinism. It is implicitly, and perhaps even explicitly stated in the theory..

[tempemonkey2323]

1

Sorry about my condenscending attitude. I also went to ASU and got a BA in philosophy. Now I am working on a masters in counseling... Our backrounds are quite similar...

Anyways, predeterminism, as used in phlosophical literature is similar to predestination. That is, some force, or power is hellbent, perhaps violating the laws of nature, to make a certain event happen...

CTD

[tempemonkey2323]

Determinism, predestination/predeterminism are two different concepts..... All I am saying is that we are biological machines. The actions of others, and our environment affect how we act in a mechanistic way that does not allow for "free will".

Other than that you are right, morality does not exist in a deterministic universe....

My suggestion is that you read some books or articles, or download a teaching company lecture on the topic.... or enroll in a philosophy class....

[trick0171]

Both Russel and Jeff are wrong on this. If we define free will as the ability to "choose" between more than one viable option - that definition of free will is incompatible in both a deterministic and indeterministic universe.

[trick0171]

Also, Dennett's arguments for free will from agency are logically flawed.

[tempemonkey2323]

At 3:00 when hes talking about the serial killer, we punish the man according to determinism, not because he is morally responsible, but to keep society stable, thiat is to discourage others from doing the same and to take his dangerous actions outside of society.

That is from a deterministic view... NOT our current system.

[soapy05]

anyone catch the name of the book jeff was referring to? or the author's last name? (dennis libet?)

[tempemonkey2323]

You never heard of Daniel Dennett?

[soapy05]

ah, i've definitely seen his talks and lectures, just didnt know his name.

[wsxcvb23]

Most people who have never thought about the question of free will, which is the majority, when they hear a compatibilist tell them they have free will, they will not understand what the compatiblist means by that, they will just take it for granted that it's the Christian notion of free will, which is not only held by Christians and more properly called libertarian free will.

One could jail criminals without presuming their responsibility. They are as accountable as the sun and the rain.

[mvcatdaddy]

Freewill is conditionally free not absolutely free. It is conditionally restrained by the availability of information, circumstances, the actions of lack thereof of others and just your ability make decisions.

[Immuuni]

mvcatdaddy, and when does the brain chemistry come in?

[stealspell]

I would say free will is illusionary once you factor in the environment and societal interaction. Things become more complex once you have more beings and things to interact with and considering the vast universe we are constrained to, it would be safe to say any deterministic outcome would require one hell of a computation. So it's an illusion, but a pretty damn good one.

[ignorantgullible]

then they have their girls or sisters to give a bullshit comment and that legits the whole shit???yaeh cheesedick said this and nut sauce said that ,get the fuck outta here..say PAID dum-dums.this shit aint relevant as say healthware i mean real shit .instead what the fuck if?? wake up dudes .this is all about the allmighty dollar anitn nothing else,it aint nothing else!

[ignorantgullible]

THESE SHYSTERS come with a fictional debate ,and ya buy right into the greed aspect of it.they are tryin to get paid with out workin.ya personalize greed with your comments.wake tha fuck up .if enough of you losers comment they get

$ say paided ,so buy into greed on an educated /aaaaaahahhahah /level.they do this cause they are einstiens or greedy?fill me in ,boys,say i've been had or im a real fuckin trick.

[playgrrrr]

im also a bit sad that we didnt get to hear more of russels standpoint because he was interrupted all the time by jeff. not that i didnt enjoy his standpoint either, but i really wanted to know russels standpoint too.

[playgrrrr]

i have to read that book. i just hope that it isnt written in a way that no normal person can understand it.

one thing i have to say though is about jeff saying that he would be more angry about a person that cant be talked into reason than someone that could. i think that a person that can reason has to take more responsibility for what his actions are than a person that cannot reason at all. how can you hold someone accountable for something he couldnt ever understand.

[ignorantgullible]

relevance is subjective.over thinking opinions is arrogant .hey guys the debate team busted up years ago...you guys are like nearsighted sailors condemned to the sea.when told there is land ,you say no ,its hard water and we cant drink it. a cliche of nothingness.headed no where

[wretcherwretch]

Haha, I agree almost entirely with this caller. He's followed pretty much the exact same thought process I have.

[roidroid]

A person may experience intense abuse and becomes a serial killer. But there are also those who are similarly abused and do NOT become serial killers. What stops them?

It's likely a certain way of thinking and framing their situation, and they likely just randomly picked this "protective ideology" up somewhere in their life.

Society encourages these types of "protective ideologies", as our criminal system punishes - or at least identifies - those who demonstratively lack them.

[finalcloud13]

Whew, I felt the tension between Russel and Jeff on that one o.o

[gtg309v]

Free will IS an illusion... The special thing about it is that it is an inescapable illusion that all self-aware beings deal with. It comes from the fact that you can't know the absolute future state of the universe that you are a part of, and this can be logically proven even if you had infinite computing ability.

[daddyleon]

I love the golden middle way... isn't there a possibility to insert that concept here?

Like structuralism?

[KlipKultur4]

Russell. The guy is an angel. He seems to be such a nice person. I love him.

[SuperSaiyan1983]

The guy on the left is gay.

[KlipKultur4]

They could all be.

[jffryh]

I think punishment/deterrence is just as legitamit as physical restraint and rehabilitation for reducing crime. Just as you can use money to motivate constructive behavior.

[CommonSensation]

I like the flying spaghetti monster doll behind them

[daddyleon]

I always get more hungrier than I already am when I see that thing. xD

[MoNsTeRHoGGeR]

Even though certain conditions or situations a person can be in may narrow the choices you can make, you still have the free will to get up and kick that persons ass to broaden your choices. When those choices become available, you still have the free will to do something else to do what you want. Just because you have made a decision does not mean that everything is determined. The decision determines the outcome. If everything is exactly the same every time, sure you'll make the same decision.

[WickedJargon]

The dude on the left is a chatter box. let the other guy talk for God's sake

[DistinctiveBlend]

After discovering determinism and reading about it I found that freewill dissolved.

For me, I think it's one of the more unsettling things I've come across...I really enjoyed the idea of freewill but it just turned out to be an illusion.

Oh and quantum physics doesn't seem to save freewill and I don't understand why people even bring it up in these debates.

[gpokriff2]

ummm stfu and let russel speak

[EricTheNihilist]

caller wins this one I'd have to say.

[wOoL87]

I think that "free will" only is possible if the outcome doesn't matter. Just like

"Think of a number between 1 and 100."

It is funny that then people either think a long time before saying a number with an unsure face or they just fastly tell you their favourite number."

I made that test with my family a while ago with people I knew their favourite number. And they all chose their favourite number.

[wOoL87]

Then I told my mother that I knew what number she was going to say, but I didn't told her that I would expect her to wait a long time and naming a different number. So then I asked her again out of the blue to think of a number -- and a long pause resulted before she came up with one.

If the outcome does matter, we tend to be forced to one of the possible decissions.

[wOoL87]

Again I am with the caller, and disagree with the hosts. It appears to me they don't understand the case the caller tries to make.

I still should check Denett's book though.

[seflersinsburg10]

The whole debate depends on the definition of free will. Dennett defines it into existence, which isn't a bad thing since the free will he talks about is indeed "the only freedom worth having". Example: "the ability to do what you want" certainly exists, but "the ability to have done otherwise" does not exist if determinism is true. The latter definition doesn't even give us freedom worth having, however, since it requires random variables to contribute to our decision-making processes.

[wOoL87]

I do think that "the ability to have done otherwise" exists in a case when there were two or more equal possible solutions exists. Then all that happens in our brain is a random choice.

Let's assume I am thirsty and I am asked to chose between lemonade, juice or beer. Let's furthermore assume I like lemonade and beer exactly the same and hate beer.

I then to 100% won't choce beer but to 50% will say lemonade or juice.

[DistinctiveBlend]

w0oL87,

You're not looking deep enough...you can't just write your "choice" off as "all that happens in our brain is a random choice".

You need to ask how you came to that decision.

Also with coin flips, if you knew the stating position and how much force was applied to the coin you could determine if it would be heads or tails.

It would appear the randomness or chance are merely words we use when we don't have enough information...an appeal to ignorance if you will.

[wOoL87]

A choice only is random in very few situations, namely then when 2 or more solution are as likely to be chosen.

And no, tossing a coin with the exact same force does from the exact same position does not make for the same outcome. This is why we call it coincidence, you know? ;)

In most cases though, I am a biomechanic machine being forced to act just as I act. And where I am not forced, coincidence comes into play.

[DistinctiveBlend]

Again you aren't looking deep enough..it might appear to be 50/50 like your beer juice example but that is only because we are ignorant of the causality of our brain chemistry.

With the coin flip it's not just the force, the location and all the variables.. if you knew all of that then you'd know before hand if it would be heads or tails...it wouldn't be a coincidence, it would be physics in action.

[DistinctiveBlend]

If we knew all the variables of someones brain before that person was faced with what they thought was a "random choice" we would be able to tell what so called random choice they'd make.

Indeed we'd see that their choice was no more of a choice than a apple choosing to fall from a tree. It's just physics in action.

Therefore I'd submit that random/chance and choice don't actually exist... they are just words to mask our ignorance of the variables and causality at play.

[wOoL87]

Again, I didn't say all the decission a person makes are random, only a very few are. Most of them are determined, yes. And for those that aren't determined, coincidence takes care of them.

But for those random choices you couldn't tell exactly beforehand which one the person would chose.

Just assume that the apples has to pass a Galton's board first. You can't possibly predict that outcome, only guess it to some degree.

[DistinctiveBlend]

Even if the apple had to pass a Galton board if you knew all the variables then that wouldn't be a problem...by throwing the Galton board in there you just increase the variables....see it's our ignorance you are appealing to.

But I'm saying there are no random choices...only our ignorance of the variables...just like the Galton board.

Do you understand determinism? Because when I explain it to people I'd use the Galton board as an example.

[wOoL87]

Well, now you've got me interessted. Could you please PM me your train of thought concerning the Galton board?

I assume that the world is determined, but there are events that have multiple possible outcomes and even if we knew all the variables we still couldn't predict the actual outcome.

Just as we only know radioactive half-life of an amount of radioactive material, but we have no way of saying exactly which atom is going to decay.

Is this just ignorance or is it just impossible to know?

[wOoL87]

Physics in action includes coincidences. There isn't always just only one outcome to a process but multiple are possible. We describe this uncertanty with the mathematical model of probability.

Proability is a way to say: There could have been a different result. The result wasn't enforced as the conditions weren't responsible for the outcome. In a random process there is no way of knowing beforehand what possible outcome will actually manifest.

[DistinctiveBlend]

Do you think your example uses the probability you speak of? Or are you referring to quantum physics now?

I understand probability but that doesn't come into play with a coin flip...we only use probability there because of our ignorance of the variables involved.

[wOoL87]

And no, I am not referring to quantum physics as this is a highly misused way of making a case for a "free will", which I see as an illusion. There is no such thing, only determination AND randomness. And AFAISI random events are not determined.

And yes, I do see tossing a coin as an example of randomness where we couldn't even exactly predict the actual outcome even if we had all the information about the variables involved. Mandatorily one outcome had to not necessarily manifest itself.

[uvauva2]

From reading one Dennet's books on the topic ("Freedom Evolves"), I think that what characterizes the "freedom worth having" does include an "ability to have done otherwise". This comes precisely in your ability to recognize that you "should" have done otherwise, when you do wrong.

In other words, I think that the type of free will he defends is precisely our ability to consider ourselves responsible for our actions.

[seflersinsburg10]

Relativity theory postulates that the future is just as fixed as the past (because the future is just another area on the fabric of space-time), and since it has been confirmed by experiment it is a near certainty that the theory is true. Even if there are unpredictable events, these events are inevitable from the beginning of the universe onwards.

[uvauva2]

Er.... You are going to have to apologize me, but why the hell are you responding me with talk about physical laws? I was talking about my interpretation of Dennet's view of free will.

As for determinism, I find it irrelevant for the issue.

But since you brought relativity, I should note that quantum mechanics is thought to be merely stochastically deterministic. And at high scales stochastic processes to look deterministic. So current models actually point to non-determinism.

[seflersinsburg10]

I was suggesting that we do not have "the ability to have done otherwise."

In response to your comments about quantum mechanics, there are deterministic models of quantum mechanics that posit "wheels with wheels" or in other words "hidden variables" that underly quantum phenomena. Quantum events may very well be deterministic, though we can't know this for sure because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In either case, relativity theory seems to suggest that quantum events are determined

[uvauva2]

I think the physics are a bit tangential here, but let me repeat my point about them: you can not look at a large scale (relativity) to detect determinism. The indeterminism at a large scale (relativity) caused by the quantum indeterminism (if real) falls well within things like experimental errors and outlier results (there's also the fact that we haven't yet been able to integrate the two into one theory, of course).

[uvauva2]

And as for whether it is true randomness, I am aware that some totally deterministic models have been suggested. There is, however, something to be said about the fact that quantum phenomena can be used to produce better random number generators than any of our classic pseudo-random number generators.

[uvauva2]

As for what I said about "the ability to have done otherwise", I did include quotation marks for a reason.

I do think that the classical concept of free will is impossible whether the universe is deterministic or not, unless you are willing to evoke magic (I personally find that believing in true (TM) free will is very similar to believe in a god).

But Dennet's argument is that something worth calling free will does nontheless exist.

[uvauva2]

Similarly, there is something worth calling "ability to have done otherwise", which is in some sense the inability to find a reason not to have done otherwise (other than highly metaphysical arguments about determinism :P).

And ultimately the reason why this "ability" matters is because it allows us to accept we should have done otherwise.

[seflersinsburg10]

I don't think we have any real disagreement here, but just to check: would you agree or disagree that even if we do have the ability to do otherwise due to quantum indeterminacy we are not responsible for any decisions we make that are caused by random quantum phenomena because those phenomena are not caused by our desires?

[uvauva2]

I kind of answered it before: I said that true (TM) free will can't be possible without magic, and the same goes for true (TM) responsibility.

And as for the untrue (:P) versions of those, stochastic determinism gives no edge over determinism. Ultimately they are both a form of determinism.

But it is always worth having in mind that religiously minded people like having the quantum indeterminacy, so they can hide god and free will inside it.

[Pinokio131]

Yeah, I totally agree with the caller about free will

[hossrex]

It's remarkably simple. All three here are right.

Free will exists. I'm able to make any decision I choose. But that free will appears to be determinism, because any free will with the same experiences, in the same circumstances will always make the same choices.

You can always choose, but you will always choose the same thing.

Quantum fucks everything up... so... yeah. Who really knows. Applying quantum in specific circumstances like this, would be like cavemen speculating about fire.

[wOoL87]

Not only quantum mechanics: If I were to toss a coin because I cannot decide on my own, my decission would be made by sheer chance and so given the same experiance and circumstances results might still vary. As coincidence just is coincidence.

[hossrex]

AH! But consider your coin flip with all the requisite restraints we're putting on your free will.

No matter how many times you go back to flip that coin, you'll still be utilizing the same muscles, the same air currents, and the same imperfectly formed coin.

The result should always be the same (as far as THIS discussion goes).

If you flip a coin, and time shifts backwards (without your conscious knowledge), and you flip the coin a second time... the result WILL always be the same.

[wOoL87]

This is where I disagree -- just as the discussion with DistinctiveBlend, I had on this site, shows.

Even if I were to turn time back, every random process that could have had a different outcome might have a different outcome.

So even if everything else was the same, the outcome to the toin-coss might vary.

If we were to replay the history of our planet I don't think that that time humans will evolve as they are only one possibility among billion upon billion ones.

[wOoL87]

Well, I meant coin-toss ;) Anyway, IMO determinism doesn't take away randomness.

Deternism by random events doesn't need to be like:

A=>B and the next time it is always like

A=>C but IMO it is like

A=>{B,C,D,E}=>?

We know the possible outcomes, and that one is determined to happen, but not *which one*.

[Scoforever]

I'm not sure about free will.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

How is that a bullshit argument?

[FireStorm821]

because that wouldnt be free will that would be random will

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

It WOULD prove that there is no determinism, but it isn't prove free will.

I wonder if there's an e-book version of the one Glasser (?) recommended that defends free will better than that argument does.

I'd like to read it.

[InfectedDaemon]

Wow, all the co-hosts have been punching Russel in the Balls! They just dismiss him in less then a second, the opposite of Matt, that shushes down most of the co-hosts.

[Shalek]

Free will is funny.

[shubidubar]

Ah the semantics...

[Nashy119]

It sounds like they both agree just a bit of a communication thing.

[japanesewinner]

double parter 1 comment