Daniel Dennett - Free Will Determinism and Evolution

From the Skeptics Society Distinguished Lecture Series

Can there be freedom and free will in a deterministic world? If you are free, are you responsible for being free or just lucky? In this lecture based on his latest book, Dan Dennett sets out to answer these questions, showing how we alone among animals, have evolved minds that give us free will and morality. In a series of strikingly original arguments drawing on evolutionar biology, cognitive neuroscience, economics and philosophy, he demonstrates that if we accept Darwin's reasoning, we can build from the simplest life forms all the way up to the best and deepest human thoughts on questions of morality and meaning, ethics and freedom.

Dr. Daniel C. Dennett is Univeristy Professor and Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. His books include Brainstorms, Elbow Room, Consciousness Explained, and Darwin's Dangerous Idea, a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Daniel
• Dennett
• Free
• Will
• Determinism
• Evolution

[hymnofashes]

Actual lecture starts at 13:55

[henryporter101]

An astonishing lecture by a brain that is brilliantly programmed-thanks for uploading.

[bizzee1]

-"freewill" is identical to any definition of "not-freewill" that I've ever heard. Whatever the case may be, I think that his "avoiders" argument is irrelevant as it seems to me to use different senses of the words "inevitable/unavoidable" than those whom are of the opinion that freewill and determinism are incompatible are using.

[bizzee1]

-be unavoidable given past events. In other words, I think Dennett fails to show that for every specific point in time that there isn't one specific unavoidable future, because Dennett doesn't show that the specific instance of "avoiders" that he points out could do anything other than what was inevitable/unavoidable given past events.

However, maybe Dennett wasn't trying to show that there is not just one specific future for any given point in time. In that case, his definition of-

[bizzee1]

-evitability/avoidability in a deterministic universe. This, he contends, shows that determinism doesn't necessarily mean an inevitable/unavoidable future and that free will is compatible with determinism.

I think Dennett fails to show that free will and determinism are compatible using this line of reasoning because Dennett's "avoiders," as he calls them, are only examples of avoiders of danger- they are not shown to be cases of avoiding any specific future that is claimed to -

[bizzee1]

It seems to me that Dennett tries to argue that because there are what he calls "avoiders" in the deterministic universe of Conway's "Game of Life," that means that free will and determinism are compatible concepts. Dennett's reasoning is that since the definition of determinism is- for every specific point in time one specific future is inevitable/unavoidable- and that there are what he labels "avoiders" present in a deterministic universe (Conways "Game of Life"), then that is a case of -

[PoIsOnDiVx]

I totally disagree with the thesis of Dennett. Actually we don't live in a deterministic universe, cause determinism involves that we can determine the future starting from the present. And that is totally false, cause there is the unavoidable principle of quantistic indeterminacy. But we do live in a mechanicistic universe, so things do follow a single timeline, which is unavoidable. The thing that we have developed because of evolution is conciousness, which makes us believe that we are free.

[blahbl4hblahtoo]

that opening song is so much win

[HedgehogRebellion]

Life

Decisions

Values

Personality

Brain

DNA

LUCK

Once you can connect these dots...you will figure it all out.

[Thayer79]

I think too many people are hitching their "wagon" to one side of the coin or another, because it technically has to be ONE of them and not all of them. They are trying REALLY hard to justify it, but just don't have enough information to actually do it.

[Thayer79]

The brick analogy is poor, because, while most people wouldn't do it, the person could choose not to move and get hit. How far down in reality can we go to discover the determined reason the person didn't move? At this point I don't feel we are capable of doing so, but won't say we never will.

It happening doesn't make it unavoidable. It makes it unchangeable, but you can't assert that it could not have been avoided before the it happened.