John Searle - Philosophy of Free Will

[@Hawk.Tuah.]

I love how objective he always is. He admits he has hopes and preferences but ultimately he wants the truth whatever it may be. Same here.

[@GrantTarredus]

Right, and he’s maintained that now through - what, eight seasons? That’s remarkable.

[@xspotbox4400]

@@GrantTarredus It works, i begin to doubt everything, religion is a joke, science is evil, will never play lottery again and don't see a purpose in voting anymore.

[@GrantTarredus]

Xspot box As a determinist t’s a hell of a rabbit hole, I’ll admit. I think we lack free will, but I seem to have arrived at that conclusion from my choice of reading, so in the end all I can do is ask that since your vote may not matter either way, please vote blue!

[@xspotbox4400]

@Mark Hollingsworth It's not just videos, you must read all the comments also, than answer might became obvious.

[@stephenlawrence4821]

Not at all. He does not see how we can have free will. The evidence is overwhelmingly that we don't have free will. But he does not follow the evidence. He wants free will so he does not accept we don't have it.

[@leeluhbee]

I’ve seen this comment on so many of your videos but I’ll say it again... Most. Underrated. Channel. On KZbin😄

[@Quidisi]

Very True! Sadly, it's underrated because the masses have become asses, never having been taught, nor practicing, critical thinking skills. Never reflecting on universal mysteries. Never pondering truth.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@Quidisi I am waiting for episode 3000. When we get even closer too the truth.😏

[@onetwo1817]

@@thomasridley8675 Brilliant ! 👏👏👏👏

[@thomasridley8675]

@@onetwo1817 😁

[@Quidisi]

Minute-for-minute, that was the richest discussion of free will that I have yet to come across. I got a page of notes out of a 10 minute video!

[@ayeshashafiq9036]

Can you please guide me in any way because I've to prepare my assignment on this topic.

[@universe36]

100%

[@duncanwallace7760]

yes, it was intense, but he made sense the whole time!

[@asafashar1]

The best summary of the most perplexing subject by the most sharp-minded philosopher. Awesome discussion!

[@aradais1087]

Such an intelligent philosopher and a great teacher! I love John Searle!

[@marcosgalvao3182]

Imagine someone says : (consciousness is a ilusion ,) " when the fact is that even a ilusion pressuposes the reality of consciousness .

[@ferdinandkraft857]

8:45 "compatibilism is a cop-out" - I loved that!

[@neetbucks521]

me too! im so glad he said that

[@cielobuio]

I could listen to John Searle all day long and never get bored

[@NondescriptMammal]

Excellent discussion on the topic. Much more clarity than any other treatment of this difficult question than I have seen elsewhere. Thanks for the thought-provoking, grounded approach to the issue. The content is outstanding because this guy asks sensible questions that get to the heart of the matter, and the answers at least don't fly off into abstract tangents and tenuous analogies at every turn and become incomprehensible, as so many discussions about this do.

[@rasputozen]

*Free will disproved in 4 lines * A) The will of a person is always in the service of a desire. B) Therefore for free will to exist a person must have autonomy to choose their own desires. C) If a person has this autonomy then they have two choices 1) choose desires randomly or 2) choose based on a preference they have for some desires over others. D) If the chooser picks 1 then they are a servant of chance and if they pick 2 they have revealed another desire within them, bringing them back to A to repeat the cycle.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

Lame.

[@rasputozen]

@@ferdinandkraft857 Good argument :)

[@rasputozen]

@@ferdinandkraft857 I agree though, putting an ordered argument against free will in a comment section of a video about free will IS lame. But I don't care because I want to discuss it. I don't see how free will makes any sense whatsoever and this argument I've provided is my best attempt to illustrate that. Where do you stand in the argument? I'm guessing you're a free will guy.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@rasputozen Nah, the "argument" itself is lame.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@rasputozen When you say that "will is in the service of a desire" you're already assuming no free will.

[@ReidarWasenius]

The thinking around 2:20-2:50 is erroneous. I AM a determinist. No problem. Even today at a restaurant, I just go with whatever choice pops into my mind. I don't need to pretend anything. I simply become aware of what my mind has decided. Not telling the waiter what is in my mind is just a refusal to recognize and vocalize what's in my mind.

[@tracemagace8434]

I agree, realizing one is determined gives one a leg up in this world, don't you agree?

[@ReidarWasenius]

@@tracemagace8434 Yes, I agree. It's good to get rid of illusions and see Reality as it is. For me, more than anything else, it's about having a coherent worldview. I feel very good about my mind now nicely fitting into the Big Picture: It operates under the same laws as the rest of the universe. No supernatural explanations with mystical energies etc are needed. My mind still has wants and desires. I just try to satisfy them in ways that I feel good about in the long run - not simply in shortsighted ways and not just for me. The more factors we try to take into account, the harder it becomes, but that's how our minds develop to handle Bigger Thinking. We are now communicating, i.e. copying memes from one mind to another. The seeds are growing in new minds. This is now unfolding. It was not predictable by us, but it was to be. And now it is.

[@GackFinder]

Sounds like a boring diet. When I decide what to eat, I actually decide what to eat, and then I eat it.

[@OmniversalInsect]

You have options that pop in your mind and can make a choice based on those options. But the choice that you end up making, i.e. your intent, is still ultimately determined by external factors out of your control.

[@adamsawyer1763]

Our models are deterministic or probabilistic but we directly experience conscious freely willed decisions and this free-will is essential to collecting objective measurements and creating mathematical models. It makes absolutely no sense to then create metaphysics off those models where conscious free will is impossible. This is just stupid.

[@GungaLaGunga]

Thank you. Fascinating and infuriatiing to think about. lol Like that scene in the movie Spinal Tap when they were trying to find the door out to the stage.

[@irrelevant2235]

5:00 I understand from John Searle's comment here where says that quantum mechanics is not deterministic, he's taking the side of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which is fine but this interpretation is not fact. He speaks about this here as if it is fact but it isn't, it's just a theory. Just because a human is unable to know the outcome of a quantum event doesn't prove that indeterminism or randomness exists. If the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was fact, then no one would be talking about and supporting other theories of quantum mechanics such as Bohmian mechanics (a.k.a. pilot wave theory) or the many-worlds interpretation where both of these interpretations are deterministic and not random.

[@tupacalypse88]

He's trying to build a hypothetical case for what he thinks would be needed to have it. He's not saying this is reality he's saying this is the interpretation you would need to avoid determinism.

[@ritacristina8848]

It was the first thing I though as he spoke about that. The indeterminist interpretation of quantum mechanics always appeared to me highly questionable.

[@yaroslavlyskovets3397]

So funny, how in all these conversations about whether or not we have free will almost everyone agrees that it's almost impossible to fit the notion of free will in any model of the reality, either it be deterministic or random, but because they don't like the idea that free will is an illusion they try to come up with different funny ideas how it can be a real thing.

[@undercoveragent9889]

That's because no-one can sufficiently define free-will. The way you pseudo-intellectuals define it is circular reasoning. 'If it's 'free', it's not 'will' and if it's 'will', it's not free. If there is no 'free-will' and only determinism, how do you account for the existence of Santa Claus, Superman or Christianity? What is it in the deterministic framework that could predicts the existence of processes that do not follow the laws of physics? Superman violates the laws of physics but exists as a consequence of the laws of physics? lol Pseudo-intellectualism at its finest.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

While the operation of free will through the subconscious in brain activity is difficult to detect, the sense of having free will and actions of conscious choices are present in the brain. Free will and choice are the words that have been regularly used to describe what is sensed in the human brain.

[@ZtubidiPhone]

There is certainly a confluence (conflating) of free will and conscious thought. There is certainly a feeling of agency over my thoughts: I am the only one who hears them.. they must be mine. My thoughts surely can be mine, in the sense that the word "I" contains both my body and my thoughts, nobody said you can't play with language and group different things together. But the experience of having a 'self' itself is weird. Why do I arbitrarily stop at my fingertips. Why did the universe program all these different people to think that they are separate, why did the universe program itself in parts. The fact that parts even exist, like literally the concept of 'parts' is a great first step. Or is it all a language game.. check this out: How can we come up with the idea of free will and state all that is known about the mind (for ex: I have consciousness) in two very different routes. The idea of free will was not arrived at by stating all that is known about the mind. Knowledge is not everything, perhaps experience (phenomenology) can tell us things about the mind and the universe that our rational and logical brains cannot comprehend.

[@johnaugsburger6192]

Thanks

[@adrianriebelbrummer5792]

3:37 masterpiece. Edit: 6:32 is even better. This video is full of epic quotes.

[@davidcuarzo1986]

Continuando la tradición de Oxford, Jhon Rogers Searle asume la distinción de su maestro Austin entre una dimensión constatativa y otra dimensión realizativa del lenguaje, como también el desplazamiento y puesta del énfasis analítico en esta última, el cual intensifica respecto de Austin. Lo hace, sin embargo, introduciendo una crítica dirigida al concepto de «regla» de su predecesor y la supuesta generalización que hace de los actos de habla al proponer siempre ejemplos de actos «institucionalmente ligados», como si estos agotasen la totalidad de los actos de habla o reduciendo los actos de habla a los institucionales (como los propios de juicios, bodas etc). Searle señala que los actos de habla en contextos institucionales no son, de hecho, los únicos, pues tales actos también se dan en contextos comunicativos informales y conversacionales. Para ello introduce una nueva distinción entre: 1) «reglas regulativas», las cuales están dirigidas a permitir, prohibir u obligar conductas humanas (las cuales habría priorizado desproporcionadamente Austin) y 2) «reglas constitutivas», que no se encargan de regular sino que constituyen en sí mismas nuevas formas de conducta, porque han sido abstraídas de las condiciones tanto necesarias como suficientes de los casos particulares en los que se cumple el acto del habla, como por ejemplo el de una promesa. Este tipo de reglas son las que verdaderamente rigen tanto en contextos institucionales como informales, en contra de Austin. Este problema continúa el de la fundación de la normatividad del lenguaje, que ya vimos en Wittgenstein.

[@robertrowland3750]

We humans are an arrogant and pretentious bunch. In regards to the free will debate, there' is no confirmation one way or the other nor do I think there ever can be. Science and philosophy be damned! We are simply not in a position to know. Whatever assertion resonates most with the character of the individual is what they go with and then they formulate a definition and a logical argument in support of their belief after the fact. One of humanity's flaws is that we tend to (lie) claim knowledge when all we actually have is suspicion or desire. This, I suspect is because legitimizing a position empowers the person holding it.

[@blcrlink3d138]

My opinion is this.. our brain is an elaborator, dna apply the initial command lines. Then experiences, culture, family, environments, supply the additional command lines which they will shape the pre-existent ones, and so on and so on, second by second, our software, our line codes (telling us what to do) change continuously.. there is a will, (the ability to respond to stimuli, which is unique and everyone has his own command lines) and there is freedom if the external condition of the environment allows you to transform your desire (the result of the command lines) into a physical event Free = allowance by the environment to transform the will into an action (laws of physics for example, you can’t fly even if you want, or you being imprisoned) Will = the output of your brain commands line in response of environmental stimuli, abstraction of the future (depending to command lines too) memories (which depends to experiences)

[@jonstewart464]

Totally agree with Searle's take on compatibilism. Well said!

[@skyra1der]

Just a few questions that have (literally) popped into my mind, LOL... I don't know how they got there but they seem like good questions. If free will is real then why do we have mental illnesses? Why can't people just free will themselves out of these illnesses? Why can we ingest substances that alter our perception of reality and our behaviors and why can't we use our free will to instantly override those effects? Why do we have compulsions and obsessions that become harmful to us yet we seem unable to control them? Why do people knowingly ruin their lives with substance abuse problems that they can't seem to control? Why can't they just free-will their substance abuse away before it harms them or those around them? Why is assisted suicide even a thing? If we had free will couldn't we just think ourselves dead at any given moment and, without any physical exertion, do the trick ourselves? Why can't we will our autonomic nervous systems to just stop or start? Why are people so easily manipulated by advertising, media, and governments? Doesn't free will mean that people are immune to that kind of external control? Why is indoctrination even a thing if we have free will? How about people born with cognitive disabilities, what kind of free will do they have? Why can't they just free will themselves to higher cognitive skills? When does free will begin? Do infants have free will? Do people with severe dementia have free will and why can't they just will themselves out of it? Genetics and culture seem to play a massive role in our cognitive abilities, yet why can't we just free will those things away when they negatively influence us?

[@jamespaternoster7354]

🙂 We would choose if we could 👌 to be clear I agree with your examples and I do not believe we have any free will at all on any meaningful level once the scale of know determinism is observed and understood m

[@bundleofperceptions1397]

That's like asking, if my arm is cut off, why can't I just will a new one into existence? The answer is, because it doesn't work that way.

[@kanishkchaturvedi1745]

@@bundleofperceptions1397 I will elaborate further with an analogy. Consider the GPT3 AI running on a super computer which requires optimum temperature and voltage conditions. We've seen GPT3 give astounding human like speech and other features of intelligence. However if I mess with the settings the hardware is, the amazing computation is no longer feasible. Our brain isn't limited to hardware for abstract thought only - the part which does math and is the leading candidate for a truly free decision. Our brain has parts which influence the purely abstract thought so that we may survive, for example mirror neurons which make you empathise and even copy others, and dopamine circuits which make you seek high calories - relics from a time where food was scarce. Our abstract part can override the survival parts like fighting to death for non family despite fear out of a sense of duty, refusing to eat when performing a hunger strike. But for many the other non abstract parts prevail. What we're talking about here is whether, the abstract part under optimal calorie conditions and no interference from others has free will.

[@bogusshmogus1670]

@@kanishkchaturvedi1745 what you deem as the “abstract” part is only another level of the brain. No will is free and no mind wholly controls anything it does no matter how abstract the thinking process is. No one determines if they will be able to “abstract” further from their base desires, some people are born with that ability and can do so independent of the environment, some people are born able to develop that ability and may do so dependent on the environment, and some people are born without that ability and will never be able to develop it independent of the environment. Luck is the one and only driving factor in every life from beginning to end.

[@Rickety3263]

The experience of free will ONLY exists in the CONTEXT of time moving linearly in one direction; and the phenomenon that we have memories of the past, no memory of the future, and live in an ephemeral present.

[@helpmeget1ksubswith1videop72]

My heart will always celebrate your good news. Best of luck dear friend.

[@irrelevant2235]

Robert should interview Sam Harris on the topic of free will. Sam wrote the book on free will, literally!

[@hellenicculture8169]

Philosophy of Free Will? A very interesting new social term!

[@jeremycull8876]

Quantum mechanical randomness refers more to the inability for humans to experience the "gap" so that the only interpretation left to be made - via limitations impossible to get around - is that it is random. What we need is a sufficient measure for random (some like to use entropy equation for this), and a clear physical interpretation that represents this measure. The physical measure we tend to abstractly use in our minds is a kind of "clustering", when really it involves a relationship between the "one" and the "many". Which involves careful definitions... Because the "many" tend to be defined as reproductions of the "one" at the most abstract level... Anyway, I think what is also an interesting question is whether free will can actually be created. If we come to understand causal events in the sense that Westworld describes whereby all decisions and actions are predictable, is it possible to arrange people, circumstances and events via this AI machinery such that it comes closest for every individual to experience decisions that truly have no clearly determined path? Would it result in a purely unpredictable world? Perhaps not necessarily, but also perhaps to some extent yes, in which case it reduces the effectiveness in making a decision for the sake of a reliable result. The point I want to get across is that there is a measure when it comes to the degree of determinism... And I believe (though not necessarily argued here) that there is a fundamental ideal limit where you can arrive at pure randomness. But I don't think it's quantum mechanical, I think it's a definition we can use to construct a physical interpretation of reality that isn't incompatible with quantum mechanics.

[@davidhitchcock9001]

Searle's opinion that determinism = "wait and see what happens" is truly bizarre. He needs to understand compatabilism before disparaging it.

[@StoryGordon]

"free will (n): The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." [OED] Is this important in living an appropriate life? My view is we have bounded will, an ability to choose within constraints, but I would not argue its validity.

[@Be2ru]

I've never heard the term bounded will, before but now I am going to look it up! I am always interested in the 3rd option. what you've said seems quite close to that..and something I can get on board with.

[@StoryGordon]

@@Be2ru - I may have invented it. My premise is that "free will" implies unlimited. As an engineer, boundaries exist in every domain. Since our brains have some 80 billion neurons each connected with only a few thousand others, our cognition is limited by biological constraints, hence bounded. It's a middle ground between the free and deterministic views. There's an excellent article at plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

[@ralphowen3367]

Free will was forfeited in Adam; it gets restored in Jesus Christ by receiving His free Spirit

[@StoryGordon]

@@ralphowen3367 - Free will, as an absolute, is nonexistent limited by the fact that our brains do not have unlimited neurons.

[@yoooyoyooo]

I see compatibility in the sense that reality is fully determined, but we have an illusion of free will and there you go. Not in a sense that we really have it. That's just magical thinking.

[@f.mettraux7099]

Life is a compromise between destiny and free will.

[@duncanwallace7760]

Probably the best discussion about free will I've heard. I like the idea of brain fighting against the unpredictability of quantum mechanics to make sensible decisions based on knowledge and needs. I've always disliked the argument that unless there is a decision somehow outside the physical world, then its determinism.

[@Zipst3r]

But this view that the philosopher is taking regarding quantum mechanics begs a deeper question which I honestly think he hasn't thought about. I don't blame him since it is about physics and quantum mechanics which is a very deep topic, and math heavy. The problem is that there truly is no such thing as randomness. Even in quantum mechanics where you have probabilistic outcomes from the wavefunction. They are only probabilistic outcomes because the theory isn't yet complete so it simply doesn't have an explanation for the "randomness", yet. For example flipping a coin isn't random since if we knew everything in absolute detail we would be able to predict which side the coin lands on. Wind, weight distribution, initial force, velocity, position, etc. These are all measurable and would suffice to predict the outcome, hence it is deterministic. Newtons theories would be good enough for this. Same can be said for the wavefunction which he is referring to. The probabilistic nature only seems probabilistic because the theory doesn't explain the randomness. This is one of the reasons why the many worlds interpretation is as viable an interpretation as the probabilistic one. The recent Nobel prize in physics proves that quantum mechanics is incomplete (again) and that there are "hidden variables" that we still do not understand what they are or where they come from. That is, quantum mechanics isn't random, we just don't know what is causing the pre-determined outcome of the wavefunction. So sorry but you still have to step outside this reality to escape determinism. You don't have free will!

[@duncanwallace7760]

@@Zipst3r So you think even at a quantum level it's not random, which is different from how I've heard other physicist describe it. We are not magical creatures, so all our free will decisions need to come from reality. A rock rolling down a hill makes no choices, but a dog running down the same hill makes many.

[@Zipst3r]

@@duncanwallace7760 But the dog really doesn't. It just does whatever its brain decides to do, which it has no control over. I'm not going to repeat what he said in the previous video to you to explain why the dog doesn't have free will. But thinking that we have free will is just wishful thinking, nothing more. At what point in our creation (before, middle or after birth) or a dogs do you think that determinism stops working and doesn't apply anymore? Do you see how even that question is impossible to answer in a logical way?

[@corpseposse7158]

@@Zipst3r I know this comment has been published 6 months ago, but I think there's a misunderstanding of neuroscience in your comments. As a psychology and philosophy student, I think that saying that "the dog doesn't decides, it's the brain" it's wrong. The dog, as a conscious animal (but not self-conscious) is not controlled by its brain as if it was a robot with a CPU running inside of its brain. The dog is not only a collection of organs and systems, the dog IS its brain, the dog IS its neural activity and its consciousness. Your argument seems to point that mind is some sort of epiphenomenon of the brain, and that the dog is entirely controlled by it and doesn't really controls it, but he can just watch and feels what the brain mysteryously does inside of the dog's skull, but that's wrong. The conscious experience of the dog is the conscious experience of the brain, because consciousness is 1. The state in wich the brain IS when it is aware of his own subjective states and processes 2. The space in wich all subjective experiences occur. Anyways, I don't think free will is an illusion, but rather maybe a misinterpreted perception. We obviously operate causally, decisions and thinking don't happen to us but we voluntarily do them, as volition is a part of our conscious experience as biological organisms, but they aren't random, they all have causes and explanations behind them. Therefore, even though there are prior causes for our own actions, our actions do impact the reality in wich we live in. I, having a psychoanalytic approach to the matter, think that humans have a very small degree of free will, but I don't think this problem will get to a conclusion soon (or maybe ever). And in reference to the quantum mechanics theory, I think that saying that the theory is incomplete, doesn't really prove it's deterministic; it just proves that we don't completely understand it.

[@Zipst3r]

@@corpseposse7158 Hi. I think you misunderstood me about the dog and the brain. I'm actually saying they are the same. I still am confident in saying that we have no free will. If you want to continue this discussion, try to answer the question in my last paragraph in my previous reply. Evolution has made us feel like we have free will, but we actually don't. Having free will also means having an actual choice in determining a future event. This means that someone with free will has the power to change the course of action in a system. System being this universe. Nothing else in this universe can change it's course of action. Stars live and die without free will, planets get formed and destroyed without free will, mountains grow and get destroyed without free will, first cells get created and die without free will. Everything in this universe gets created and destroyed without free will. Where did us animals on this tiny planet, insignificantly small in this universe, get these powers? And yes it would be powers. Since nothing else in this universe has a choice, everything happens because of prior events. Us animals "thinking" is just complex and hard to predict, but if we had a supercomputer we would be able to predict everything if we knew the exact conditions at the big bang, since everything follows from that moment. This includes human and animal actions and behaviour, as well as our responses here in these comments.

[@plasmaballin]

I have to disagree with Searle's position on compatibilism. There are some versions of compatibilism that are really just trying to show that there's something close enough to free will that is compatible with determinism, but that's not what all versions of compatibilism are. If you define free will as being an action with no prior sufficient cause, then sure, compatibilism can't be true, but that's simply not what the definition of free will means. By that definition, randomness *would* be considered free will. What free will really means is that our actions are under our control, and if I think about what must be true in order for my actions to be under my control, I come to a compatibilist conclusion. My actions are under my control if it was my conscious decision-making process that caused them. Another way to look at this is that the action is determined, but in order to determine it, you must trace back the causes through my conscious mind making the decision. If you can find a causal chain (or, perhaps it would be better to say causal stream, since time is continuous, so causes occur continuously) that leads to the action occurring but doesn't involve my decision, then the action would have occurred regardless of my decision, which I didn't really have a free choice. But if you can't, then the action was not determined without my decision, which means that I really did have the ability to choose whether to perform the action, i.e. I truly had free will. This account seems to be the only account that actually aligns with what we mean when we talk about free will (we are talking about decisions after all), and it explains why incompatibilism seems intuitive (since, by this account, if the action is determined without your decision playing a causal role, then you don't have free will - incompatibilism just removes that qualifier). It also makes the most sense from a decision theory perspective or a moral perspective because it explains the significance of free will. It is only when we have free will, under this definition, that our action actually matters, and it is only when we have free will that, even with perfect knowledge of the external world, we can reason counterfactually about our decisions without already knowing the outcome.

[@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr]

Again, you are evading the problem. The way you are phrasing free will it would be possible to say that computers have free will because certainly the cause of its decision was made by itself. The real question is wether there is such a thing as a "choice" or "agency" being part of our decision process that is not deterministically caused by something like physichs, something that has genuine autonomy

[@plasmaballin]

@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr "The way you are phrasing free will, it would be possible to say that computers have free will." Yes, it is perfectly possible for a computer to have free will. Currently, no artificial computers make conscious decisions, so they don't have free will, but there's no reason in principle why a computer couldn't make conscious decisions if we designed it to. We could, for instance, simulate every neuron of a human brain on a computer. This computer could make decisions in exactly the same way a human can and would thus have free will. "The real question is whether there is such a thing as 'choice' or 'agency' in our decision process that is not deterministically caused by something like physics" This is begging the question. I don't think the question of free will has anything to do with whether our choices are determined by physics, except to the extent that determinism would actually make free will more likely since it means our decisions aren't random. My actions are determined by *me*, and that is enough to give me agency and genuine autonomy.

[@GackFinder]

@@plasmaballin Saying that a computer simulation of every neuron will make it conscious is the same as saying a computer simulation of the stomach will digest a pizza that you stuff into the USB port.

[@plasmaballin]

@@GackFinder It's not the same, unless you think that consciousness is intrinsically linked to specific physical substances, which seems wildly implausible. And even if it's wrong that simulating the brain would create a conscious agent, that just means that Gustavo's argument against compatibilism was wrong. If a computer can't be conscious, then computers don't have free will on any definition.

[@GackFinder]

​@@plasmaballin Yes, digestion and consciousness both describe emergent properties of a causal biochemical process. If one cannot perform its function while simulated by a computer, then neither can the other. Show me a computer-simulated stomach that can digest pizza.

[@kallianpublico7517]

Have they ever defined will? For instance have they ever established if the will is wholly intrinsic, partially intrinsic, or in fact extrinsic? If the will is extrinsic then how does the individual partake of it? If the will is wholly intrinsic then how is the world involved in it? If it is both then what determines its strength the individual or the world or something else, something that has to do with freedom or consciousness or attention?

[@rishikeshwagh]

I'm just awestruck at how far the human race has come. From hunting and scavenging to debating free will! I'm only curious as to what comes next

[@joshuaadamstithakayoutubel2490]

Our current man-made habitat requires a lot of maintenance though.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

Awesome!!

[@danielformica4633]

Nice and interesting video!

[@ddandrews6472]

Yeah, it appears to be a problem. We need the sense of freewill to say "there is no freewill", and that is bit puzzling.

[@michaelferketic3540]

I am about to change this conversation with my book: The Definition of Free Will

[@bryanreed742]

Quantum mechanics doesn't tell us whether our universe is deterministic or not. There are deterministic interpretations (Bohm's, for example), and there are interpretations that are objectively deterministic but subjectively indeterministic in a certain sense (many worlds, for example). These interpretations produce predictions indistinguishable from the predictions of the nondeterministic interpretations. Since they can't be empirically distinguished, we don't know if determinism is true.

[@walmenreis]

The problem is simpler than philosophers in general would be willing or well prepared to accept. Choice and its outcome, as either a hit or a miss, are what we, ignorant beings, resort to in order to learn. Free will equals choosing freely, so to say, without being constrained. But the downside of acting from ignorance, whenever luck lacks, constrains us into needing to know, while this is what compels us into making choices. And the more ignorant we are, the more numerous we think the choices are. This is why one says sages have no choices. So, there's no hypothesis in which choices can be resorted to out of no compulsion. The concept of a free will ends up as sort of an euphemism we consolate ourselves with so to withstand our enduring need to learn, that's to say, our persistent stupidity.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

You don't need to prove free-will because you are fundamentally aware of it inside yourself. What could be more fundamental to your awareness by means of which you could prove or disprove its existence ? See Descartes: 'I think, therefore I am', is not the syllogism it appears to be, rather it is a statement of our most fundamental state of awareness. What could I be more fundamentally aware of then myself thinking ? For as soon as I doubt (or think) this, my doubt itself becomes ABSURD !

[@steviezecevic123]

Just because you "feel" something is the case, doesn't in fact make it the case. Just because you have the sense you have free will, doesn't mean you have it. Here's why you don't have it: you are not the cause of this next thought, it just spontaneously appears. So: you don't know what you'll think next, and in addition, you can't help but think it. Where's the freedom in that? I'm open to criticisms, because I wish we had free will! 😂

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@steviezecevic123 First of all, I wrote you are aware of free-will inside yourself, not that you feel it inside yourself. There is a difference between being aware of something and feeling it to be true.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@steviezecevic123 Second, your supposed proof for my not having free-will is that I cannot consciously determine my next thought, but this is not really a proof against free-will. No person can consciously have two separate thoughts in their mind at the same time. But this impossible situation is what you are insisting is necessary for the existence of free-will. Of course, in reality, free-will does not require me to be thinking my next thought as the object of my current thought. Nor does free-will even require me to be able to determine my next thought in any direct way. What I can do, and what you can do too, is focus on some particular subject or topic, and thus produce in your mind thoughts related to that subject or topic. This ability to focus your mind (or attention) is only possible because you have free-will. Free-will doesn't mean complete control over every aspect of your being, or body, it simply means there are certain parts of your mind and body over which you have some control.

[@OmniversalInsect]

Determinism does not say that our conscious intent/will doesn't exist. Of course we have intent, that much is self evident. Determinism is the view that our intent is the result of a multitude of external factors, all of which are out of our control. Believing in free will is the same as believing this intent to have magically appeared in our minds, somehow unaffected by external factors.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@OmniversalInsect WRONG ! The belief in free-will is not a belief in magic. Magic itself has a cause -- the spells, powers and potions, etc. that supposedly bring about its magical effects. Of course, 'magic' in this supernatural sense is merely fictional, but the point is that it supposed to be the result of causes. Now, speaking of the origin of free-will in higher forms of life, there are three different accounts of its beginning -- the Theological, the metaphysical, and the natural. The Theological account says that God gave man free-will, the metaphysical says that the universe or existence is itself in essence spiritual and that it has an inherent free-will that manifests itself in higher forms of life, and the natural says that free-will has emerged in higher forms of life by means of evolution. Now, notice that none of these three accounts claims that the origin of free-will in man is without a cause. Theology says God's act of creation is the cause, idealist metaphysics says that the cause is the manifestation of the universal spirit (or mind) in man, and the natural account says that the cause is the biological evolution of life. Now, what is actually at issue between determinism and free-will is not its origin as a phenomenon in man, but the origin of any individual act of free-will. Those who believe in free-will deny that any individual act of free-will is completely determined by external factors. The defenders of free-will all agree that the origin of free-will as a phenomenon in man has some cause, but once free-will comes into existence, it has the ability to alter things -- although in a limited way. As a defender of determinism, you believe that this is not a real ability, but is instead a completely determined effect resulting from prior causes. If I choose to skip breakfast this morning, you would claim that my 'choice' was already determined by prior external causes of which I am simply unaware. In fact, you would, in order to be consistent, have to assert that I had no real choice in the matter. My 'free-will' is, according to you, only an illusion. So, that is the real issue. But where is the evidence for your assertion that free-will is only an illusion? Sure, you assert that all my actions are determined by external causes, but you are not able to prove this -- even scientifically. What scientific evidence suffices to prove that free-will does not exist? Now, what you have instead of real evidence is merely the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This is a metaphysical principle that scientific investigation PRESUPPOSES. 'Presupposes' -- as in 'takes for granted', as in 'without sufficient proof', as in 'a working hypothesis'. This principle states that everything has a cause, but it is merely an assertion -- nothing more !

[@isaiahceasarbie5318]

The best contemporary mind on the subject!

[@bruceylwang]

Philosophy is whatever you say is not wrong. Science is whatever you say is not right.

[@Alkis05]

The pesky thing is that the idea that 'science is whatever you say is not right' comes from philosofy. It is not scientific. So the underpinings of science is still in philosophy.

[@HighPokerChessPL]

A really good question, what would do if the world was really deterministic, would you stop living your life ? would you just stop and pain at the idea that you can change nothing ? what about your reaction to that very idea, is that an act of free will ? I think the real question is not about free will, is about it being natural and ordered, what difference it makes if you have no free will but you have the illusion of it .. I will give insight on how i see free will even thought i might have none myself, i see it as the amount of free space of action you can find yourself, asking question is the best way to expend your sense of free will .. if someone says , choose this or that .. and then you say : what if i choose none.. and someone says you can't .. someone might fall victim to that .. but someone else might say : of course i do. i will just sit here and not choose, so the sense of free will expends as the amount of option you see as possibility expands and the ability to choose is completely related to that .. the sense of non-free will comes from not knowing the reasons behind your actions, because if you saw all the reason why you make a choice, then it is determinist even before you were confronted with that choice, because of predictability and information .. as long as you don't know the reasons for your choices, free will may look more & more of a question, but the experience will still be the same .. The guy argues very well for it

[@mariozammit7065]

This brings me to words written by Gord Downie of The Canadian band, The Tragically Hip, he wrote “I’m kinda dumb, so are you”

[@jamessmith989]

From the moment of conception people only know what they see and hear. The choices are all relative. Then we have to factor in the hidden variables.

[@wetyuu]

Is this video before #metoo? ?

[@georgegrubbs2966]

Free will does not imply "no antecent causes." Humans (i.e., neural circuits) compare possible choices, and then pick one. That neural action leading to a choice is the antecendent cause of the choice (decision). Let's say there were two choices. Neural circuits evaluate each one based on internal value criteria. The choice that emerges on top is the choice.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere. The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. Cont...

[@georgegrubbs2966]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda Nicely put and I agree with much of what you say. We are indeed influenced, but not determined, by our genes, environment, upbringing, education, and experiences. They do indeed shape our worldview and our beliefs. However, they do not necessarily dictate them, that is, determine them. People change as they grow and mature. Their behaviors, values, and beliefs change for the better, one hopes. Regarding "could have done differently" - one will never know. Once a decision is made, you cannot prove that one could have made a different decision. The best test for free will is common sense. I can choose to raise my arm or not raise it. I can begin raising it and then change my mind and lower it. If part of the brain is actually making decisions without me consciously knowing it, then the brain would have me doing and thinking other things. So, except in the most severe cases of hardship or mental illness, we make our own decisions via free will and we are responsible for the results.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

@@georgegrubbs2966, INCORRECT.

[@dreamycalculator]

2:35 put very nicely

[@JustAThought01]

The only thing the self can know for sure is that the self exist. All information which the self has to think about is provided by the human senses. All other knowledge is based upon a set of assumptions. The Key Assumptions is: The world we are meant to understand is delivered by our senses. Free Will simply means that the human individual is under no external control of the ability to make choices. The individual has total control over the processing of the reaction to external stimulation. There are two choices: either individuals have free will and are therefore responsible for their actions or every action is predetermined. The world would be a very dull place if every action of every living creature were predetermined. Therefore, we can just assume that all living things react to conditions in the environment and have control over the reaction to change in the environment. Thus, humans have free will and need to use intelligence to make the best decisions in their own best interest.

[@playpaltalk]

Without free will we all would be forced to believe in God and do his will, and the beauty of his creation was that he gave us the free will to think and do whatever we want that make us happy and give us pleasure.

[@ralphowen3367]

Rom. 8:20, 5:6, De. 32:36, Jer. 10:23, etc..

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

When free will swashing around in human brain activity interacts with random quantum possibilities, actions are performed and conscious choice of the action created.

[@Rickety3263]

Just because YOU haven’t yet observed the pattern, doesn’t mean it’s random.

[@MartinLichtblau]

Free will exists: it is our inability to trace back our own complicated ways of thinking ‒ we are similar to (computational) neural nets.

[@tracemagace8434]

How about tracing back before our complicated ways of thinking arised?

[@JamesGriffinC]

I'm 2 years late to this thread but in my humble opinion you are absolutely correct and have defined free will perfectly.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@jojomojojones]

Searle is confused about what a choice is. A choice is a measurement, or more precisely, discernment. What you end up choosing depends on an interaction between preferences and current and local conditions. You are always going to choose whatever options which most satisfy your preferences , preferences you didn’t choose.

[@Ploskkky]

Well said. I was very surprised about that too. I am not quite sure what is going on in the land of philosophy these days. Many philosophers of name keep making this mistake regularly. I can understand amateurs making this mistake, but someone like Searle, who I respect very much, baffles me when he says these things. Anyway, Nietzsche convinced me a long time ago that Freedom (or the lack thereof) and Will have nothing to do with each other. The mistake is in thinking that your will is something you need to guide. According to Nietzsche your Will = You. You do not steer it, you do not point it in a direction. Freedom is not applicable to the will. It is what it is. People who try to separate themselves from their own Will end up broken.

[@Quidisi]

>>You are always going to choose whatever options which most satisfy your preferences

[@skyra1der]

​@@Quidisi The operative word in the quote you gave is "most." If you choose to do something that you believe is the "right thing" then you've made the "right thing" the most satisfying preference, even if by a tiny margin.

[@Quidisi]

@@skyra1der Perhaps. But it doesn't feel that way.

[@jojomojojones]

Quidisi Revealed preference. By choosing option A you reveal that option A is what you want. In the example you gave, you want to do the ‘right’ thing more than anything else and so you choose that option.

[@CMVMic]

It's sad that some of the greatest minds in the world have an expiry date. I personally don't believe in randomness or free will. Randomness simply is a placeholder for our inability to accurately predict all outcomes and their prior causes and conditions. Our inability to determine things, does not mean things are undetermined

[@Nephelokokkygia1215]

Does anyone know where they are?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Were consciousness energy determining physical reality through quantum fields, conscious free will through quantum fields might cause physical reality?

[@michaelkistner6286]

Isn't the fact that our metaphysics lands us in paradox an indication that our metaphysics is somehow wrong headed?

[@ciararaf]

Serious crystal collection wow

[@stevematson4808]

Most people don't have free will. Only our elites have true free will. This is why we should always obey them. After all, they are the ones who have climbed their way up the ladder of power, and always through the most respectable and honest means.

[@SalimonuDavid]

An indeterminate non-random blackbox... but how exactly is this possible? When we say indeterminate, we mean that it is undefined, not determined by any antecedent events. This means that there are a range of decisions that could potentially be made. When we say that it is non-random, we are saying that the decision ultimately made was determined in some way, as randomness and determinism are antonyms. This seems to lead to a problem: how can this decision be both indeterminate (uncaused by antecedent events) and non-random (ie. determined)? The only way is if some external cause existing outside of the causal physical framework is doing the determining...is this the "I" of free will, of consciousness? The problem there would be that the "I" is so terribly not outside of any causal framework; it seems to be formed by antecedent events in a very straightforward way: my decisions today or formed by by experiences of yesterday. So to say the decision making framework isn't determined, even in part, by antecedent events seems blatantly wrong to me. I would love to hear others' thoughts, though

[@chewyjello1]

The paradox is only in the language. This is a problem for linguists.

[@stromboli183]

How do you mean? What problem or what paradox exactly?

[@fisiosaiter]

I solved the philosophical problem of free will,... it doesn’t exist,... the only thing that exists is WILL. #CaseClosed

[@CapitanTavish]

@@fisiosaiter yea and that will is free. Because I can consciously do actions in accordance to that will (in the frame of possibility). I can repeatedly raise my arm when I want ten thousand time, and I can not raise my arms another ten thousand times.. is it a coincidence that my actions will always be 1:1 with my will ? How convenient

[@Wretchedrenegade]

@@CapitanTavish lovely answer. I like how you phrased it.

[@CapitanTavish]

@@Wretchedrenegade people get caught in the thinking “but is my will free then?” .. and my answer is always the same “free from what? Neurons? Others? Irrationality? Rationality? Da hek you want to be free from ?” The “will” probably is ruled and controlled by semi-deterministic events that “you” can’t control them, but YOU is the same YOU that has that will, and he is the one that transforms the will into action, so again, da hek “YOU” asking if “YOU” are free or not. ITS NONSENSE. YOU ARE the atoms that build you, YOU ARE the laws of physics, how can they control “you” if “you” are those very things.

[@revermightstar8004]

He's mistaken in thinking compatibilism is a cop out. He thinks as if compatibilism is trying to save the idea of choice transcending causal constraints, which compatibilism dosen't do. Compatibilism is trying to save the idea that one is able to shape his own will ACCORDING TO ONE'S DESIRED OUTCOME regardless of whether that whole process is a result of causality or not. Free will is only a label to call that action without the implication of noncausality. So for example you have a desire to change your will to smoke. So you do actions to achieve that desire, which is for example cultivate habits that reduce the impulse to smoke. This they call free will as opposed to not doing things to achieve the desire to change your will to smoke. This idea of free will doesn't imply that the desire to change your will was independent of causality like Searle thinks it does. Why do the compatibilists, then, make distinctions between acting according to your particular desire to change your will and not doing so if those two states are deterministic anyway, you may ask. It is because we need particular labels to observe and manipulate the world. For example, despite the fact that everything was caused by the big bang according to science, we make statements like "This rock hit that tree" when we could just have said, "The big bang caused something to happen". We attribute the cause of the event to the rock to draw attention to a particular phenomena to inform ourselves on what we want to know or do. If you want the tree being protected from damage and want to know how to do that, you need make distinction between the state where the rock didn't hit the tree and the state where it did. Only that way you can determine what to do, for example prevent rocks from flying to the tree. Thus free will is dependent on context and not absolute. If you draw attention to a particular desire about will, the meaning lies on the distinction between the state where that desire is achieved and the state where it is not.

[@torivictoria46]

We are playing our script. Call them angels, aliens, archons, demiurge, Lord, Devil....we are in a "reality tv show"

[@Quidisi]

It really does feel that way, sometimes. ::Sigh!::

[@xspotbox4400]

If you can't beat them, perhaps you should join them. Unknown forces and occult groups are like grave diggers, they will never run out of work until there are ignorant people around.

[@rishikeshwagh]

Ma'am, I would kindly request you to stay out of this. Thank you

[@hellenicculture8169]

i have never heard that term!

[@KenPotter]

The fact that the debate exists is proof that we are living in a world where Free Will (like Time) is a stubbornly persistent illusion.

[@mattsigl1426]

Maybe quantum events aren’t randomly determined but since most of the quantum systems are very simple the decisions of simple quantum systems appear random. Complicated “quantum” systems, like conscious states (if they are quantum) are more determined by conceptual reasons imbedded in the geometry of the quantum conscious state and therefore are free in the way we understand. So all quantum states would be “free” but complicated ones would be “free” in the way we understand and experience freedom.

[@Itsnickcherry]

With the red argument, wouldnt u still experience the illusion of seeing red? So how does he escape that assumption that we have to experience the illusion for free will?

[@tedgrant2]

According to the laws of the universe, we have no free will. But according to Christians and Judges, we do. God only knows.

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

If only one man on earth then free will

[@plasmaballin]

The indeterminacy of quantum mechanics can't give rise to consciousness that inherits indeterminacy without inheriting randomness because indeterminacy and randomness are the exact same thing. This is like trying to find a way that something can be equal to 2+2 without being equal to 4.

[@jimmyg6780]

It gotta wrap my head around this video....hold my beer....damn, I just made 2 decisions, he GOT me ! 🤔

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does the conviction of having free will indicate that free will is a state, rather than an operation?

[@johnhough7738]

For myself (and there's probably a name for me and mine): Free Will is entirely an illusion- -brought about by our ignorance (meaning lack of knowledge) of the future. Yes? No, maybe? IF (love that word) IF it happens, it was always going to happen. Always, very important word here. If it hasn't happened ... it never was going to happen (duuuh) regardless. What am I claiming here?

[@xx_xxxxx_xx4800]

interesting stuff

[@1p6t1gms]

I refuse to think we are just spectators of our own destiny. There is more than the immediate influences of the will which is buried deep within the cerebellum. And mostly all actions come from this area prior to a conscious awareness, but how did they get there in the first place? Through the awakened will of the human-being by their environment, heredity, schooling... so I would think when the information is set within the subconsciousness there is a predetermination of thought from previously gathered information that moves before the awakened state of mind reacts to the past information? And this could be overridden by the awakened will with a type of free choice to this information? Although, one day I suspect quantum mechanics will tell us how consciousness relates to our human existence.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Free-will is fundamental or else it can be explained in terms of something other than itself. But what can explain that which has no cause ? All explanation is essentially in terms of causes. Because it is itself a cause, free-will can be used as an explanation, but because it is not itself caused by anything, it cannot be explained itself. Therefore, free-will is no less fundamental than the ultimate laws and forces of the physical universe.

[@cvsree]

Freewill is relative. A blind guy is free to go anywhere but, might get hurt if bumps into something We are like the blind guy indulging in pleasures that weaken our mind and eventually die If we control our mind with practices like meditation, our mind gets stronger and finds its own source, which is final reality. Once we find the final reality, we are always aligned with God's will

[@davincibaltazar3399]

Problem Is most peopoe who debate against free Will srw athiest

[@michaelferketic3540]

Why does no one ever say the obvious - Free will is the ability to control the focus of our attention. The conversation on free will NEVER brings this up. It's so obvious

[@daltonclifford5106]

What if the amalgamations of the subjects, whole object phenomenons, experience; it’s reasons, thoughts, emotional, senses, observations, etc. etc. are the determinate factors? At points of superposition these reflect possible decision the subject/whole object can act towards

[@daltonclifford5106]

This would make the relationship between Schopenhauer’s will and idea preside as the determinate cause for possible actions (effect)

[@kenwiebe9860]

The premise that there are good arguments for there being no free will falls flat. I've heard many of them and haven't heard a good one yet.

[@jacobogutierrezsanchez]

I don´t agree that having the experience of free will is not a good reason to think we have free will. (In the interview it wasn´t put that way).

[@skyra1der]

I reject the notion of free will, since there appears to be no mechanism that separates our consciousness from our physical brains. This isn't an area for which philosophy is going to have any answers, since they won't be showing us how we are capable of transcending physics and culture. Philosophers seem to just avoid this issue--it just magically works, somehow. If I wanted answers I'd talk to neuroscientists. Sam Harris (who is a neuroscientist) wrote a good book about this years ago. While I don't much care for him, I agree with his book.

[@RhymesofUnison]

In my understanding, free will is the only known algorithm to true randomness.

[@ideologybot4592]

Arguing over the existence of free will is such an odd thing. It's like we have to define it as a pure thing and not bounded by circumstance, and if the experience of thought and motivation is circumstantial, then free will is disproven. Why? Agency is involved, and the boundaries of that agency are indeterminate. The argument for this being free will has nothing to do with determinism and everything to do with complexity and unpredictability. Seeking a higher, non-physical level to free will is a secularized rehash of the theological arguments we were having four hundred years ago. I mean, my God, quantum indeterminacy? Who needs to bring that into anything? This is a debate about Western individualism, and it's almost entirely political. Outside of this, the entire debate is just semantics.

[@stromboli183]

I never understood the compatibility standpoint. How does that work for people? Is whatever I choose with my ‘free’ will also determined? Doesn’t seem to be very free then. Or is free will the only thing that’s not deterministic? But then it influences the otherwise deterministic universe, which by definition is then no longer deterministic (as free will is also part of the universe).

[@stromboli183]

@@hyperduality2838 I sortof understand what you're saying (I'm familiar with duality and nonduality) but I fail to see how it relates to my question?

[@piehound]

OK

[@AlexM-wq7in]

The conscious experiences of deliberation, rational-decision making, and volition are the result of deterministic processes in the brain. I don't see the problem here. We're part of nature, subject to its laws, and part of causal chains. We're not self-authored supermen on islands of our own creation. But neither are we fixed and unchanging. The whole point of our brains is that we can take in new information and change our thoughts, behaviours, priorities, interests or values in response.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

Self-contradictory. You can't "change your thoughts" if your mind is deterministic.

[@almightybunny3320]

@@ferdinandkraft857 What cause change your thoughts?

[@AlexM-wq7in]

@@ferdinandkraft857 Yes you can. You can expose yourself to different environments, different sets of people, different routines etc. Changing the inputs to a deterministic system changes outputs. It's just that your choice to do so would itself have been caused by prior events. Our choices and actions matter in determining the future, even if they themselves are the result of prior causes.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@AlexM-wq7in What you describe is known as "compatibilism", look at 8:46 onwards in this video.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@almightybunny3320 I don't know. Do you think you know?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could free will have something to do with that energy can have motion and can be directed towards a goal?

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

How do you know that free-will is caused by the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, and not the other way round ? Moreover, by supposing the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics to be the cause of the indeterminacy of free-will by means of a causal process, is to, in-effect, re-introduce determinism through the back door, so to speak. For all causal processes necessarily determine their effects, and, so, what you are really supposing (or, rather presupposing) is a more fundamental causal law that is sufficient and necessary (that is, determinate) for converting the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics into the indeterminacy of free-will. But if such a law exists, then the indeterminacy of free-will is really just the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics -- thus denying to free-will the possibility of a real decision of its own making-- and explaining its very existence by a determinate causal law that converts the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics into the indeterminacy of free-will.

[@spacebaby1174]

And still,, you're using free will to choose your convictions about free will! "Do what thou that wilt shall be the whole of the law, love is the law, love under will"

[@johnvanmanen3149]

Free will does not choose Truth, it chooses what justifies its former bad choices, making itself look good.

[@OntologicalCatastrophe]

Does anyone know when was this filmed? I'm curious if it's really this recent since Searle made a public appearance

[@epicbehavior]

Free will can be disproven in like 2 seconds, but people don’t want to actually think about it.

[@irrelevant2235]

Robert was giggling like a little girl a little too much in this interview. He should have taken a more serious tone!

[@Paulus_Brent]

What has randomness to do with free will? Something random tells us nothing whatsoever about the absence or presence of free will.