Prof. Daniel Dennett: Is Science Showing That We Don't Have Free Will?

A public lecture by Daniel C. Dennett, Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, entitled "Is Science Showing That We Don't Have Free Will?"
In his lecture, Professor Daniel Dennett discusses some of the current work in psychology bearing on this question.
He also drew on Hume, Darwin and Turing, three Enlightenment heroes.
Part of the University of Edinburgh's Enlightenment Lecture Series.

[@Konstruktivismus]

Best lecture on free will ever - Dennett at his best! There are so many clever arguments in this speech you have to see it several times to grasp.

[@ChalkiePerfect]

@Tommasugo Dennett addresses that better in the book this talk is based on. His point is that the word "evitable," which means "avoidable," is literally meaningless when there is no agent to do the avoiding. We use the word "inevitable" to mean that something was determined, but he is encouraging us to recognize the difference between "unable to be avoided (by an agent)" and "determined," two totally separate concepts that are blurred into the colloquial meaning of "inevitable."

[@tatotato85]

Brillant as ussual! Dan Dennett doesnt dissapoint

[@ABitOfTheUniverse]

That said, Dennett's response from 1:16:22 - 1:18:02, specifically his statement that the most important sentence in his book "Elbow Room" was "If you make yourself really small you can externalize virtually everything." The moment I heard that I had a sort of miniature anxiety attack as I felt almost as if everything in my body was not mine... It's really hard to describe unless you feel it for yourself. It's a sort of feeling I get far too often and that I'd never heard anyone talk about this.

[@makhetefall8003]

I love these lectures. I want to one day give a lecture at E.U. That will is an expression of my desire. If that happens, i will not consider it as determinism , rather I will view as a personal achievement. For that to happen I am determine to work towards that goal. Was I predestined to learn English? No, but I was determine to learn IT because of my FREE WILL. OR FREEWILL. it was not AVOIDABLE because I left my country. I love the example given about avoiding the brick. Action reaction.

[@astout5]

53:30 Yes, that's what I've been trying to say forever! Thank you Daniel Dennett. We always talk like the levels of "free will" or the "degrees of evitability" don''t matter, but we need to be able to describe this difference.

[@Mekaniac]

Brilliant lecture. Also, 0:19:49 Bottom row, guy on the left is bewildered by something. Also note the expressions of the other people in the frame.

[@gertrude1ful]

There was a well written article in “The Spiritual Scientist” clarifying this point. Destiny determines the consequences of our actions, not the actions themselves. This is a statement made by Vidura, which clearly says that the jiva (soul) has free will to act; but he has no freewill to choose the consequences of the action.

[@ABitOfTheUniverse]

The ohnosecond that Dennett mentions in response to the 'question' from 1:13:28 - 1:16:15 is something I tend to suffer from in every video I seem to make. Being conscious of what I am saying, as I am saying it, and constantly wanting to take it back to re-express what a want to say with a more accurate word from my vocabulary is a terrible thing... self-consciousness, I believe it's called. Even though I feel it's a curse I wish more people would be self-conscious. It just seems 'more real'.

[@addeleven]

Pretty off-topic, but there's a good reason for a word meaning the opposite of avoiding (at least in the way I _think_ Dennett means it) not to exist: You can find the good - and then you've found it. The act of finding is completed. Which means that "to find" is as a verb naturally perfective, it describes a point in time, and a change of situation that happens at that point. Avoiding can go on forever; unless you're sure that the thing you're avoiding has ceased to be, has expired and gone to meet its maker, you could go on avoiding it forever. In other words, "to avoid" is a verb rather imperfective in nature. Even with "searching" you always have the finding in mind. Avoiding on the other hand does not lead towards a goal, it really is characterized by one's desire _not_ to find something. It's a natural asymmetry, and so it makes great sense for us not to find a perfect opposite of avoiding. (So, anyways. Nice talk.)

[@mowgli123456789]

big thank you to the man at 1:18:12 he put it exactly as i would. and all dennett says in response is that yes! we are determined....oh but we also have free will. then proceeded to say " they are compatible, they are compatible, thay are...." as if he were trying to convince himself of it. lol he is basically saying that all of our decisions ARE determined BUT in a complex way, which IS free will. sorry but thats just changing the definition of what words mean.

[@DarkStar666]

The key to understanding the universe is to think about it in terms of computation (rather than mathematics). In computation even deterministic systems can make "decisions" and to Dennett's point -- those decision-making processes can and have evolved.

[@sleepyeyeguy]

Conditioning people to behave differently in the future can include the use of punishment as a form of conditioning.. (it can be punishment)

[@Torrriate]

What Denett says is the following: If we consider the question of free will, we have to understand that the question of determinism is wrongly placed here, since we should ask ourselves first what means "will" and what means "free". These concepts can only truly exist in a context where the question of determinism is not applied. In such a context free will of course exists.

[@disqaz]

Though, you are free of choosing ducking the brick or not, the problem still remains that what determines the agent to choose one over another? If the agent is determined to choose one over another, the ideology of free will instantly collapse.

[@Jackies1979]

I think there is a difference between the chess computer and humans: the chess computer avoids checkmate situations, the "free" human being avoids/prevents others' predictions about her from being true; this is also what is the morally relevant aspect about free will. The morally interesting question is not whether or not we are now "free" to heal diseases not treatable some hundred years ago. It is about energy-equal forkings of what people "may" do. Determine the determinations of these...

[@DarkStar666]

@patrickcorliss Is that written down anywhere? I don't have time to go through the video, sorry.

[@max4296]

...Dennet's argument is fine In the sense that it shows how people normally use language and think of free will, and what bearing this might have on law. But it is far from satisfying w/ respect to the larger free will debate. What's interesting about free will are specifically the "conditions as they precisely were" type issues. What relationship such "cosmic desert" issues have, or should have, to our common sense intuitions, our normal use of language, and WHY - that's what's interesting.

[@BigLundi]

You know, Hitchens would sometimes open his speeches and lectyures saying, "If anyone is here by order of their professors, or by any other means other than their own interest, I ask that you leave now. I refuse to speak to a captive audience." This lecture, is why.

[@Frag1ty]

I did understand the lecture. The only problem I'm having is to understand his final conclusion. Why don't we want to have absolute free will? What are deterministic opportunities and how do they differ from "real" opportunities (that in fact don't exist)? What does he mean with 'we can do otherwise in the sense that matters for morality'? He answered on the last question that indeed ducking for the brick or not is determined like laplace's demon discribes. But where is the free will?

[@mowgli123456789]

well said. it always seams to me that all this is, is him trying to redefine free will so he can keep it. he says " ...this is another possibility, and these possibilitys are independant of whether determinism is true or not" i say, how are they indepandant? when the decision you make about whether you duck the brick or not is ALSO being constrained by something and therefore determined.

[@Frag1ty]

Can someone give me a good example where I can find the free will he's talking about and what the deterministic part is?

[@SpacePrez]

He explains the problem of determinism and free will PERFECTLY, and I agree with him completely for the first hour. Then he suddenly takes a turn and redefines all the terms... It doesn't follow or make any sense. Determinism plus random variables DOES NOT yield free will. The question at 1:19 is exactly how I feel. Then he responds with "yes, we're determined". He agrees that real determinism is true, and he's just bullshitting some new definitions.

[@andersemil]

If you insist that free will is NOT compatible with determinism, then you're right. But the whole point in his lecture is that determinism is not incompatible with free will, since the input variables, even in a completely deterministic universe, are so numerous and varying that the sum of them can be considered random, meaning that hardly any two decisions will have the same outcome.

[@gertrude1ful]

Here is another way of looking at how the free will we are accustomed to is not real free will, but bound will. Let us categorise into two groups: (1) Bound free will, and (2) Free, free will.

[@RobJoiceMusic]

Satriani t-shirt at 49:44. Nice!

[@AthiestGodStuff]

At 1:18:09, he agrees with you, but then he thinks he's made a distinction between determined and inevitable. He never did. I agree with you.

[@tiasara9643]

In “new age” speak the opposite of avoid might possibly be the commonly used term “manifest”, a kind magnetic approach to future manipulation or “conniving”.

[@KendrickJ2]

Regarding the computer chess match examples: Wouldn't the "time" element in the chess match be a variable comprised in Determinism? Wouldn't the idea that there is a deterministic outcome for a given set of circumstances require time as a necessary function or variable (or dimension)?

[@DarkStar666]

@patrickcorliss Because the 'seed' is part of the input, all you are doing is changing is the starting state, the program is still a deterministic program. Example: f(x) = x + 2. If I say f(2) I get back 4, f(3) gives me 5 -- different answers from different inputs, but clearly deterministic. For comparison, here is a simple random # function: return seed = (seed * 32719 + 3) % 32749; Just a simple function that uses the previous result as input to the next step, but very deterministic

[@TennysonXII]

@unclexbob That's fair. I shouldn't have posted before watching the whole video. I remember having some qualms about his overall argument, but it's been too long since I watched the lecture. For the record, I'm a big fan of Dr. Dennett and agree with him on a lot of things. His brilliance has partly inspired me to become a Professor of Philosophy, and his epic beard makes me curse my own in shame.

[@Jackies1979]

sorry, there is a Freudian, maybe, slip in that one comment: I meant to say "institutes for the *conservation* of 'free' will", not *prevention*...

[@stephenchase8676]

I'm a determinist btw, I know it's hard to tell. But now that I've stated that, it's probably easy to tell which kind.

[@andyb1336]

This guy seems enlightened.

[@krishnatheid]

I am lost. Somebody correct me if i am wrong. What he is trying to say is 1.) It is epistemicaly impossible to know everything. 2.) Hence for practical purposes we can consider there is free will considering that there was a similar situation near the particular situation which would have lead to better consequences if the agent had changed his actions only a little bit.

[@rajeshmarndi]

At 1:17:15, he say "its a mistake to think that we consciously construct our senses and then utter, else we wouldn't feel regret what we said." Isn't it just simple, we regret only when the result turn out to be -ve and obviously do not regret when the result turn out to be +ve for us. Nothing surprising in it.

[@lee0slayer]

i enjoy a logical argument, when i tried to argue against free will with a friend he justkept uttering the phrase ' but i do have a choice' which is of course petitio principii

[@hazzer777]

@patrickcorliss I know a swinging brick will hit me if I don't duck: a) I consciously 'move away form' it to 'avoid' being hit by the brick b) I consciously 'move towards' it in order to 'pursue' being hit by the brick c) I consciously 'stay where I am' and 'face', not 'pursuing' or 'avoiding' being hit by the brick, but knowing full well that I will be hit by the brick. (a) is the diametrically opposite to (b), (c) is the 'non-action' inbetween them.

[@cuntofgod]

Thanks. I've seen that lecture but can't say I drew that conclusion from it - but then again I didn't get my mind around the whole thing so I might watch it again. I recently read Sam Harris' "Free Will". That seemed pretty conclusive on the topic to me. Id be curious to see what criticisms of Harris' view turn up.

[@SirGoP]

@SirGoP2 I said directly when I probably meant actively. Even if it's a feedback loop of some sort that doesn't necessarily give us any more control in the matter.

[@jeromyrutter]

i see psychology as a branch of philosophy (as all sciences, call them, objectively empirical philosophies. so when discussing freewill, both general philosophy and psychology should agree on a context in which to communicate. take the function of belief. this sets the mode of the mind, and, thus, the reactions. the point of psychoanalysis is to alter beliefs, which alters our emotional responses. thus, we can overcome a fear of water by altering how we think we relate to it.

[@jeromyrutter]

by altering beliefs, we alter the deterministic mode regarding the phenomenon. objects are not illusions, but our perception of them is of light and sound. thus, our experience of objects are illusions. so you might say that the brain is a computer that has the ability to alter its software. learning new programs, such as calculus or jeet kune do. new languages. and the people who constantly re-evaluate information are the ones likely to have more control over their own minds, and thus, wills.

[@NihilNominis]

@NihilNominis As Prof. Dennett's own venturing into implications for criminal justice &c. demonstrate, the real purpose of seeking knowledge is not as an end in itself, but it essentially moral. We wish to know because we wish to know what ought to be done. Ought we punish criminals? Well, let us determine if they are responsible. Determinism is, however, as I said, a cop-out, because it removes the whole notion of ought from action, and sets as our highest purpose that which we can't avoid.

[@JM-co6rf]

To argue against choice is to argue FOR choice.

[@hugesinker]

Paradoxes come into play when you consider LaPlace's Demon as part of the universe he understands-- What happens when he has perfect knowledge of his own mind and knows what he will or think next. Is it then impossible for him to chose to do otherwise? If so, he has essentially annihilated his own ego. What if he tells someone what they will do next, but the person is determined to defy him. Are they unable to? Anything he affects generates probabilities to destroy his perfect wisdom.

[@untiedwedanst]

what TheDavid2222 said. it's funny how our brains on the internet work. when I get stuck in a thinking rut I find the same old things as ever, but when I stay alert and interested I find new lines of thought to explore. self directed learning.

[@steveagnew3385]

We do live in a fairly predictable universe, but there are limits to the certainty of choice as there are limits to the certainty of action. Science provides us with causes for nearly all actions of reality, but science can not provide a cause for the reality of human purpose and free will. It appears that Dennett believes accordingly...free will is something in which we simply believe.

[@DarkStar666]

@patrickcorliss I would agree that Dean isn't fully culpable, but neither should he be running around free. He needs therapy rather than criminal incarceration [although I would say most criminals fall into that category, note that I'm not at all suggesting we let dangerous people run around free or crimes go unpunished]. But hopefully some day we will have more resources so we can try to actually help people become better because it is CLEAR that punishment does not work.

[@gbiota1]

@acr08807 so, its possible many of the differences it could make may not yet be apparent, but for the time being it says something about who and what we are, and finding out whether or not is true is its own purpose. I would also say that it determines whether or not ethics is solely a matter of practicality, does "choice" have any novel meaning? Asking "what difference does the answer to x make?" is asking me to predict the future, but switching from candles to lightbulbs changed the world.

[@gbiota1]

So after watching this I tend to think Dennett is saying that, for all intents and purposes, we do not have free will (the daemon of laplace is in principle, not impossible) however acting as if we do is the only practical way of going about. I would hope to have someone address that, while consciousness undoubtedly arises as a matter of pure chemistry and physics (and can be turned off via those methods), could not "will" arise out of some similar and as of yet not understood process?

[@DarkStar666]

@patrickcorliss Most simulations would start with a different seed number each time so the results would play out differently. As you point out, it would be silly to run the exact same game each time so we can reasonably assume there is a Pseudo-Random function assisting in the decision making process (which is very common) in the chess program in question.

[@sjblakey314]

Is that John Searle in the audience at 0:19:42 ?

[@Kafei]

I listened to this lecture twice, and still wasn't convinced of Dennett's position of compatibilism. Dennett should read up on Michael Hoffman's ego death theory, and perhaps he should trigger the intense mystic altered state through the use of Terence McKenna-recommended doses of psychedelics, which produces a loose cognitive-association binding, which then produces an experience of being controlled by frozen block-universe determinism with a single, pre-existing, ever-existing future.

[@davidmajor1508]

Sakon - The fact that one has to warp ones mind with drugs to experience alleged "determinism" reveals how bankrupt and meanless and useless the concpet truly is.

[@Quinzio]

The audio is very low, I can't understand

[@andersemil]

It is considerably stronger than writing a single line in capital letters with three exclamation marks and typing errors. Please tell me what you think is weak about my argument, in an actual meaningful response, and don't bother me with these kind of nonrational outbursts. It only serves to make my point stronger when you reply like this, since your emotional response seems to have hit something which is vital to you.

[@RipTheJackR]

@TennysonXII agreed, and a true understanding of neuroscience mixed with a consequentialist thinking, i highly doubt would be that dystopic in general.

[@fjoo]

~"..we see that this was a great lecture because of all the questions.." Hm.. or perhaps it was a confusing lecture? ;] He skipped a few crucial parts, which Dennett sometimes does. Glad this is on youtube so people can watch it again.

[@gertrude1ful]

The free will Srila Prabhupada usually speaks of in response to questions of free will, come in the category of bound free will. He emphasises how we each have our minute independent. Once having chosen to turn our backs to the Lord, the curtain of delusion covers us all.

[@loucious22]

it's kinda funny to look at the faces of the people in the audience, some engaged into what he's saying, others falling asleep.

[@fjanoos]

Any decision must be informed by underlying values - e.g. to duck a brick requires that you value not getting your head blown off. Where do those values come from ? Some from evolution (genetic), some from culture, and some from our personal experiences. Do we at any point have a right to choose either of these ? Also, what has evitability got to do with free will ?

[@srikargottipati]

I really didn't get some of his point. I will assume I'm too stupid to get all his concepts. Will try to watch again and see some of the crux. Seems to be some thought provoking material :)

[@Quinzio]

I'm italian, but I really never hear "evitabile". Please tell Dennett.

[@ChalkiePerfect]

@Tommasugo Yes, you "produce" the future, and this is true regardless of whether the universe is deterministic. (If it is deterministic, then you were simply determined to "produce" the future, but your role in doing so is no less crucial.) The point is that you cannot change an even that has not yet happened. You can cause it to happen, or you can cause it not to happen, but neither of these constitutes a change.

[@100beps]

I'm shocked by how bad Dennett's arguments are about the 'evitability' of stuff! The point of determinism is that no matter if you duck the brick or not, whatever you do was inevitable in the sense that nothing else could have happened.

[@rmeddy]

I acknowledge with Free Will because of the Talebian Stochasticy we live in.

[@jeromyrutter]

as children, our fates are our parents design. as adults, we're thrusted into freewill, based upon our childhood experiences. but freud showed we can challenge our parents decisions. to not do so is a cop-out really. we are, then, expressions of the mixture of our parents (only altered by experience after adulthood is attained, perhaps not at all) and not truly ourselves. real: use your senses, not definitions. truth is in definitions. a real truth: ask hume or locke, darwin or dawkins.

[@cuntofgod]

Where's the part where he explains how we have free will?

[@24foxstar]

Absolutely! He says nothing other than our complexity creates the illusion of free will. We seem to make choices but we were always going to make any particular choice because our brains (just like computers) say 'do X' if 'Y happens' its just that there's a huge amount of 'X's and 'Y's and so completely unpredictable for us in the normal run of life and probably to maths as well cos its just too complex Are you not surprised to seem him arguing this?!! He normally gives such good lectures.

[@HeyManWhereAmI]

He says a lot more than your simplification. It’s been 13 yrs. Rewatch.

[@SAMagic]

They're not idiots, or even people, they're automated bots that have been set to spam away.

[@hazzer777]

Why did the camera man focus on the woman falling asleep? Duh! 37:35

[@oxygen6371]

Belief in free will is akin to religious beliefs, since neither complies with the laws of the physical world.

[@jhusseyIII]

Right, it just makes it "effectively" random. I still disagree with Dennet's larger points, however, mostly because he seems to just talk around the issue. We certainly make "choices" and "decisions" to avoid predicted eventualities, but the fact that these actions are always in response to initial inputs makes them inherently "unfree". (continued)

[@theotherview1716]

According to Denett who is the person acting on the free will? Does he believe in some type of "self or "ego?" Is this located somewhere physical?

[@Californiansurfer]

❤❤ Determinsm wins there is no free will.

[@quist128]

0:37:35 riveting...

[@JeremyMcCandlish]

at 26:20 and anticipating this answer: "I can create a future other than the one expected from me." -->*expected by whom*? by myself? by society? by the expectations humanity has made for itself, which are not necessarily always in line with (and are usually less limited than) society's expectations? Seems like each of these has its place... by laplace's demon? Who cares? e: hooray I'm right e2: just a note that while I like "anticipation" or "expectation" as words, there is another synonym, which is "nature" (as in "it's in my nature to notice strong odors, but I can ignore them to get the job done.")

[@SirGoP]

@eulercircles The way I see it is: Unless it's found that feedback from our brain somehow directly affects the input of the world, that is how, where and when a neuron fires at the most basic level of our brain, I can't really see that free will is anything more than an illusion. Otherwise, if reality presents itself in exactly one way, we're forced to react exactly one way to it. It's just that our reaction is so encrypted we can't find the cause yet. We're nothing but actors with a script.

[@lanamal]

Dear Lord I just heard him say irregardless.

[@thetada]

Oh my god, how many people falling asleep in this lecture? I've seen three and I'm only just past halfway =)

[@loniousmonk]

see the girl at 37:36. was this video edited by someone at edinburgh? it's such a blatant close-up of her dozing, it hardly seems it could be accidental. it's kind of an insult to the speaker that--apparently by neglect-- they would upload his talk in a form that magnifies whatever boredom was occurring in the audience.

[@jeromyrutter]

i go to the mall. i choose to. you go to the mall, you choose to. we meet at the same time, that is chance. random encounters, but paradoxically, chosen and intended. they give us a chance to talk about a davinci code we are both looking at. i can talk to you or blow you off, and vice versa. there isn't just 1 choice here, but 2 identical choices, and those CHOICES will DETERMINE whether we head down a new path together or return to our separate lives. every human co-interaction is like this.

[@haribharadwaj1]

Notice that with the example of the Chess Programs and the one good move that A makes. He said program B 'Couldve' made the 'right' move, but notice that he mentions a RANDOM Num generator didn't help. I think thats where lies the main question.Is there a true non deterministic RANDOM NUMBER generator in real world? Or is it that the incredible complexity in reality creates a Pseudo-Random number generator 'effect' that *leads* to an illusion of Free Will & agents that have evolved to avoid?

[@sleepyeyeguy]

@Tenebrous76 If all things are causally related to events that preceded them, then all things are inevitably to follow the things that cause them... I see the contradiction too... and apparently Merriam-Webster does as well.

[@abcde_fz]

What??? 33:00 "There's no word which is just the opposite of "avoid"." This statement must mean that Dennett has an unusual and (in my opinion) inaccurate definition of the word "avoid". Here are a few perfectly acceptable antonyms: "pursue", "seek", "approach", "search", "desire"...

[@TomfromExeter]

I think Dennett feels he has to present in a 'heavyweight' intellectual manner as this is a foreign university talk, which is a shame because he can be a far more entertaining and less opaque speaker - see his stuff for TED for example. It's still a fascinating lecture.

[@DarkStar666]

@patrickcorliss Yes, but that is nonlinear dynamics, it is still deterministic - just sensitive to initial conditions. I think Dennett is just trying to argue that because we make choices, even though all the parts are deterministic, not all things are inevitable (for a definition of inevitable which only implies unavoidability). And if not all things are inevitable then the evitable parts are expressions of "free will". I think it's a bit circular and sketchy on several points :) but fun

[@DaniboyBR2]

Einstein was right, he worded his thoughts in a way that conceals his message, or maybe they modified his words, determinism in the sense Einstein believed doesn't mean we can predict future events, but that events will occur in one manner, and we are just matter reacting with the rest of the universe.

[@stephenchase8676]

To be free, we need the ability to do otherwise. So what would that look like? Well I suppose it would look like me doing other than what I do. In that context, I definitely don't want freedom, because that's meaningless in a world moving forward in time. Hard determinism apparently tries (too hard) to avoid describing our experience. We (seemingly) make choices all day long, but it's not us. Well that just passes the buck. Something IS making choices and getting a predictable outcome.

[@sleepyeyeguy]

@Tenebrous76 No... mutually exclusive outcomes cannot exist simultaneously. They either are or they are not (by the way.. the idea of something non-existent is a construct of the mind and exists solely in the processes of the mind)

[@djguestspeaker]

turn on transcribe audio it is hilarious!

[@TheDavid2222]

@franco121760 This world needs more people like you.

[@UEffingC]

0:37:35

[@SupremeMage56]

1:18:30

[@hugesinker]

No, I doubt it is possible.. but the idea of LaPlace's demon is to assume that somehow it is and then consider what this would mean. It is a bit like assuming someone is taller than themselves, isn't it. :)

[@Jackies1979]

do you "avoid" (the truth of) other's predictions in the same way a non-human machine avoids check-mate situations? I would clearly say no. A chess playing program produces moves that exclude chess mate situations. It usually makes no predictions about the other player at all...

[@DarkStar666]

@patrickcorliss I agree that he didn't really talk about that. I do like to think that consciousness has some more interesting explanation that we haven't discovered yet. But I don't think we're agents of free will in an otherwise deterministic universe. I guess the verdict is still out, but it's not looking good for free will these days.

[@Lawh]

Free will? No one says it is easy to predict what one will do next, no one said predicting events was easy, or in a sense even possible due to so many factors making a difference. But after an event one can look back on the event and find the causes which lead to the point one is investigating.

[@Jackies1979]

the complexity would not have been what I had in mind or what would have done the job for me or my argument.... you can have a pretty simple representation of a belief of mine about what you will do... you understand that belief and do something else... this is the whole trick behind the free will issues and the "interesting" things you talk about above... "conditions as they precisely were", "cosmic desert", kantian noumena etc...

[@vjwebster]

Antonym of avoid: meet

[@vjwebster]

Totally soporific also.