Steven Pinker: On Free Will

Steven Pinker: On Free Will | Big Think

Рет қаралды 424,670

13 жыл бұрын

Steven Pinker: On Free Wil
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free will exists, but by no means is it a miracle.We use "free will" to describe the more complex processes by which behavior is selected in the brain. These neurological steps taken to make decisions respect all laws of physics."Free will wouldn't be worth having or extolling, in moral discussions, if it didn't respond to expectations of reward, punishment, praise, blame," Pinker says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PINKER:
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and his PhD from Harvard. Currently Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard, he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, his teaching, and his nine books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
STEVEN PINKER: I do believe that there is such a thing as free will but by that I do not mean that there is some process that defies the laws of physical cause and effect. As my colleague Joshua Greene once put it, it is not the case that every time you make a decision a miracle occurs. So I don't believe that. I believe that decisions are made by neurophysiological processes in the brain that respect all the laws of physics. On the other hand it is true that when I decide what to say next when I pick an item from a menu for dinner it's not the same as when the doctor hits my kneecap with a hammer and my knee jerks. It's just a different physiological process and one of them we use the word free will to characterize the more deliberative, slower, more complex process by which behavior is selected in the brain.
That process involves the aggregation of many diverse kinds of information - our memory, our goals, our current environment, our expectation of how other people will judge that action. Those are all information streams that affect that process. It's not completely predictable in that there may be random or chaotic or nonlinear effects that mean that even if you put the same person in the same circumstance multiple times they won't make the same choice every time. Identical twins who have almost identical upbringings, put them in the same chair, face them with the same choices. They may choose differently. Again, that's not a miracle. That doesn't mean that there is some ghost in the machine that is somehow pushing the neural impulses around. But it just means that the brain like other complex systems is subject to some degree of unpredictability. At the same time free will wouldn't be worth having and certainly wouldn't' be worth extolling in world discussions if it didn't respond to expectations of reward, punishment, praise, blame.
When we say that someone - we're punishing or rewarding someone based on what they chose to do we do that in the hope that that person and other people who hear about what happens will factor in how their choices will be treated by others and therefore there'll be more likely to do good things and less likely to do bad things in the expectation that if they choose beneficial actions better things will happen to them. So paradoxically one of the reasons that we want free will to exist is that it be determined by the consequences of those choices. And on average it does. People do obey the laws more often than not. They do things that curry favor more often than they bring proprium on their heads but not with 100 percent predictability. So that process is what we call free will. It's different from many of the more reflexive and predictable behaviors that we can admit but it does not involve a miracle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW BIG THINK:
📰BigThink.com: bigth.ink
🧔Facebook: bigth.ink/facebook
🐦Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter
📸Instagram: bigth.ink/Instragram
📹KZbin: bigth.ink/youtube
✉ E-mail: info@bigthink.com

Пікірлер: 2 400

@bigthink 4 жыл бұрын

Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

@aldukss 9 жыл бұрын

I think Steven Pinker hits the nail here- the existence of free will depends on it's definition. People argue a lot about it, but don't agree about definition first, and that leads to misunderstandings.

@thesmirker2909 8 жыл бұрын

+aldukss Thumb up!

@Flashing8Lights 8 жыл бұрын

Wish I could love this comment. Idk why people aren't realizing this

@Spiderweb127 8 жыл бұрын

+robert bryant Absolutely. It seems pretty obvious to me that this whole debate is about the definition of free will and not if we actually have it or not.

@pravinda333 8 жыл бұрын

+aldukss The problems is it can't be defined, because there's no such thing as free will to define in the first place. It's impossible to define 'the meaning of life' in some cosmic sense, because there is no such thing. Just think about the next thought that comes to your mind. Do you know where it came from? Did you know that it was gonna pop up in your consciousness before it popped up? How can anyone claim to have free will when they are only aware of what's within conscious space?

@thesmirker2909 8 жыл бұрын

David Sebastian It seems like you equate free will with psychic ability.

@jessegandy4510 6 жыл бұрын

I appreciate how non-smug he is. He does 'know it all' when it comes to the brain, but hes not arrogant about it.

@PorterNetwork 3 жыл бұрын

Humility like this is something that if everyone had, it would be the first step to a greater society

@arpitthakur45 3 жыл бұрын

@@PorterNetwork well i have one question...why is it a problem if person knows stuff and says like it...i have seen that if a person is sure about that there not knowing something that is always seen as humility...and if they are sure or atleast have a strong idea of knowing something the are arrogant...so i can be sure about my not knowing something and not about my knowing something...because i have to wear a facade of humility so others dont get jealous...or dont call me arrogant...people are always there to put someone down for there arrogance...but not pick them up if they are doubtful...and i think the other side might make you defensive...and if he says he does not something he still knows that he doesnt know something...so isnt that arrogant...?

@Vence. 2 жыл бұрын

@@arpitthakur45 Humility or more preferably not being smug when you speak let your message be delivered, absorbed, and adapted without presumptuously thinking you've figured it all out, and without your listener growing contempt for you/the concepts you teach thus not being efficiently taught.

@N0Xa880iUL 2 жыл бұрын

@@arpitthakur45 It's pure psychology. People don't like it, that's all.

@christianvennemann9008 9 жыл бұрын

This man's voice is so hypnotic.

@Y2JLionHeart 6 жыл бұрын

C. Venom Sounds a bit like Willem Dafoe.

@christianvennemann9008 5 жыл бұрын

@@Y2JLionHeart True.

@AsgersWeb 2 жыл бұрын

@@Y2JLionHeart EXACTLY!

@RaveOn-zg6jy 8 жыл бұрын

Pinker is arguing, I think, in favor of what might be described as "practical free will," something vastly different from the classic "ghost in the machine" version popularized during the Middle Ages. Practical free will looks and subjectively feels so much like free will that the difference is of no real importance, except to those academics whose careers depend on making such fine grain distinctions. There's no OZ behind the curtain pulling our strings. Being a closed physical system, the brain conforms to the same immutable laws that govern the universe, which itself is a large closed physical system. Our behavior is driven by a long chain of antecedent causes. (Like that 80's song says, "One thing leads to another." ) But In the six million years or so since our direct ancestors climbed down from the trees, the human brain has grown into an ever more complex organ capable of weighing and analyzing vast quantities of information. Because of our unique capacity to model the universe -- largely through language -- we are capable of seeing possibilities that other less intelligent species can't, hence we have more apparent choices when "deciding" how to act. While we are conscious of the fact that we have choices, the exact reasons why we "choose" one action over another are often great unknown. (Why did I choose to use the phrase "great unknown instead of opting for "a mystery" in that last sentence.) Regardless, physical processes over which we have no real control drive brain function. What this means is "free will," is not absolute, but constrained by factors, including our innate intelligence, the culture we're born into, the manner in which our parents raised us, our level of education and so on. As I watched the video, I wondered about the role of neuroplasticity on decision making. In one example, Pinker talks about the choices one makes playing a game of chess. Learning and practice effectively change the physical composition of the brain. A person interested enough to learn more about the subtleties of playing chess will see possibilities that other less skilled players won't -- and his brain will be thus equipped to make better "choices" about what move to make in a given situation. In this sense, it seems to me that some people are more "free" to choose that others.

@harrynewton4786 4 жыл бұрын

Adding onto the last sentence, I would rather say more "freedom" in possibility, though we don't control that what that possibility ends up being.

@kallianpublico7517 3 жыл бұрын

The universe is a "...large closed physical system." ? That assertion makes so many assumptions as to be impertinent. The free will can exist then, in an open system? That is the implication isnt it?

@hobnob666 3 жыл бұрын

No one is more free to choose cause no one is free. The better word usage is more possible options to go through in the brain. We can’t control those options & even what we end up doing. If we could control this, our world wouldn’t be nearly as corrupt & would be able to provide scientific evidence for free will existing. It’s just an abstract idea that’s barren of evidence just like religion.

@justinbowen678 2 жыл бұрын

@@hobnob666 Everyone is equally as determined, like you said. We can't directly control the options that are available in our brain, but having more options does make us feel more free because it causes us to have less regret. The more information we have, the better the choices are that we make, leading to less regret. In a sense, being aware of more possibilities makes you freer from regret and suffering in the future. Freedom in the way they are using the word means the feeling of having all relevant information so they can make the best possible choices

@hobnob666 2 жыл бұрын

@@justinbowen678 Yeah but that’s not freedom. That’s the illusion of freedom. But you’re still being pushed by something.

@belsha 6 жыл бұрын

Really excellent explanation of the question of free will, in just over 2 minutes, couldn't be done better!

@MelFinehout 6 жыл бұрын

We have free will in the same sense that we experience love. Love is after all basically a nuero-cocktail dumped out in our brains. When you see your little daughter being super cute, that's just chemicals and brain processes directing you in a feeling triggered by evolution to ensure you'll care for the kid so your genes will survive. So, do you not love you're daughter? Of course you do. Love is a description of the EXPERIENCE of all those things. I think you have free will in exactly the same way. We experience the ability to choose, and this experience is real, insomuch as it IS something we experience. Yes, it's true we have various processes, etc etc. Like love etc. So, I think it's perfectly valid to talk about free will without the perpetual qualifying of it as non-existent. I think it's equally as valid to ignore the personal experience and sturdy it scientifically.

@s1nnl0s 4 жыл бұрын

the common definition of free will (which differs from your definition as an experience) is non-existent, so it is perfectly fine to do such statements. I think a reason to not define free will as an experience is that it wouldn't have any moral implications, while the denial of a free will in the usual definition does have a lot of implications.

@MelFinehout 4 жыл бұрын

@@s1nnl0s I can't agree that it lack moral implications. But, otherwise poi t taken.

@freandwhickquest 3 жыл бұрын

@@MelFinehout your comment is very similar to my understanding of the free will. I don't say that "decision making is an illusion". Because decision is not the matter itself! Decision making is an EVENT that arise from physical reactions inside the material brain. Decision is a physical event. But a real event.

@nopetellingnothing45 2 жыл бұрын

hm, that's quite an interesting way of thinking about it. Never had crossed my mind and explains quite some things and some attitudes coming from empirical neuroscientists or those rationally advocating the existence of free will.

@JohnWilliams-channel 2 жыл бұрын

I don't think of free will as an emotional experience. It is the product of positive feedback loops and the resultant chaos that makes us unpredictable. Neuroscientists have shown how many factors influence our decisions in statistically significant ways, but free will is about individuals, not statistics.

@verifymyageful 11 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Someone finally noticed.. I even used his analogy.. ya I fricken love his lectures and have read his book.. glad to come across someone else who knows of him.

@abeycee7427 2 жыл бұрын

he has written many books

@0UT3RL1M1T5 11 жыл бұрын

I love these videos. They give you a lot to think about, don't they?

@user-ll5pj1vj3c 8 жыл бұрын

this reminds me of the answers I get, when I ask; imagine that everything was free.

@VenomOXP 11 жыл бұрын

Perhaps the most lucid and accurate description I've heard about the illusion of freewill.

@greygoogone5174 8 жыл бұрын

One of my favorite authors.

@eatingtacos000 12 жыл бұрын

i love steven pinker, such a clear thinker and speaker. thanks for this interesting video

@Jshect 11 жыл бұрын

That is a great explanation of free will. You may also learn from the consequences from past behaviors that may subconsciously effect you're future behavior in a split second decision, without you even being aware of it. This is interesting I would love to read a good book on this because there are probably tons of examples that could go either way. I think it's like the nature nurture debate. It's usually a little of both. I think it's free will strongly influenced by genetics & other factors.

@iMaDeMoN2012 7 жыл бұрын

What the hell is a mental model and how do you construct one from first principles?

@joshbarnett8292 10 жыл бұрын

Peter Tse's recent book on the neural basis of free will makes the same point as Pinker here. He locates free will in imagination, where many possible courses of action can be played out and then selected among, based on internal criteria. It is interesting to see some neuroscientists like Pinker and Tse embrace both physicalism and this modest notion of free will. What religious people want is contracausal free will driven by a soul. Good to see that some neuroscientists reject that view as nonsense, without falling into the 'free will is an illusion' trap.

@antoinefdu 9 жыл бұрын

Why do people think that the input of a soul into our choices of actions would be an argument for free will? Can't we see the soul as an other determinist element? For example, does someone with a bad soul have the free will to make a good choice? And if he does, did he really have a bad soul in the first place?

@oolum 6 жыл бұрын

What makes you assume there is such a thing as a "bad" soul?

@smhaack63 5 жыл бұрын

The notion of soul is from religious doctrine. It is imagined a soul is the entity sitting at a control panel behind our eyes, pulling levers and pushing buttons that control us. There’s no evidence any suck thing exists. The person talking inside our heads is just us imagining we are talking to someone else.

@theshermantanker7043 5 жыл бұрын

Why does consciousness exist? In a determinist system and in physics there should be no consciousness possible, but here we are

@dariusnoname12 5 жыл бұрын

If by free will people mean that despite your genes, experience/knowledge you can make any choices then no, free will does not exist. If people mean free will is just to choose a or b or anything else then yes, free will exists.

@theshermantanker7043 5 жыл бұрын

I can make a choice where genetics and experience have little influence- What do you mean by influence from genetics and knowledge?

@FreightmareFTW 4 жыл бұрын

TheShermanTanker you make a choice based off a chemical reaction taking place in your head, and it is carried out by electrical signals. You think i can choose a or b freely, but its determined by the amounts of chemicals working in the brain. Free will is an illusion

@freandwhickquest 3 жыл бұрын

@@FreightmareFTW you sound like a hyper modernist, positivist, reductionist new atheist who denies moral and epistemological subjectivity, interntionality, positionality, spatiality, temporality and struggles of marginalized communities. Denial of free will just feed the white male status-quo by preventing social justice.

@hobnob666 3 жыл бұрын

@@freandwhickquest No it doesn’t do that, just because we don’t have free will, that doesn’t mean people support social injustice or even social justice. It just means we don’t freely choose to do anything. It’s influenced. That’s all he’s saying. Whether or not you believe social justice or injustice is right isn’t your free choice but is influenced by a ton of different variables. People like to think I can freely choose whatever I want when they don’t realize influences influence more influences which influence choices & the dominoes just keep falling as time progresses. Humans do things they feel will benefit their survival & escape pain if possible. And it happens to be social justice allows for a more secure system & promote an easier life which means we’ll support it. Unlike social injustice that does the opposite so we want to avoid it or change it. We know many unhappy people makes our lives a lot harder & could cause anarchy which threatens our life.

@freandwhickquest 3 жыл бұрын

@@hobnob666 thanks for your well informed response. I may think about this.

@EverdyingCreation 11 жыл бұрын

What was that video called?

@neo.616 7 жыл бұрын

collins mugodo wrote "Is there any chance I could ever get you back on topic?" ----- I didn't know we were on a topic. I simply thanked you for your unsolicited advice, advised you regarding your semi-literate grammar skills, and then thanked you for providing entertainment for rational people.

@markuzick 9 жыл бұрын

People have a will; and to call it "free will" should simply mean that they are able to exercise their will without too much interference from people or other causes that would be insurmountable obstacles to their doing so. "Free will" is completely deterministic; to define it as "undetermined will" is irrational; it's tantamount to saying that our will and our choices have no cause - that they are either random or the product of magic. Genetics and environment cannot hinder that which they make possible - they are the prerequisite of will; and will is the motor that drives action. A "free will" refers to how a person will act in circumstances where he's able to act; or otherwise would act if he were able to do so. There is no such thing as will that's divorced from who someone is - it would be very disturbing to see evidence of such a thing - it implies actions for which we cannot give account and for which we cannot be held responsible, driven by some supernatural entity that has usurped our own will; or, otherwise, random decisions - not a very uplifting concept for explaining behavior. Anyway, "random" is a pseudo-concept; it doesn't exist; and is used as a euphemism for "unpredictable".

@markuzick 9 жыл бұрын

+vomittie Your will doesn't "dictate" your will - it already is your will; people and their circumstances evolve, and so their wills evolve too; you cannot choose to change your behavior without cause - there must be some thought process or unconscious change of mental state, possibly stimulated by external circumstances and/or accumulated experience that we integrate into our perceptions, influencing our judgment.

@markuzick 9 жыл бұрын

+vomittie Everything that you choose has a cause - nothing is random. To call that slavery is to say that you are a slave to your own free will. If there were really such a thing as random chance, in what way would you find this random control of your will to be freedom? It would be the opposite of free will. The only way you could have acted differently than you chose to act would be to change something in the past: either circumstances or your mental state at the time of your choice, no matter how light of a consideration you gave to that choice; but time travel is nothing but a popular human fantasy/delusion that violates the law of causality; and such an ability to influence your past self is a very poor idea of free will.

@chastitywhiterose 9 жыл бұрын

+Mark Uzick You're right about the randomness as a false concept.

@joeljakob2520 9 жыл бұрын

+Mark Uzick I find the "Free Will" question extremely important in this day and age. Yet, many people seem to be confused as to what is really meant by "Free Will." Indeed, to talk about humans having "Free Will" is to deceive ourselves. I believe that the only way we can talk about "Free Will" is to drop the term 'free' and just keep the 'Will'. And I define 'Will' in the following way: A PARTICULAR STATE OF MIND THAT IS CONSCIOUS OF VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES OF ACTION. In other words, if someone asks me to choose any city in North America, my 'Will' is the state of mind that recognizes the various options that are arising in my brain (I.e New York, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Ottawa etc.) Then, I am compelled - through no FREE WILL of my own - to choose a particular city. The recognition of the action to choose Ottawa, let's say, can also be part of my "Will." Therefore, there is no use using the term "FREE" when talking about the state of mind that is observing the thoughts arising in the brain and the subsequent actions that are carried out because of these thoughts. This is how I define "WILL." Human beings have WILL and only WILL.

@chastitywhiterose 9 жыл бұрын

Joel Jakob Exactly right. The "free" part is the problematic part but no one can doubt the will.

@stutzman999 9 жыл бұрын

Even if my decision of what to have for dinner tonight is based on trillions of factors, isn't it just still a result of those factors and therefore determined? Unless true randomness is built in it seems there can't exist free will in a purely physical system. But even then, the decision would just be random rather than free. My (admittedly novice) take is that free will is an illusion.

@WillTalbot 9 жыл бұрын

Ryan Stutzman what do you mean by free? If free means free from causality then I would argue we do have free will based on Quantum indeterminacy. If free means free to choose then we have to recognize that choosing is a causal practice under scientific inquiry, therefore under this definition we do not have it. There is a third possibility that we have a soul (nonphysical consciousness) which selects actions in a manner which is both free from causality and free to choose but is outside of physical or natural explanation, I think this only makes sense rationally if "consciousness choosing" is THE fundamental process (first cause) and is a very deep topic but not for science.

@TeaParty1776 6 жыл бұрын

The universe is causal. Randomness is ignorance, eg, watching car repair without understanding why the mechanic does what he does. When you know what he does, you know cause.

@Thezuule1 11 жыл бұрын

(pt3) It can also be demonstrated by time dilation. Find an analog clock with a second hand and look at it quickly. You will realize that the very first second seems to hang before the second hand moves. It takes an extra bit of time. Try it. That's because your brain is combining together the moment of "now" and you're actually seeing about .1 seconds in the past. Notice when you blink you don't see it usually, or when you move your head your vision seems to skip immediately to it's new view?

@Adaerus 11 жыл бұрын

Steven doesn't say that Free Will doesn't exist, he says that there is no such thing as Free Will in the sense of a mysterious soul pushing some levers. He then makes the distinction between reactions determined by stimuli (true determinism in the classical mechanics sense) and behavior that has a probabilistic chance to occur (similar to quantum mechanics). This where the real distinction between the notion of Determinism and the notion of Free Will is.

@colourglue 9 жыл бұрын

To anyone ignorant enough to assume that one uses free will to decide not to believe in free will, I will tell you why you are wrong. I don't choose to disregard the idea of free will. The idea simply is not compatible with what I have observed in the real world. The idea of deciding something independent of influence, is, to me, not even remotely possible. I did not choose to be born, did not choose to be male, did not choose to be white, did not choose to be north american, did not choose any aspect of my genetic coding, did not choose my parents, did not choose the time period of my birth, and did not choose to be even remotely conscious of the first 4 or so years of my life. I did not choose my favorite foods, my sexual preferences, my aesthetic tastes, or my interests. All of my internal functions happen without my consent. My mood changes based on factors I cannot predict. I become bored based on factors I can't even begin to understand. This pattern continues indefinitely, and, in case you haven't noticed, there is virtually no room for one to inject the idea of free will. All the above mentioned factors collectively make up my view of the world and dictate how I will react to new experiences. If you have not experienced something, you cannot assimilate it into your world view, thus your world view is limited entirely to what you have involuntarily experienced. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong, occasional naysayer.

@colourglue 9 жыл бұрын

***** Do you actually believe you are capable of choosing something without an influence or series of influences? How do you define choosing? And are you capable of choosing to believe something that is entirely inconsistent with your empirical observations?

@Spandex08 9 жыл бұрын

***** the evidence is right in front of your eyes... and yet you ignore it... where is this free will that you have? where is this power ? if you say that its in your brain - you immediately realize that the brain being a physical object governed by physical laws is either deterministic or indeterministic (random) - there is no room for free will at all

@onefodderunit 9 жыл бұрын

You have free will. You are a spirit animating a body. The life force in every living cell is not being created by matter. Your ideas feelings and decisions aren't matter, they are mind. Mind is energy, brain is matter. The Sun and the brain are lit from the outside. Physical reality is an electric hologram playing out within our energetic minds. Electrons and photons are electric. It's an Electric Universe. Space is infinite and so is energy. That's the secret we're not supposed to realize.

@Spandex08 9 жыл бұрын

***** not one thing of what you said you truly believe - because you can't confirm it - and in the end cognitive dissonance will take care of that irrational belief of yours

@onefodderunit 9 жыл бұрын

BlackPaw I know that only intelligence is a creative force. You cannot name another. Atheists believe that life was created by chance, that intelligence is being created by matter, and that matter is being spontaneously materialized from energy by chance. Where is your evidence that chance can cause the formation of electrons, atoms, and molecules? Chance is not causative. Evidence?

@EWKification 10 жыл бұрын

You don't need a "ghost in the machine" to have free will. You just need a conscious mind and a couple choices to pick from. Of course choosing which car to buy is a more sophisticated decision than whether or not to jerk your knee when it's hit with a small hammer. Derp! The difference is not just that it requires more of the physical brain, but that it takes place within consciousness! When we use reason and language to make decisions, they are neither the unavoidable consequence of causal events, nor do they well up from the unconscious unbidden. This should be obvious to sensible people who don't get so caught up in their rhetoric that they lose sight of the big picture.

@tarandeepsingh4621 5 жыл бұрын

I think the jerk the knee thing is basically just a reflex just like the sensation to throw away any ant that walks on your skin, but free will has to be free even though if it's calculated & studied properly, the example of choosing a car , which is your free will only, is determined by hundreds of thoughts each relating to one another - just like roots, & intentional & unintentional learning (big part) + past experiences/trauma Sorry but I'm not so good with explaining my thoughts

@Fullyautomagic 2 жыл бұрын

I think which car you choose is completely determined by how your genetics interacted with your environment to form your nervous system as it is at the time of the choice. I don’t see any freedom in it because your body and experiences were not under your control.

@pedraumbass 10 жыл бұрын

I see 2 problems with Piker's point: 1: if our mind is purely a machine operating by itself (i.e., something that can be represented by a Turing Machine), that doesn't rule out the fact that it can be nondeterministic in the sense that, at any point, decisions can be made randomly (could be the ghost, which is separated from all the material conditions, or an unpredictable physical process, I'd choose the second one btw). One could call these random decisions as a manifestation of free will (and won't be necessary a ghost, as nondeterminism exists on physics). 2: as far as I know, no scientist gave a definitive proof that our mind can be represented by a Turing Machine, so it's not possible to claim that it is deterministic in any sense.

@maxxxflynnn3501 9 жыл бұрын

Terrell Stormembrace That's false. The poster raised an excellent point. As Pinker clearly notes behavioralism does rely, heavily in fact, upon probabilistic outcomes. Stating, as you did, that you don't get to choose from the options is irrelevant: the options available, and the option selected are both probabilistic. Behavioralism has never been able to deal with randomness.

@chel3SEY 6 жыл бұрын

Classic Pinker--clear, lucid and convincing. He summarises the issue very succinctly and, I think, correctly. Nicely done, as usual.

@asegal4677 Жыл бұрын

Not exactly. He doesn't even define the problem which is where almost all of the conversation on this topic fails from the start.

@cruzan8183 9 жыл бұрын

I believe in determinism. My genetics and background including the home in which I grew up determined who I am today . My father lived his life through me in some ways. He purchased a microscope and various science kits for me. He fondly related to me how the lab in which he worked developed so and so. It is not a great surprise to anyone who knew my family that I ended up in science. I was programmed to want to study science. I could say that I wanted to be a physicist . I suspect that my aptitude would not allow that to happen. Certain factors trump our will . Some ex-cons really really don't want to return to prison, but guess what? My examples may seem trite but it is as clear as day to me that free will doesn't exist. I see members of the clergy . We see scandal after scandal . Believers interpret this as the ,"evil doers ," not being truly converted. Could it be that these individuals are simply doing what they are motivated to do.

@yuothineyesasian 9 жыл бұрын

Cruzan You would then have to admit that your recognition of this fact (determinism) changes the game in some sense. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the idea of determinism once incorporated into the mental structure has a massive effect on the decisions one makes. I guess I could liken it to ascending to a higher plane. So that once one recognizes determinism, they are more in control of their lives than they have ever been before.

@sssssssev 9 жыл бұрын

YouthInEyesAsian Of course your beliefs and worldview affects your life. But accepting determinism doesn't mean you know what will happen. Just that you believe that what will happen, will happen. How much of a blow that is to anyone's life and decision making is a personal matter.

@WalterLiddy 9 жыл бұрын

Cruzan Haha! Another pretty funny case. Free will doesn't exist because you've never made a decision for yourself? Lots of people are encouraged by their parents to pursue a route that they completely eschew. Even people who deny free will rarely oversimplify to this extent.

@TeaParty1776 6 жыл бұрын

> My genetics and background including the home in which I grew up determined who I am today . Your cowardly evasion of your choices is noted.

@nanashi7779 Жыл бұрын

What utter bs

@cperez1000 9 жыл бұрын

Wow. It's amazing how many people here think they can just say some dumb shit and think they do better than the philosophers. It's the BIG THINK channel people, try harder!

@SMetrical 9 жыл бұрын

I guess you can find them everywhere. You can thank the vile armies of pseudoscience, superstition and a general lack of critical thinking.

@albadona9300 9 жыл бұрын

Carlos Pérez Pal, even great philosophers can't agree on this issue.

@cperez1000 9 жыл бұрын

Alba Dona who said they did? That's the point.

@WalterLiddy 9 жыл бұрын

Alba Dona That's the point. So many people post their definitive view on the subject as though they have THE answer, worked out in five minutes without reference to any research, thus proving the philosophers who spend their careers on this wrong. It's typical. Internet = dumping ground for everyone's worthless opinion, but in some cases it's so obvious that their opinions aren't grounded in any knowledge that it becomes odious.

@aarOuOn 9 жыл бұрын

Carlos Pérez Ironically, what you just said is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Just because they have a degree in philosophy, doesn't make them any less wrong.

@andrews902 7 жыл бұрын

In my humble opinion, and please forgive my errors in grammar and layman reasoning but I believe that what Steven was trying to communicate here is that we don't have pure free will in the truest sense of the term but we aren't puppets on strings either. Rather we have something that I would like to call " Conditional free will " or free will but based on certain conditions. For instance do people with down syndrome or intelligence quotients less than 80 have "free will"? Or what about when we are 2 years old or 7 years old? And what about people who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol and do stupid things that are out of their character and what about psychopaths who begin displaying psychopathic traits before they turn 5? Do some of our closest relatives like chimpazees have free will even though our dna differs by like less than 1 percent only? All of these examples in my opinion demonstrate that the human brain is an amazing yet still complicated and fragile thing, alot of people may say well we either have unconditional free will or we don't have free will at all but the truth is that our free will is clearly conditional and is at times based on things that are completely out of our control, the short and sweet answer is that we have free will or some version of it but only to a point, only to a certain extent because we are neither God nor robots.

@channingjulien 11 жыл бұрын

It has been shown that the experiencing self (that is, the part of the brain that is actively engaging in an experience) has a capacity of around 3 seconds. What this means is that after that 3 seconds, that instance of experience becomes a part of the remembering self, and your knowledge of it relies solely on nostalgia. So while a memory may seem to validate or confirm something happening, the margin of error with regard to what actually happened is exceptionally large.

@Volatile-Tortoise 11 жыл бұрын

A very gentle, tactful way of explaining to people that they don't have free will.

@joemahony4198 Жыл бұрын

I was under the impression that Pinker was arguing against the existence of a soul?

@joeyartone9378 Жыл бұрын

@@joemahony4198 Not having free will would imply that there isn't a soul. In this case at least

@tajzikria5307 Жыл бұрын

Dumbest explanation I have heard!

@neo.616 8 жыл бұрын

flerper derper wrote "Free will does not exist." Gee, thanks for the assertion. I guess we can all just go home now.

@kevinmm20 8 жыл бұрын

+neo theskepticarena It's pretty obvious if you pay attention to your mind..

@neo.616 8 жыл бұрын

+kmm wrote "It's pretty obvious" Another fantastic argument! Boy, you Determinists sure are tough with all your assertions and common sense and everything. Too bad not one of you ever produces any evidence.

@kevinmm20 8 жыл бұрын

neo theskepticarena "Another fantastic argument!" Not really. I'm just saying to pay attention. Every thought and feeling merely pops into consciousness. Every reaction merely arises. You did not get to inspect and author what made those thoughts and reactions came into being. You can't be aware of a thought before you think it, it simply arises. Also, have you heard of the Libet experiments?

@neo.616 8 жыл бұрын

+kmm click newest comments

@zyo2502 8 жыл бұрын

On what bases do u discard the possibility of a ghost in the machine?

@ImperiumTrooper 10 жыл бұрын

I believe that there are 3 types of choices and actions that we take: 1) Autonomous: without involving any form of thought, consciousness, choice, or desire. These are strictly neural actions that are made by our central nervous system and not "YOU", or however you choose to define what the conscious and sentient "YOU" is, or who you are. You don't need to think or choose, or decide, or even WANT to know how or when to breathe, command your heartbeat, other nervous/electrical/chemical reactions, reflexes, when you feel pain, expand/contract pupils, and so on. 2) Subconscious actions/reactions: These are choices that YOU, or your consciousness makes without needing to choose them, or why you choose them. You subconsciously just do it, without thinking about it, or choosing to think about it. But this doesn't mean YOU aren't in control, because it is YOU, just a less aware and more instinctive you. Your subconscious influences all conscious thoughts, desires, decisions, actions, concentration, focus, but is not the determinant factors. You have no control of your subconscious, as it is determined to be what it is by a culmination of factors, such as biological physiology, structures, hormones, synaptic connects, and is shaped by life, environment, experiences, memories, teaching, and morality. This is the desirous infant in you that comes up with your thoughts, desires, and fears... some are instinct, some are inherent, and some are not. It's mysterious, but very important, and Freud knew this. That's why he was obsessed with understanding it. This subconscious/unconscious mind is only half of who YOU are. This is where your sudden thoughts and feelings comes from, be them rational or not. This is where your dreams are formed, hypothetical and fantasy or fictional scenarios PLAYED with by this childish or animalistic part of your mind. It can be conditioned, trained, programmed, and indoctrinated not only for evolutionary survival reasons by your experiences, needs, fears, desires, environment, habits, and even your conscious mind. You don't have full discretion over this part of your mind, and have little to do with choosing how it works. I don't think we're that intelligent yet, but some day, may evolve to be. It has a lot to do with WHY you do what you do, and why you are who you are, and INFLUENCES the choices you make, but doesn't ultimately control them as the master. YOU DO, your conscious mind. HOWEVER, it does make decisions for you when you are not actively or consciously in controlled, or inhibited by certain agents, such as alcohol, truth serum, sleepiness, etc. You have many memories here that you cannot, and will never be able to access or re-experience, sometimes for your own protection, or not. Some reasons known, others not. Some reasons are that you were not fully aware, awake, sober, or influenced, and thus the synapses weren't strong enough between the conscious mind and unconscious, so they are isolated and confined to the unconscious. The subconscious mind is where your habits exist, and why you do things without always realize you were doing them, or actively choose to do them (even though you initially felt as though you were before you thought about it.) Many of the little, petty, trivial, decisions that you always make like when to scratch, adjust your balls, tap your pencil, habits, and perform many external bodily functions is also controlled here. It's especially active when your consciousness multitasks, wherever your focus is more on, is where the subconscious kicks in. You would be overwhelmed if you had to think about EVERYTHING you're doing. I believe everything a baby does before the age of two is formed here, and no baby has any free will, at all. This part, i think, may not entirely be completely free. But don't freak out, it's YOU, just not ENTIRELY the actively conscious you. You're still under your own control, and all decisions you make are made with the consent of your conscious mind, confined by your personal beliefs, morals, limitations, reasonable desires, intentions, and so on. So you wouldn't find yourself doing something that you didn't want to do, or plan to do, or allowed yourself to do, or is against your morals, even if part of you may have wanted to do it. It's complicated and may require thinking about, but it'll make sense with deep thought. 3) Conscious mind: This is where your general will exists, your conscious and intentional thoughts formulate, your immediate awareness of your thoughts, actions, and environment, as well as other external factors are here. This is where YOU learn, and discover yourself, as well as actively and intentional choose to do things. It is separate from the unconscious. Here, you can focus on particular things, physical or abstract, make careful decisions, etc. It is under the ILLUSION that EVERYTHING you do is controlled here, when SOME of it is not. HOWEVER everything you do can be influenced here. So, does free will exist? The short answer is yes. But not in the unconscious or subconscious mind. Your free will and ability to think for yourself and make conscious decisions is here. It is NOT determinate. This is where you decide what you are going to do today, what rules you wish to follow, how to execute a math problem, and when you are actively engaged in an activity that you are actively THINKING about, where your religious, philosophical political ideals are, where you can immediately access memories, who you want to marry, if you want to marry, what college you wish to apply for, and many crucial decisions that require attention and focus. The unconscious has no discretion here, while it's influence is present. But the same goes for the unconscious mind, it is influenced by the conscious mind. But subconscious thoughts/actions require the consent of the conscious mind, unless there are chemical inhibitors, like drugs. So yes, we have free will over our daily choices, but not FULLY over our petty choices, and now how philosophers and religious teachings always dictate. YES, you ARE YOU, and not simply chemicals and electrical signals do things for you, but you can decide how these electrical signals and chemicals work, even though your brain is material matter. And yes, criminals should be punished and are to blame, even though some can be rehabilitated. Some psychopaths cannot. But others just choose to be evil, not because they're sick, but because they simply want to be, and there is no overthinking it. There's still much to learn as much is unknown, but it's very deep and complicated.

@DyslexicTurtle 8 жыл бұрын

The vast complexity of the brain, and human inability to weigh all variables to predict behavior, does not dismiss that these are still very physical processes that rely on the fundamental principles of the laws of physics. Free will does not exist.

@penguinvader7057 8 жыл бұрын

It depends on what you define as "free will". In a similar way that there are no processes that are truly random, you could also say that because everything happening in peoples' brains is going to happen in one specific way, dictated by the laws of physics, there is no such thing as free will. But just like how you can say that a dice roll is random because there are too many variables to consider in such a short amount of time, making an accurate prediction borderline impossible, you can also say that because the brain is such a complex organ, you have "free will", because you can't predict what it's going to do, therefore you can say that it's making decisions on its own. Of course, what most people would call "free will" doesn't exisit, but this version is close enough that it can be defined as free will.

@DyslexicTurtle 8 жыл бұрын

Penguinvader Interesting. Thank you for the perspective.

@luckyyuri 8 жыл бұрын

+Penguinvader good points of view from both. your comment in particular, reminds me of the way seth lloyd goes around advocating for "free will" on the basis that "behaviour cannot be predicted", which annoys me very much. in first place, as you say, the concept is so vast and encompassing and differs so much on cultural views that it cannot be pinned down and proved. nonetheless it's common sense, if you have basic scientific knowledge, that a finite system cannot be "sufficient" by itself, also we are clearly not free when it comes to the most important thing of all: "our identity". i didn't get to choose my character; and how could i? and if you ask me now how i want myself to be... it's 100 times more funny, brave, to have greater memory recall, greater working memory capacity, etc. but i don't decide who's making these wishes in the first place. maybe i should have wished for greater compassion, power of contemplating nature, acceptance for bad situations. so i'm like a toy who finds itself already made, with all inner workings put in place. and if there are a few ways i can change myself, the decision is made by the environment (i see a guru that says we should be in so and so manner; i see movie heroes; magazine covers); and all i can do is use those preexistent mechanical pathways to make the change with.

@neo.616 8 жыл бұрын

+flerper derper click newest comments

@noahsawyer1241 8 жыл бұрын

+flerper derper Please explain to me that you had no choice in clicking on this video.

@JohnGrove310 8 жыл бұрын

Pinker is awesome

@dannijt69 10 жыл бұрын

The problem with the scientific deterministic account is it is asking me to appeal to empirical notions of cause and effect which we are supposed to then overrule our direct experience of feeling like we have free will. I don't understand why an appeal to experience as causation is supposed to be more compelling than an appeal to our direct experience in feeling free.

@GODTHESOOTHSAYER1 11 жыл бұрын

What a great articulation by a great thinker.

@taramccarthy6242 8 жыл бұрын

Even if we had a soul, that soul would be at the whims of cause and effect, and therefore would not have free will either - so that's kinda irrelevant. Same applies to a god.

@peanutgallery7753 8 жыл бұрын

+Think Vegan I would agree with you, all decisions are made at the mercy of material options you have and informed by your own mental tendencies (which are, at the neuro-chemical level, in themselves material). The soul to me is not an active agent. The soul is just that perceiving thing -- not the senses or the brain, but your the experience of life itself.

@oolum 6 жыл бұрын

Tara: Why would you assume that the soul would be at the whims of cause and effect? It has been my experience that the astral body, which is similar to the soul, is outside of space and time and the Laws of this Universe do not apply.

@oolum 6 жыл бұрын

Amount of Something: There billions of people who believe the exact opposite of what you just wrote. If you believe in reincarnation, as I and billions of others, even Jesus, believe, then we of course get to choose what sex, race, IQ, disabilities, parents, country, etc. that we are born to, for the purpose of the potential opportunities for growth of the soul and the ability to experience what others have experienced who we may have harmed in a previous life, thereby burning off a karmic debt. If you believe that life has a purpose, there can be no other reason. And free will would exist even if that were not the case. I guess some people just don't have the ability to think deeply enough to break it down to the finer point of where true responsibility lies.

@oolum 6 жыл бұрын

Amount: The "belief" system I was referring to is called Buddhism. THAT particular "religion" more accurately a spiritual system, involves people who spend 1000's of hours in meditation which can take them to points of awareness that YOU have never come close to. There are people who have had out-of-body experiences,1000's of people, from different religious backgrounds, who have had near death experiences that report much of the same information, there is documented "scientific" information on this. This spiritual system has nothing to do with breeding. Who are you? Where did you come up with this crap? You are a fool and it sounds like you are working for the Globalists who have done everything they can think of to depopulate the planet and specifically America and to prevent "breeding" by causing the sterilization of women and men. The average sperm count in the US is down to 45%. Why do you think there are so many fertility clinics making a fortune here? With vaccines laced with AIDS, Cancer, and Hepatitis, etc, and then you have so many other ways in which they are slow killing the population from cradle to grave, that you don't have to worry about over population. Overpopulation is now a MYTH created by the Globalists because it suits their purposes. Of course, the ONE person who should not "breed" is you, because we don't need you populating our world with such ridiculous rhetoric. Of course, people like you always find a way to sell our their fellow man. And it is spelled fairytales not "tails."

@oolum 6 жыл бұрын

Amount: The very fact that yours is a "highlighted" reply shows exactly who is behind this Big Think and this video. The Left and the Globalists are desperate to destroy America and bring it to its knees so they can usher in the NWO and people like you are sell outs betraying your own kind, either knowingly or not, you are still a fool.

@Tomn8er 8 жыл бұрын

This debate is pointless. Why? Because even if we don't have free will, the illusion of free will is so powerful that for all intents and purposes, we do. It's like asking if other people are conscious and can think and feel the same way I do. Even if everybody else is a thoughtless, emotionless zombie or robot or we're living in the matrix, the illusion is so powerful and pervasive that from my perspective, for all intents and purposes, they do. Therefore the only sane way to live is to believe that other people are conscious and that we do have free will. Which everybody basically does anyway by default. It's only the mentally deranged or philosophers with way too much time on their hands that get worked up over existential problems like this.

@joerobson6800 8 жыл бұрын

+bonzihunter But if we all accepted free will doesn't exist wouldn't it be easier to forgive people? Would that not be an irrefutable argument against the death penalty? The absence of free will strips away pride from people, and when pride is gone, what is there for people to get angry about?

@Tomn8er 8 жыл бұрын

Bobby Bobbinson no because to truly believe we don't have free will u have to be something of a solipsist. Like I said, the illusion (if that's what it is) of free will is so powerful we have to behave as if it's real in order to live as sane and socially functional human beings.

@joerobson6800 8 жыл бұрын

+bonzihunter Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not thinking about the absence of free will every second of the day, I still buy into the illusion. It just changes the way I treat people - I guess I'd compare it to like characters in a book, I can still dislike a character, but I can't blame them for how they were written - if that makes sense?

@Tomn8er 8 жыл бұрын

Bobby Bobbinson that could potentially even be a good thing if it helps you forgive people. I mean how can blame anyone or hold them at fault if u think everything is predetermined?

@joerobson6800 8 жыл бұрын

+bonzihunter exactly! It saves a lot of time for me that I would have wasted on being angry or annoyed at trivial things. The book analogy is the best for me - the pages are already filled, and I keep turning to see what's written.

@TheGrubbsey 11 жыл бұрын

What is your definition of "free will" for the purpose of determining whether or not it truly exists? In making the left or right turn decision, how would it be done in a "free will" fashion? Even the concept of "consciousness" isn't well understood, so how can you define "free will" in those terms and hope to arrive at its nature?

@ATABOFACID 11 жыл бұрын

Well said!

@raz0rcarich99 8 жыл бұрын

CARROTS! You now briefly thought about carrots for a second. You didn't choose to think about carrots, or atleast you didn't know that you were going to read the word "carrot" before shifting your focus to this comment, but yes, you thought about carrots. Did you choose that thought? Nope. I have now just simply planted a thought in your mind. Now, if you accept that thoughts spontaneously arise into consciousness without your consent, then how can you claim to have free will?

@neo.616 8 жыл бұрын

+Carl-Richard Løberg That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life. And everyone in the world who was exposed to it is far worse off for having read it.

@raz0rcarich99 8 жыл бұрын

neo theskepticarena Why not debunk my claim instead of looking like an idiot yourself?

@neo.616 8 жыл бұрын

+Carl-Richard Løberg wrote "Why not debunk my claim instead of looking like an idiot yourself?" Beautiful display of the logical fallacy "Switching the Burden of Proof." It's not my duty to debunk your pseudoscientific bullshit. It is your duty to support your claims. If you have evidence, now would be a good time for you to present it. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (Sports Fans: wake me when he returns)

@raz0rcarich99 8 жыл бұрын

neo theskepticarena But if you so adamantly refuse to debunk such a ridiculus claim, then why engage in the conversation at all?

@neo.616 8 жыл бұрын

+Carl-Richard Løberg click newest comments

@joestar6194 5 жыл бұрын

In other words, he doesn't know

@truerealrationalist 3 жыл бұрын

P1) We have a will (wants/desires). P2) Our wants and desires are formed by external stimuli (prior causes). C) Causality is required for a will (of any kind) to exist. Therein lies the problem with applying acausality as a prerequisite for the existence of _free_ will; it entails the commision of the logical fallacy of asking too much, as doing so necessarily negates the possibility of the existence of _any_ will.

@PotentialThall 11 жыл бұрын

Also what i mean about thoughts and the universe is that,imagine this,nothing is around you in the entire universe. you're surrounded by nothing since the begining of time. Essentially you would have no thought what so ever. my point being you need the universe around you to have thoughts, ergo you need subjects and objects to ponder on,which is why thoughts aren't free will, michio was saying it's impossible to accurately predict what you're going to do next even given your entire past.

@xolclint 10 жыл бұрын

God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free

@DainnX 10 жыл бұрын

God + free will don't go together, truely sorry, just look at the people following the Bible, if they actually had morals and thought for themselves, they would criticize what they read instead of following it blindly... God and his books are the biggest irony of free will to this date.

@xolclint 10 жыл бұрын

You are absolutely right in your observation That religious people blindly follow the bible & don't think for themselves. They mouth the same rhetoric and cliches that the pastors teach them to believe. You're wrong when it comes to free will though, truly sorry.

@Lazylikemysnake 10 жыл бұрын

Johanon Zimmerman ....THE REASON FOR "EVIL" IS GOD WANTED US TO HAVE FREE WILL...... It's easy to say,"you're wrong." Suppose for a moment that your god does exist. Why would he create a world in which evil were possible? You have this god that can supposedly do whatever the fuck it wants and it can't let us choose whether we want coffee or tea without the inclination to rape, steal and murder? If this god didn't want "evil" immoral actions or sickness and death to take place, it shouldn't have made that a possibility. Therefore, God's desire for rape and murder and child cancer is quite evident. God would either be the kid on an anthill with a magnifying glass or the tied up parent who simply watches as their children get raped and murdered, incapable of stopping it. Clearly, this supposed god either *wants* wickedness or is *powerless* to prevent it. So, you can't imagine a creature which was free but has no possibility of going wrong. So what? This omniscient god couldn't figure it out? This omnipotent god couldn't make it happen? That's only assuming that your god exists of course. There is no justification for believing it does.

@xolclint 10 жыл бұрын

Of course, your view of God is that way, but the fact that your view can differ from my view suggests that we are exercising our free will. does it not? You can't hold onto the view that God doesn't exist & also tell everyone what He is doing & what attributes He has. If your child grows up in your home & you teach him to stay away from guns, is it your fault that he steals a gun & kills someone? The really good news is that God has made it possible to know Him. The other good news is that He isn't the monster that you make Him out to be (if He really does exist, of course) There is another player in all of this. His name is Satan.

@Lazylikemysnake 10 жыл бұрын

Johanon Zimmerman "the fact that your view can differ from my view suggests that we are exercising our free will. does it not?" *It does not. Just because our views differ, doesn't mean it was free will that that led us to come to those conclusions. It's a fact that you are having thoughts before you are even aware of them. I just washed my hands three times in a row... i don't know why. It wasn't my free will to do so, but i did. There are many factors to consider.* "You can't hold onto the view that God doesn't exist & also tell everyone what He is doing & what attributes He has." *Yes I can. Some say it's a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain a belief or idea without necessarily accepting it as true. I merely pointed out the flaws in your argument if one were to accept it as true. Yes i had to assume you are referring to the christian god. Free will is tied in with the bible and since you mention satan i know i was right in my assumption. You aren't arguing for any old random deity.* " If your child grows up in your home & you teach him to stay away from guns, is it your fault that he steals a gun & kills someone?" *That's not enough information to make n accurate assessment. It's a bad analogy as well. That parent isn't going to say, "don't play with guns" and then toss the kid an ak47. If the parent made guns easily accessible, scattered all throughout the house, he/she would be somewhat responsible.* "The really good news is that God has made it possible to know Him. The other good news is that He isn't the monster that you make Him out to be (if He really does exist, of course) There is another player in all of this. His name is Satan" *So you know god? Tell me about this god since you know "him" so well. I'm not making anyone out to be a monster. I am simply expressing what is clearly indicated by your own doctrines. Also, according to your doctrines an omniscient god that created the universe in a specific way had to know what the outcome would be. Otherwise it wouldn't be omniscient. Not all knowing if it didn't know. If it can't abolish "evil" then it's not omnipotent. If it can prevent it or stop it and doesn't, it must actually desire for it to be.*

@lukeb8045 8 жыл бұрын

I think it is impossible to believe there is no such thing as free will on a practical level.

@pacioklot 8 жыл бұрын

+Luke B I think you're ignorant.

@supercoolio120 8 жыл бұрын

@pacioklot 8 жыл бұрын

supercoolio120 We are just as free as a rock, so how can you say that there is free will?

@supercoolio120 8 жыл бұрын

@lukeb8045 8 жыл бұрын

supercoolio120 Don't worry it is not like you decided not to respond to this thread, it was determined for you. You didn't have any choice in the matter as you have no free will.

@JWMCMLXXX 11 жыл бұрын

I wish he coud have continued on for a moment to explain why that second higher-level thinking still doesn;t constitute free will. I've read his work. His argument is that even those higher functions are still an emergent function of many smaller processes that are just like the automatic reflexes. He makes a damn good case for it, too.

@RevBobAldo 9 жыл бұрын

Very clear and to the point. He nailed it - without "rubbing it in" for those who believe in imaginary entities.

@1971SuperLead 8 жыл бұрын

I can't believe some people think they have no freewill. You can go out or stay in. It's really up to you. Nothing is forcing your decision. You're not a robot. Although you are certainly free to believe you are.

@ivankaramasov 8 жыл бұрын

+1971SuperLead You have a free will in the sense that is depends on you whether you go out or stay in, and another person might have chosen differently in the same situation. But you don't have a free will in the sense that you could have chosen otherwise when you make a choice. (Given that everything else was exactly the same.)

@1971SuperLead 8 жыл бұрын

ivankaramasov You seem to think a human mind is nothing but a series of switches that operates on constant laws of physics. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mind does not operate on the laws of physics. The minds created the laws of physics. You can even see this in how the mind operates on laws that oppose the laws of physics.

@ivankaramasov 8 жыл бұрын

+1971SuperLead I believe the mind is the product of physical processes in the brain. I guess you believe something else, but I am not sure what. Please, elaborate.

@1971SuperLead 8 жыл бұрын

ivankaramasov The mind is spiritual. Physicality is a product of consciousness, just as many a quantum physicist has suspected. What's interesting about matter is that it opposes the mind in so many ways. To the point that it ridiculous to imagine that a mind could ever come from matter. How could the illusion of freewill ever come from matter? It simply makes no sense. But it doesn't stop there. The laws that the mind operates on are most often in reverse to the laws of physics. Why could the laws of physics be responsible for something that operates on oppositional laws??? And then we learn why spirit sought to make a world that opposes the laws it has been abiding to for an eternity. And we see a world that does nothing but chase this carrot, and it all makes perfect sense. A spiritual mind has perfect free will, however, when driven to believe it is made of matter, it also believes it has no free will. By it's own free will it accomplishes the removal of it's free will. The evidence is endless, and if you want to research this theory, I would point you to the same thing that made it all so clear for me. A book called A Course In Miracles. But let me warn you, A Course In Miracles (ACIM) is like the red pill. Once you understand that you are merely dreaming you are a mind trapped in a body and walking to your own oblivion, it's hard to go back to sleep. There is a reason you chose to dream. And the illusion found in dreams is a carrot you chase all the time. There really is only one illusion you desire. And once you see the folly of that illusion you'll not know what to live for anymore, yet, you'll not have a choice, because life is not a choice. The mind is eternal, as many a quantum physicist is discovering today. So now you have nothing left to do but wake up from this matrix of matter. It's a long process, but it's also insanely beautiful. It's called spiritual enlightenment. But all it really is is an awakening from self induced delusions.

@ivankaramasov 8 жыл бұрын

+1971SuperLead By free will do you mean that when you make a choice you could just as well have made the opposite choice?

@billallwell6507 10 жыл бұрын

I love how the scientists always shut the door so tightly as if "end of discussion, you are nothing more that a bunch of neurons, a chemical process, nothing more to question". Really ? Then we should have stopped at the atom as the absolute building block of matter and not bothered to look any deeper, cos after all, the problem was solved., - yet we continued and have have discovered much much more since then. Quite Frankly, Descartes dualism is a more (still incomplete) answer to the problem than the scientists boring slam the door shut chemical process guess.

@ianman6 10 жыл бұрын

Pinker specifically rejects 'greedy reductionism' (that we should have 'stopped at the atom', as you say) in his work, if you'd bothered to read any of it before commenting and assuming what he thinks. Further, no credible scientist accepts greedy reductionism, either. There are multiple layers of analysis, but in the end they are all tied and rely on the level below (biology on chemistry, chemistry on physics, etc.) and NONE of them generate any evidence that dualism is a plausible explanation for mind. You simply can't magically insert a 'ghost in the machine' at some random point after atoms, molecules or whatever pre-cognizent level you deem fit. It's downright juvenile to think that you can damage a part of the brain and lose some faculty, damage another part and lose a different one, but destroy the whole thing at death and have your consciousness remain intact. Consciousness is obviously a product of the brain, case closed. How is it generated? There is more to find out on this matter. But we won't learn anything about the mind by looking outside the brain.

@chikenbone2 10 жыл бұрын

ianman6 I enjoy this particular view. Although i see a few flaws in your logic. For instance, we know that there could well be multiple levels of existence. If there are being in the dimensions of space that are outside our experience, could they not be made up of something altogether foreign to our atoms and molecules? If so, how would they interact with our level of existence? It would be in a way that we could not explain with our current understanding of the universe, it does not mean that it doesn't exist.

@MrD33tz 10 жыл бұрын

well you're mind is made of energy.(what type of energy im not sure. probably electrons) you can't destroy energy. even when you die

@theexplorer9518 9 жыл бұрын

ianman6 "It's downright juvenile to think that you can damage a part of the brain and lose some faculty, damage another part and lose a different one, but destroy the whole thing at death and have your consciousness remain intact. Consciousness is obviously a product of the brain, case closed." Why? Because you say so? Explain how you are so convinced that consciousness just stops at death. The truth is, it's downright juvenile to think that you know for sure what happens after death. Stop thinking 2-dimensionally.

@TheGoobsters 6 жыл бұрын

You can always adjust the scope of scientific inquiry, ignoramus.

@michaelwallace9461 3 жыл бұрын

Nicely put. I like the idea of a useful distinction as opposed to a fundamental distinction. It's like the biologist talking about DNA encoding information or the naturalist talking about nature solving problems. It make sense to use these phrases to work with problems more easily. Obviously DNA no more encodes instructions on how to build a cell than a meteor is encoded with instructions on how to create a crate, in a fundamental sense they are the same; they are both beholden to nothing but the same laws of physics and behave accordingly. I still don't see this as any form of free will because, complex or not, I don't see the principle of agency having any 'in' in either the simple 'reactive' process or the hyper complex processes.

@SScarletUTPB 9 жыл бұрын

This subject fascinates me. I do predictive experiments on my own behavior. I chart out, using my executive functions, what would be the most "productive" day. Not necessarily a non-stop work day, but what my executive mind would suggest is the greatest mix of work, play, learning, eating, and exercise. Free Will would suggest, since i understand these are the best things for me to do, i do them. Yet, I drink the soda... I forgo the exercise to watch and comment on youtube... So I feel something else is underneath which has a stronger influence. The short-term (I'll call it animal) brain seems to win more than I'd like it to.