This House Believes Free Will Does Not Exist | Cambridge Union

[@malek9643]

Whoever this Will fellow is, i hope he is either free or gets free someday

[@thegoodthebadandtheugly579]

Wasn’t that a movie about a whale?

[@malek9643]

@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 it's entirely possible that it's a movie about a whale

[@Rave.-]

That has yet to be determined.

[@hlulanimarvel6422]

@Theseustoo Astyages wouldn't this be more liberating ?

[@AsterEdu]

🤣 bruh.....

[@debaterland]

What a treat to see Alex here!

[@Ernest0M0lina]

I just came for Alex

[@TheClassicWorld]

This is how corrupt and shallow we have become. A moralistic, 20-year-old anti-theistic rationalist continental philosophy student. Try dealing with the heavy hitters like Dostoevsky. Pathetic, modernist straw man arguments and narrow, cherry-picked science and logical arguments won't help you. We already know that quantum mechanics proves that the universe is not 100% deterministic, which means you cannot build a workable model on the idea that no such free will exists (whatever we mean by 'free will'). That's just simple modern science. It's also unwise to build a society on a lack of free will purely from a social, psychological, moral, and legal level. That's not how humans function, as you will find out if you talk to any normal human in the real world, not ideologically-driven professors. Many humans would rather die than believe that they are not in control of their lives at all. People need free will to remain sane and attached to the world, and to give meaning to their core existence; otherwise, it becomes a matter of rationalistic nihilism and some kind of governmental determinism. We saw this in the 20th century, and it was beyond murderous and insane.

[@IsChrisHere]

@@TheClassicWorld Ironically, your analysis is impressively shallow.

[@fromeveryting29]

@@TheClassicWorld Nobody said Alex O'connor is an all knowing genius. I disagree with him on many points, but admire him a ton. He is a young, intelligent and kind man who seeks the best ideas and is an EXCELLENT speaker who have already done more than most for a more rational, brave and ethical world. We desperately need talents like him in the world today. Skeptical, outspoken, rational, objective and champions of reasoned thinking and justice. You come off extremely resentful, dare I say jelous - and a dogmatic fan of Jordan Peterson (whos words you essentially copied, I see), who in his own right is a smart man with MANY bad ideas that deserve to be challenged. (And a note: both me, and Alex, have read, and appretiate Dostojevsky's insight into human nature and ethics.)

[@Pivotcreator0]

@@TheClassicWorld "We already know that quantum mechanics proves that the universe is not 100% deterministic" "That's just simple modern science" funnily enough it's neither simple, modern or science.

[@jamessheffield4173]

William James: A man walking down a road sees two churches on opposite sides. One says church of determination, the other church of free will. He goes into the church of determination and is asked why he wants to join? He answers because I choose to, and is thrown out. He then goes into the church of free will, and is asked why he wants to join? He answers because I have to, and is thrown out.

[@futilitarian3809]

Nice quote. Is it paraphrased? Do you know where I can find the original? Not having much luck with Google. Cheers.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@futilitarian3809 Sorry, I forgot but remember the name William James. Blessings.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@Jevili Hinbey Thanks. Blessings.

[@americanslime]

Dennett’s definition of free will is erroneous, and you can tell that it’s erroneous because it’s impossible to differentiate his definition of free will from a definition of “will” more generally. Free will is “free” specifically because it implies acausality. Otherwise it’s simply desiring to do things for reasons, which is as true of unicellular organisms as it is for human beings.

[@cabellocorto5586]

This is ultimately the problem with compatibilism. It is so focused on trying to save free will that it tries to redefine what free means. Most people agree with the classical definition of free meaning that it is unaffected by external causality. Except there is no part in this universe not affected by causality. So no one thing is truly free from any other thing. The classical idea of viewing the consciousness as separate from everything else in reality is false.

[@jamespaternoster7354]

All the defences of free will I found to be weak and unconvincing! Not just that but incompatible with metaphysical reality we know about the world!

[@jamespaternoster7354]

@@arletottens6349His argument doesn’t take account of deterministic causality anywhere near the level that is reality even within basic understanding on detailed review which to me renders his points well principled but simply out of date in terms of not accounting for new evidence.

[@Funintherain13]

@@cabellocorto5586 spot on

[@everettyoung9325]

Correct! Compatibilism is just the acknowledgement that determinism is true with the refusal to give up the idea that bad people “deserve punishment.” The absence of free will demolishes the concept of deservingness. For some, that’s just further than they can go. But too bad. Both free will and deservingness fail to exist.

[@kyoglesage]

I’m astounded that in such a venerable place of learning the vote was so close. But of course those who voted against the motion could do no other, having no free will.

[@pseudonymousbeing987]

Poor sods lol

[@ihx7]

what about that is astounding?

[@roybecker492]

I'm more pleasantly astounded that the vote was leaning more to the no free will side!

[@DeinCouseng]

Life Goal: making philosophical arguments at the Cambridge Union while tipsy and with a beer in my hand

[@loos3eleaf]

cheers

[@santanugmail]

Aye aye to that mate. Cheers from India. U spoke my mind 🍻🍺🍻

[@ReasonableForseeability]

Life Goal: making philosophical arguments at the Oxford Union, but I'll settle for Cambridge.

[@maxwelldillon4805]

Dennet is all over the place.

[@TheEternalOuroboros]

His books are insufferable.

[@cabellocorto5586]

I really don't understand why he's considered an important voice in this discussion.

[@DomsDocs]

You have to improve your broadcasting quality Cambridge Union. Such important discussions, top of intellect yet the quality of the broadcast for the Internet is worse than a smartphone recording. Whoever manages the digital for the channel - step it up.

[@djpokeeffe8019]

Dennett seems little short of disingenuous to me in pretending the idea of a contra causal free will is beyond him. Most people think the blank pages in their diary can be filled in, by them, in a variety of ways. They don’t think they are already filled in, albeit in invisible ink. These people may be wrong, even deeply confused, but that’s what everyone means by free will. I hope he puts the goalposts back later.

[@sevenman9672]

Even if we introduce randomness into your example of a diary, thereby eschewing strict determinism, free will does not appear as a consequence.

[@someoneelse3456]

They are filled in by an "invisible ink" whose contents are largely predicate on the value of a vast number of variables, the majority of whose values have not yet been determined. The determination of these values will either be or not be influenced by the contended existence of free will (of course, depending on whether it exists), yet the fact only one future will occur does not imply that there are not multiple futures which can occur.

[@djpokeeffe8019]

@@someoneelse3456 I don’t understand all you say, but there can only be one future. The future is what will happen, not what might or should happen. And it is caused ineluctably by the past. How could it not be? Thing happen if they are brought about, and if conditions are sufficient, then they must be.

[@jaredmello]

The idea of no free will for myself is a very depressing idea, I sometimes also use it as an excuse for my bad behavior. The only benefit for me of believing we don’t have free will is being more understanding of others and their actions and where they are in life.

[@truthseeker2275]

Once you will get used to the idea...you will realize it is no excuse for bad behavior,. You know how society will respond to bad behavior...so you are the one responsible (to yourself) for what happens to you when society responds badly. We are not responsible to society, we are responsible for ourselves and our offspring.

[@jaredmello]

@@truthseeker2275 hmmm, that’s an interesting perspective

[@jaredmello]

@History buff i more agree with what you say than disagree. I just think it’s one of those things that isn’t worth spending too much time thinking about, unless you are a judge or in the penal system for example

[@jaredmello]

@History buff that is what I am not sure I agree with you on. As a coach myself, I think it is usually beneficial to assume everyone can be doing better in their own lives first. To me that is always the first step. For some it will be enough, for others it won’t. Collective solutions have some major shortcomings, in that everyone’s situation is a little different. For someone who can pull themselves up by the bootstraps so to speak, they get the added satisfaction of overcoming whatever obstacles were in their path. In my opinion, obstacles can be good. I also want to help people believe that they can overcome most of the obstacles in their way. Is this true 100% of the time? No, but it is the starting point to me.

[@jaredmello]

@History buff yes it is possible we over empathize it. I think it depends on the social circle. Some over emphasize it, some don’t emphasize it enough

[@rabidL3M0NS]

I would love to see more discussion on the relation between free will and morality.

[@chadmichael_]

Since the single driving factor behind all our actions is survival and we are a social species because it means the difference between our extinction and our survival, I think we don’t have to worry whether or not people overall will “choose” the right thing or not. When we understand that people’s decisions, whether criminal or moral hinge upon whether or not their developmental needs are met, we will then collectively as a society be caused to make better decisions regarding the kind of rules and standards we have governing our culture and society. Until then, we will continue being basically retarded.

[@loos3eleaf]

you do have a choice. its just that, from outside the spacetime domain, i saw all your choices and i wrote them down.

[@pavlova717]

31:10 Experimental philosophy is showing that if you convince libertarians that the actual world is deterministic, rather than becoming determinists, they turn to compatibilism but without believing their concept of free will has changed. This is evidence that people hold a 'conditional concept' of free will wherein free will has two layers of meaning (2D-intentionality). What people mean by free will is primarily (first layer) whatever it is that gives us freedom, but this secondarily (second layer) means either an uncaused cause or compatibilist powers conditional upon whether one believes the actual world is indeterministic or deterministic. This implies perhaps most people are actually compatibilists because they think free will exists regardless of whether the world is deterministic, albeit it is entirely possible that they can be 'libertarian compatibilists' if they happen to think the actual world is indeterministic.

[@lucasheijdeman2581]

Free will is an uninteresting problem for me. Libertarian free will is incoherent, either the will is caused or uncaused and therefore random. And in both cases there is no control over the will. This is best explained by the Schopenhauer quote you can will your actions but you can not will your will. If this were the case i would be happy all the time by willing the current state of affairs. I use the term free will conventionally as those causes of actions that i consider as being mine and that society deems as mine. There is no need for existential dread.

[@spongbobsquarepants3922]

Yeah, the things that matter are just as important with or without free will.

[@davidevans3223]

Uncaused doesnt mean random that would be free will if you choose with no influence when you had multiple choice one over another that would be free will not random

[@davidevans3223]

@@spongbobsquarepants3922 but with no free will you can't call Hitler bad or anyone as they can't do anything else

[@iansmith8783]

@@davidevans3223 uncaused would imply unmotivated. what would it mean to choose without motivation.

[@iansmith8783]

@@davidevans3223 sure you can. just because will isn't free doesn't mean we can't, easily in some cases, identify what kind of will is good and what kind of will is bad.

[@maxtroy]

Dan is delusional

[@fieldofsky3632]

all these peoples grandparents must have been hard hearted, none of them flinched when she told the story of the mice being electrocuted for loving cherries 🍒 what evil imagination is coldly posed

[@sierrabianca]

Dennet's analogy of a boulder and skier descending a mountain side would imply that self driving cars also have free will due to their ability to "self control".

[@firewithfire848]

Self driving cars can't will themselves to turn left or right. Unlike humans they were intentionally designed and programed to operate the way they do. And unlike humans they can be remotely controlled or hacked.

[@sierrabianca]

@@firewithfire848 Yeah, I thought it was a stupid analogy too but the line isn't as stark as you might think. At a basic level, humans make decisions based largely on the stimuli around them, much like AI machines. The skier chooses the best path based on their training and experience, which you could consider programming of a kind, and in the moment of action there's very little conscious choice making going on. The more intensive the task in fact, the more we resort to unconscious, trained responses. As for remote control and hacking, you need only look to extremist ideologies, political allegiances and cultural bias to see how much we can be routinely led by the nose.

[@firewithfire848]

@@sierrabianca Was skier forced to ski? Was he or she coerced into participating in the training where they gained the experience to choose the best path? What Dennet said about free will not being something you’re born with but a skill you learn, makes sense to me. People without such skill are vulnerable to being manipulated by cults and destructive ideologies. However, there are plenty of stories about people who after learning the truth, left cults or abandoned toxic ideologies, proving people aren’t always doomed by their circumstances.

[@takkiejakkie5458]

True. And as always Dennett's analogy misses the point that hard determinists make: that IF and HOW a skier, boulder or car would descend a mountain is entirely predetermined by the laws of physics.

[@MariusRKjr]

@@firewithfire848 The skier was “forced” to ski, yes. The causality is just too complicated for us to understand so we approximate free will. The causality is easier to describe when a person jumps off the track to avoid being hit by a train and therefor you are more inclined to admit he didn’t really “have a choice”.

[@sohamsuke]

It's crazy to have been studying Bruce Lipton's work from decades ago, he was shunned by the scientific community those days; Great to see his work is now mainstream science

[@nickgrant9576]

Debate's Results: Ayes: 116 | Noes: 109| Abstentions: 100 (In video description)

[@jamespaternoster7354]

Thank goodness I’m this group of people the common sense of determinism won out albeit in a chamber of likely more intellectual people than a random gathering of the public

[@havenbastion]

Everything Dennet says is applicable to the experience of Will, but does not indicate that it's actually free. You cannot define freedom as feeling free, internal, rather than being unconstrained, external. In short, he attempts to define freedom into existence. There is no sense in which the will is actually free, and as the first speaker verbosely pointed out, free will is substantially the same argument as God of the Gaps. The experience of freedom is only possible in that space made available by ignorance of causality.

[@mitchkahle314]

We are 'what' we are, because of 'where' we are.

[@marishasveganworld2240]

Alex is such an inspiration!

[@adamkadmon6339]

KZbin censoring comments here.

[@artistsanomalous7369]

Here's a case that indisputably shows we have free will. A pair of identical twins were born in Ohio in 1940. When they were less than a month old, they were separately given up and adopted by different families, who coincidentally named both of them "James". When they were finally reunited at 39, they found that, despite sharing the exact same genetic material, they had led very different lives. Just kidding. They had both married and then divorced someone called Linda, were currently married to a Betty, had sons named James Allan, had dogs named Toy, shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry, drove the same make and model of car, had jobs in security, and regularly holidayed at the same beach in Florida. True story.

[@INCAnitysy]

I doubt this. There is just no way.

[@artistsanomalous7369]

@@INCAnitysy The Jim twins. Look them up.

[@brianscates5225]

As an English graduate I want to echo Samuel Beckett's - 'Not I'?

[@_ARCATEC_]

There is no determinability without limit and there is no agency without limit.

[@kipling1957]

If that’s what this house believes it doesn’t matter, since they had no choice and is therefore pointless debating.

[@spongbobsquarepants3922]

It is just as important as if they had free will. To convince people of something is valuable, and it has nothing to do with anyone's choice.

[@kipling1957]

@@spongbobsquarepants3922 I was making a philosophical joke, a pretty poor one though I agree.

[@jaredmello]

@@spongbobsquarepants3922 the only positive thing that comes of the free will argument is more empathy and understanding for the malfunctioning robots. In regards to our own lives, I have found it serves 0 function, and I pretend I have it.

[@patrickkparrker413]

@@spongbobsquarepants3922 It has everything to do with choice , they could of decided not to , sake what's the matter with the world now .

[@kipling1957]

@@Azupiru it’s a fair cop.

[@MrJoel9679]

Motto of the union: Defending free speech since 1815.

[@novakingood3788]

Unless you do Hitler impressions.

[@MarianneHMiettinen]

Excellent, different view points.

[@havenbastion]

Seeming that we could have done otherwise is the beginning of the question of free will, not an answer to it.

[@patrickkparrker413]

" No free will " , what a Godless philosophy.

[@Rave.-]

That's what we call a feature, not a bug.

[@JM-lz1oi]

Sounds good to me

[@thatwasprettyneat]

I hope that kid wasn't seriously trying to replace clappping by tapping on the arm of that armchair

[@stunningkruger]

if the universe is determined any attempt to justify free will will just defy free will but as humans we are determined to be free.

[@emeraldeyes9565]

The speaker, Professor Anil Seth, who is denying free will has obviously enough free will to not conform to the dress code.

[@kyoglesage]

Absolutely not. Every moment of his life, until the moment he dressed that day, had conditioned his subconscous mind to dictate that he wear exactly those clothes.

[@stevemorse108]

Great analogy comparing a skier with a boulder hurtling down hill.

[@havenbastion]

The mere existence of Brownian motion, for instance, is sufficient to discredit the idea of effective ownership (certainty of access and control) of the will.

[@height5558]

4:28 you should not take anyone seriously who thinks intelligence is just 56% inherited

[@TheClassicWorld]

For a lack of free will, I'm seeing a lot of self-determination from Cambridge...

[@Soyozuke]

What always amazes me is that for some reason people think that having reasons to do something does not undermine by default free will. How so? If you have a reason then it means that it was the most preferable thing to do. The same way that boulder roll down the path it chooses the most "reasonable" path meaning it requires the least energy from that boulder to provide. How one is determined and the other free will?

[@Soyozuke]

@@arletottens6349 It depends what do you mean by "choose". If you mean such mental process then yes, boulder do not choose. However in physics actually boulder chooses. It chooses the path of the least required energy but actually mind does the same. Boulder tries to optimize its own "desires" and mind too.

[@Soyozuke]

@@arletottens6349 Yes, it makes sense because will is not free so we can manipulate somebody will with those.

[@Soyozuke]

​@@arletottens6349 "Free refers to having multiple alternatives to choose the best from" - if our will tries always to choose the best (whatever it means) it means will won't choose worst option if is not forced to. In this sense it has no more freedom than a boulder which also tries to choose the "best" for him.

[@Soyozuke]

@@arletottens6349 Yes, there is. Of course you cannot think that boulder "feel" anything and is happier about this output like human would be but this is better because it chooses the path of least required energy.

[@Soyozuke]

​@@arletottens6349 Yes, there is. Please notice that "going according to momentum and forces at each moment" is exactly taking the path of least energy (or least resistance I should say). At each step boulder has many options which boils down to "go up, go down or stay?". For example boulder can approach a wall that forbids further movement. Boulder still have some kinetic energy so boulder bounces from the wall and goes up. Not going up would mean that boulder chose a path that requires more resistance from him since he would have to resist this kinetic energy from pushing him up. In general in physics this is known more as the principle of least action.

[@Vgallo]

What procedures improve self control? Who’s determining that self control is actually improved? The scientists doing the studies who were born with good self control?

[@paddleed6176]

The presented position here is that of soft determinism. What is often forgotten in these discussions is that life is not a set of binary choices, but an almost unlimited amount of equal choices. If you accept soft determinism on a neuroscientific basis (and not hard determinism from physics), what is a bunch of equal choices if not free will? You can not will what you will but you can will your actions and the choices for those are not a 0 and a 1 but hundreds or more 0s, 1s, 2s, 4s...

[@josephparsons7896]

If you think that there are enough 'equal' options so that your desires can no longer control your choices (because they can no longer distinguish between them effectively) then doesn't your decision-making just become random? - it's really hard to see any kind of middle ground between your decisions being dictated by your desires and the choice being essentially random, and neither of these models of decision-making should be recognised as free will in any meaningful sense

[@paddleed6176]

@@josephparsons7896 Why would you automatically take that to mean random? If we go this path the concept of no free will just becomes begging the question like the incoherent "psychological egoism".

[@josephparsons7896]

@@paddleed6176 how else would you describe selecting a certain option for no reason (you said yourself these are choices of ‘equal’ value)

[@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714]

@@josephparsons7896 often in life you have to choose amongst competing alternatives, both of which have their reasons. You can choose A and you will have a reason to do so, or you can choose B and you will also have a reason to do so. I don't think your set of choices have equal value, that would be silly if we accepted that we might as well do away with the concept of value altogether. Rather, the values that you profess to the world by your actions are precisely those same values that form the reasons for the choices you actually make.

[@cabellocorto5586]

I disagree with you and here's why I do: Choices are extremely limited by external factors, including your brain. Any decision you're capable of making is limited by what your brain presents to you because of an external stimulus. Name five cities. Think about how you came to pick those five cities. You cannot pick cities you do not know the name of, and you couldn't pick cities that didn't occur to you. So really think about how you came to the choices that you did and why you picked those 5 cities. Why did those 5 cities occur to you but other ones didn't? Your unconscious mind works constantly on automatic heuristics based on factors outside of your control. It automates pretty much everything under the hood to save brain power. The brain is constantly running so many calculations even when 'idle' that it is the most calorie consuming organ that we have. You burn thousands of calories a day just by existing. Eventually what you learn ultimately becomes unconsciousness. I challenge you to choose to forget what 2+2 is. You cannot. Because it's such a fundamentally ingrained lesson that it is impossible to forget this simple thing. You do not make that choice. The unconscious mind does. So, consequentially, choices are actually not equally weighted and they are not limitless. They're actually very limited, and your unconscious mind makes those choices before your conscious mind has chosen to choose those choices. The ability to choose a choice that is to presented to you from the unconscious mind, itself comes from the unconscious mind. All that the conscious mind does is allow us to be aware of this process, whereas animals and other simple creatures are not aware of these processes. I hope that this made sense.

[@lliwiamluttbicker2222]

So what Dennet implied is one who's not moved by another's reason, doesn't have free will. That sounds nothing short of plain stupid bec one may be grounded in his own reasons that contradict another's reason. Unless there's objective proof beyond doubt, of one reason being completely true and the other being entirely false, one and the other - both - have good reasons to hold on to. In such a scenario, to move one by another's reason is curtailment of one's free will by another and hence, buttresses the v notion he's trying to contend.

[@cohendavidson3510]

My favorite passage on free will is from Dostoyevsky's "Notes from Underground". His critique of rationalism is powerful and as true as ever. Even if we could "calculate" our every action, many would act in opposition to spite the rationalists and scientists. George Pice is a great example. Theories sound great until they simply do not apply to the real world. Sadly, this discussion of free will is a great example of how rationality is proving to be all too irrational through these arguments that aren't entirely true. What need then do we have for criminal law if free will does not exist? What need for standards in education? What need for rewarding those who show expertise in sports? If free will is not a factor then no-one can truly be punished or rewarded for action.

[@TheClassicWorld]

You don't even need to go there, in a sense. We know that modern quantum mechanics (science) proves that the universe cannot be calculated and is not deterministic. These radical atheistic types are at least 30 years behind on modern science. It disproves their entire argument about determinism, among other things. But, you are correct: most humans cannot live without free will. If you forced every human to truly believe that there was no free will of any kind, then the world would burn very quickly due to riots, wars, and depression.

[@cabellocorto5586]

What need is there for any of those things indeed. The reality is that reward and punishment are merely consequences for actions. Even without free will you can certainly believe that a serial murderer must be put in prison to avoid harming anyone else in the same way that you would build your house on stilts or without a basement if you lived in an area prone to flooding. If someone was driven to steal because of circumstances outside of their control, they should be rehabilitated. To think to the contrary proves that our justice system isn't based on justice, it is based on vengeance. In all other cases, whether or not someone is rewarded isn't actually based on a free will of anything. Vivaldi, despite excelling in the arts, died sick and penniless. He could not haved 'willed' his success to manifest. We don't always reward those who 'deserve' it. We reward those who are rewarded through the consequences of what we value, which is also not up to us.

[@cabellocorto5586]

@@TheClassicWorld We don't actually know if the uncertainty principle means the universe is truly random, or if that is a flaw in our ability to comprehend. To an uneducated observer, coin flips might appear to be random, but given enough information you can calculate how many heads or tails you're likely to get. We don't know that isn't the situation. And even if it is true that it is random, that is also not a case for free will. You're not free if a random quantum particle 'decides' - for lack of a better term - that you should eat a banana for breakfast today. You're not free if a quantum particle randomly decides that you trip and fall. Randomness is the antithesis of will. If what you do is based on the 'randomness' of the quantum universe, then you are not free.

[@Zoomo2697]

"Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right." Fulton J. Sheen

[@davidevans3223]

Well they are wrong it's a fact morals are just opinions nothing more like vegans will say animals are equal in worth but happily kill millions and even have kids that will kill more but you pretend you know right from wrong in reality you are no more right than Hitler

[@hanskraut2018]

Let me tell you I was diagnosed with adhd and got meds and at a sertain dosage i reeeelly changed and that leaves me questioning do we all have the same possibility/prerequisits for the pursuit of happyness. For example does everyone have the same amount of "drive", "motivation" and "fun" in doing things and if yes why are there so many examples of people that are obviously different (aka all mental illness or ratexperiment where all the dopamine receptors are wiped out and the rat dies of starvationg in front of a mountain of food.) (There are different severetys of adhd the mild, moderate and severe. Many people seem to think: -Looks at the bird outside the window instead of the teacher he must have too much fun doing/looking at things, well isn't that nice to be blessed with so much interesst? (Reality: Feeling of boredom and no fun leads you to try to find/do "anything" that takes that feeling away, and if a bird promises some squirts of relieving dopamine then so be it. ) -Does not sit still/fidgets, well clearly too much energy. Isnt that wonderfull that means sixpack and sport is to follow in later life which is healthy anyway. Reality: Feeling phisicall unease and fidgeting seems to somethimes make the feeling go away. Adhd are statistically more sedetive and overweight than the generall population.) -He has no friends. Well no wonder we all know inhibition makes people blurt out insults more easily and this more animalistic behaviour just needs to be dealt more harshly (maybe it is parenting after all). Reality: After i took medication at a spesific Dosage I suddenly had more fun in socializing, a way better social intuition, my tone of voice and manner of speaking changed. It was as if i had suddenly got some of the "pheromones" (figuratively) that the other people seemed to have. I did not change but my brain just knew what to do and what not to do, i became more wity/clever and more easily had a joke on my lips or knew how to deal with people better, as if my brain was woken up from a low drive bored sleep.) -Oh and lastly lots of creativity he gona be a enterpreneur. Isnt that great? Not that shoe box thinking. Reality: If on of your hands is tied behind ur back you will become VERY creative because the optimal way is not working as well for you. Enterpreneurs can do the things in those more creative ways. But if more people go into selfemployment and many fail the ones that happened to rise to the top are no proov of advantage it just proves more people started X. I did not look it up but i bett more adhd fail than normal people and mostly the mild version rise. And we will be sure to hear from it even if it may have been a wrong diagnosis since there are people diagnosing with "executive function battery tests" or brain scans wihch are inferior to rating scales that are filled out over 8 hours including parents and teachers because many adhd underreport imperment (because how can you know what normal is u just assume everyone feels like this or u just did not eat the right diet if you stuggled) So this experience relly challenged my nurture do it yourself assumption since i was a very competitive and driven (at least my goals) person since i was very little. The chemicals have a intense effect on my behavior becasue of the way i feel positive/motivating feelings and the reduction of feelings of discomfort when doing sertain things. Like when u are tired or not in the mood doing paperwork even if the outcome is something u relly wanna do may feel bad to normal people.

[@just_another32]

can't Cambridge sort out the mics? :/

[@1981jsoldier]

They can't because its not in their brain prescriptive programming. You see, they can't choose otherwise.

[@seanliburd357]

We are at an impass because for every action there's a reaction

[@godlessheathen100]

It's always fun to see Alex O'Connor making the argument that free will doesn't exist, then later seeing him making the argument that you could have chosen differently regarding what to have for lunch.

[@spongbobsquarepants3922]

When did he do that?

[@IsChrisHere]

It's always fun when people don't understand that choices matter regardless of the validity of determinism

[@godlessheathen100]

@@IsChrisHere There are no choices. There are only the perceptions of choice. If the universe were rewound and started again in the exact same manner, the choices made would be exactly the same. What am I missing?

[@smhashimnasser5619]

Nihilism breeds absurdity

[@godlessheathen100]

@@smhashimnasser5619 In the sense that Camus meant "absurd", perhaps, yes. But free will/determinism needn't be correlated with nihilism.

[@MarkoMijuskovic]

If free will does not exist then we have to completely redesign and re-evaluate our society. After all how can you jail someone for a crime if he/she did not have free will to commit that crime.

[@charlieweaver6322]

How can you not jail them if you don't have free will?

[@sevenman9672]

To deter others? To exact revenge? To prevent a repeat offence? To forcibly extract labour?

[@patrickkparrker413]

@@sevenman9672 Not reality .

[@cabellocorto5586]

This is why rehabilitation is better than punishment on most cases of misconduct. In those cases where someone is truly a danger to society because they have a violent sociopathy, then it is best that they be in prison indefinitely. I don't believe in free will but I think it is part of consequences - cause and effect - that when you do something truly horrible that you are punished for it to stop it from happening again.

[@mycroftholmes7379]

Totally agree, this ridiculous debate of free will, of these people who have nothing to do but bask on their seat thinking they know a lot about menial works, trade and commerce, and economic enterprises. Not to mention, these debaters are only ineffective academics..What have they contributed to society to question free will? None. Only a bunch of mobs who spend many time for useless pondering.

[@novakingood3788]

Are the two people in hi-viz tabards there to run to the aid of those who would be mortally offended were someone to use the wrong pronoun or do an impression of Hitler?

[@veganworldorder9394]

Before claiming that we don't have free will, give an explanation of what should be true in order for us to have free will. If you can't, then you are just making an unfalsifiable statement when you claim that we don't have free will.

[@singularity844]

Thankyou! That’s what I say. If you can’t define the conditions under which free will WOULD be true, how could you ever falsify it?

[@Pivotcreator0]

That's insane. What about fnggnurst, the ability to flghrrrht? I claim we have it. You disagree? Then coherently explain what would have to be true for us to have it. If an idea is incoherent it may be dismissed without having to show its nonexistence is falsifiable.

[@ciaocicci]

Proving that at least part of our decision are not binded to the laws of causality for me would be enough. But in order to do that you should identify a supernatural actor and once you do that you need to prove that the supernutural actor Is itself unbinded by the laws of causality.

[@singularity844]

@@Pivotcreator0 I think the point being made here is if “I made a free decision” is nonsensical than so is “I had no choice but to make this decision”. Because in so much as the words “I” and “choice” have meaning, they mean something distinct from not having a choice.

[@Pivotcreator0]

@@singularity844 Could you elaborate? I'm interested but don't really understand your comment

[@MarkGubrud]

Seth argues that the notion of free will is dualistic. But there is no way to make sense of the notion that we LACK free will outside of a dualistic frame ("*I* don't have free will because *I* am controlled by my body.")

[@rorybessell8280]

Not really, it's more that you are your body (body & mind are not separate things), and you are influenced by all previous experiences you've had mixed in with your genetics which creates the personality you have. This then governs the decisions you make. Dualism is not required at all, only because that's how you've interpreted the arguments

[@MarkGubrud]

@@rorybessell8280 If I am my body, and my body embodies my preferences, and if there are many possible ways to fulfill those preferences that I must choose among, then I, my body, not only has free will, but is sort of condemned to exercise it.

[@MarkGubrud]

@@Azupiru "society"?

[@MarkGubrud]

@@Azupiru Sorry the point escaped you. Since absolutely everything in human life & experience is exactly the same regardless of whether the universe is deterministic or nondeterministic at some fundamental level, I can't imagine what you could possibly mean by "society to remain under the weight..." Believe what you want about free will. It changes nothing.

[@MarkGubrud]

​@@Azupiru It is regrettable that KZbin lacks a block function.

[@MarkGubrud]

If you believe that we are physical beings, how can you argue that a physical being can't freely choose in accord with its own preferences or, if it prefers, against some of them, just because those preferences may be embodied in the being's physical state? WHAT ELSE DOES THE BEING CONSIST OF?

[@Jakeassimilate]

We can choose, we just can’t control what makes us choose. Every decision you make is influenced by something completely out of your control, yet somehow, people believe they are in complete control of their choices.

[@cabellocorto5586]

@@Jakeassimilate This, exactly. You don't choose where those choices come from. You choose based on automatic brain processes that determine for you what you do or do not prefer. Think about any preference you have. Did you choose to have that preference, or was it just agreeable to you in a way that you did not control?

[@MarkGubrud]

@@cabellocorto5586 If for some perverse reason I want to choose against my own preference, I can do that.

[@MarkGubrud]

@@Jakeassimilate My biology has given me certain needs and preferences. I have a huge array of choices I can make to fulfill those. Or I can choose to go against my biological nature. And suffer or die.

[@albertaseo-blanketseoagenc5046]

@@MarkGubrud Your decision to choose against your own preference is a preference itself decided by ultimately outside factors you don't control.

[@futilitarian3809]

As Strawson points out, free will is logically impossible. Here's another logical argument against free will: 1) In order for an act to be voluntary, a person must decide to perform it. 2) A decision is an act. Therefore, in order for a decision to be voluntary, a person must decide to decide it. 3) This leads to an infinite regress of prior decisions, in which any voluntary decision requires an infinite chain of prior decisions. 4) Insofar as free will requires the ability to make voluntary decisions, free will is impossible. I welcome the identification of flaws in this argument, so that I may improve it or, in the case it is fatally flawed, cease using it.

[@ja_aq.ov_]

The syllogism is fine. The premises are weak. Free will as a "voluntary decision" isn't a good definition. Granted, I doubt that any good definition can avoid metaphysics, and philosophers are generally unlearned in that language.

[@futilitarian3809]

@@ja_aq.ov_ I haven't asserted that free will is defined as a voluntary decision. All I suggest is that a voluntary decision is necessary for free will. I then conclude, that given a voluntary decision is impossible, that free will is impossible.

[@idorenyin-akpan]

A more relevant question to have asked the voting audience is whether they made their final vote because the speakers convinced them through the deliberation. If yes, they acted on free will. The answer cannot be no, otherwise there would have been no need for the "debate." For a "debate" assumes that the two sides of the proposition are contradictory, and to argue for one is to argue against the other. If people then vote based on the argumentation of both sides, then they chose from deliberation, on a matter within their power, which is what free will actually involves.

[@iasql]

I would argue the opposite, if you were convinced by the deliberation to vote yes or no, you didn't exercise free will, your actions were a direct consequence of your environment. You don't choose which arguments will convince you, it's the opposite, the arguments are the ones acting on you and informing your decisions, therefore no free will is present, rather your will to vote a certain way is moved by the reasoning provided in the deliberation.

[@idorenyin-akpan]

@@iasql Dear friend, what you need to do is read what you wrote carefully, again, and you will see how contradictory you sound. Perhaps, what we also need in such discussions is a clear-cut or at least a working definition of what willing is, and when it is free. If we go by the classical definition of the Aristotelians, then acting freely, i.e voluntarily, means acting WITH relevant knowledge and without external constraints. If we grant this, then the voters acted freely. They thought about the arguments of the debaters, and without force, chose who to support. Each voter was probably CONVINCED by the ARGUMENTS of the debaters he voted for. That means, he received the ideas into his mind, thought about it, found it useful while finding the other not useful or convincing enough to elicit his vote. Thus, as long as he acted on received knowledge and without constraints from outside, he acted freely. It would be insane to claim that the environment has no effect whatsoever on our choices. It would just be as insane to claim that the environment chooses and not us.

[@iasql]

@@idorenyin-akpan It depends on you definition of free will. If you go by the definition of Aristotelians then yes we have free will. In this discussion though the question is if we can say we have free will in a deterministic universe. E.g if you subscribe to the notion that we are material beings bound by our physiology and nature, then the question becomes - what is free will in that context? Because what you perceive as "free will" is in fact the physiological response of your body (brain, hormones, etc..) which gives rise to your emotions and thoughts, which are a direct response to your environment. Wether it's voting based on arguments, or doing someone else's volition while having a gun pointed at you, it's still your brain responding to the environment and the illusion of "deciding" out of your own volition arises solely from our ego. Most people would rob a bank if they or a loved one are threatened with a gun, but there are some who would resist. There is still a choice there but it's still based on a combination of instincts and principles. Now from a theistic stand point free will is a property of our soul and it is given to us by god, which exists outside of a deterministic universe. But that's a whole other discussion.

[@idorenyin-akpan]

@@iasql the whole deterministic universe thing comes tumbling like a house of cards when aristotle scholars come for it. It is simply against the facts to say we just react to the environment - because we do not just react, we literally proact. Say, for instance, you feel hunger. And you are in a supermarket, and you forgot your money or bank card at home. The deterministic thing that is supposed to happen is for you to pick something up and eat. Yet, you do not, for the most part. You CONTROL yourself, because you CAN. Your motivation for control could be for fear of jail or for your dignity. But you CAN, and you do. Take another example. You see someone you are sexually attracted to. That is a physiological response. In a deterministic universe, once the motion starts (attraction) it must reach its term (approaching the person, or copulating with them like a lion or a monkey would). Yet, you do not act that way. You feel the physiological reaction, but you have the power of CONTROL. So, you walk away or you approach the person courteously and are ready for their acceptance or rejection. That is what distinguishes a human being from an animal. This SELF-CONTROL or SELF-GOVERMENT. We share our physiological infrastructure with other animals. But we possess something more. Call it soul or whatever. The whole material determinism crap some scholars propose today is a simple lie.

[@iasql]

@@idorenyin-akpan I think you dont understand what a deterministic universe means. Also like I said in my last paragraph - if you think there is a soul outside of our material world than the discussion is quite different. Its we have a soul or we dont and are just material being. (Which is a pointless one because it cant be answered scientifically) Now if you dint believe in the metaphysical but rather in a universe that is governed solely by the laws of physics, the free will does not make sense (and I explained why in my prevoius comment). Just expand on the point of self-control. When I say physiology, hormones I dont only mean primal insticts (hunger, sex drive, etc) I also mean values. Because we know that different parts of the brain have different functions. Self control is included in thise brain functions (obv it is evolutionary benefitial and our ability of higher thinking is what makes us so adaptable and at the top of the food chain) Also when you think about why you have self control comes from - from empathy and need for social validation and self preservation. You're not going to things that will send you to prison or mental instituiton because your brain works well enough to predict the concequences of your actions. So when you need to pee and dont do it in the middle of the street, its because you're an evolved social being, that knows this will have negative concequences. So if you think we live in a world governed solely by the laws of physics - "free will" does't exist. If you believe we have souls than I would in such universe free will exist(but that is an entirely philosophical question)

[@tonyburton419]

From a psychological perspective, no we don't have free will, but we can learn more about how our "mind" works, and this is where some greater freewill can develop. Go to listen to Professor Paul Gilbert about this possibility.

[@cabellocorto5586]

Here's why I don't believe that knowing more about how the mind works equates to more agency: Whether or not you end up believing that is not contingent on any choice that you make. You don't choose to be swayed by an argument. You either are or are not swayed by an argument's logic. You cannot choose to be swayed by the argument that elephant are purple and can fly because it's observably false. This argument will not sway you and any attempt you make choosing to believe it will fail. You cannot choose to unlearn the fact that elephants are not purple and cannot fly.

[@tonyburton419]

@@cabellocorto5586 You can have a debatable level degree of freedom by becoming aware of how the brain and how the mind evolved - the way the tricky brain functions, with competing motivations and purposes, and that there is or can be a slim gap between a stimulus and a response. That is the difference between philosophers who can drive themselves around in endless circles and modern psychological contextual behavioural science. Suggesting reading - "Get out of your Mind & Into Your Life" by Prof.Steven Hayes, and stop pondering about it. . . .

[@tonyburton419]

@@Azupiru By learning how to do so, by the excersize of questioning as to can how can I increase some greater degree of freewill as to how respond what our "minds" inform us. Free yourself from your mind via cognitive defusion and acceptance according to ACT.. And let's not forget neuroplasticy which by behavioral actions rewiring can occur? Dennet is right.- but who really knows?

[@cabellocorto5586]

@@tonyburton419 I don't think neuroplasticity creates free will. That's the brain creating more connections to store new information. Yeah, you can change, but that's also not freedom of will either. Not any more free than a sea slug that adapts to its environment is free. It adapts because of circumstances it is in. What you do or do not do is contingent of factors that are outside what we would consider a locus of control.

[@tonyburton419]

@@cabellocorto5586 By learning about neuroplasticy, I am excersizeing a conscious choice to engage in activities to rewire neurological pathways and connectionism . You are also assuming that the so called hard problem has been solved by Neuroscience alone - explain the solution, and win the Nobel Prize. It is not easy to accept paradox - that unity must be found and accepted that on occasions it cannot. See my forthcoming more fuller reply to the arrogant dude above later today. These are just musings, not claiming their truth value. You can choose how to respond differently to one's impulses or thoughts. ACT'S mindfulness approach, and mindful CBT practices helps with this. How is that possible..?

[@stevemorse108]

I live my life as if I have free will if for no other reason because it is more empowering psychologically. It is my view that in the absence of being to empirically establish the existence or non existence of free will we are faced with Schopenhauer’s famous words: we can will to choose but we cannot will to will. This placed us in the position of infinite regression: each action being determined by a previous one in turn determined by unconscious factors which by definition are determined by factors beyond the realm of our agency. My analogy is that of a man in a kayak navigating in a river with a considerable current. He can manœuvre his kayak skillfully to avoid rocks and traverse rapids if he deploys his energy but he cannot paddle upstream or at least for long. He is different than a piece of driftwood which is simply buffeted by the current but he still has limited scope to determine his trajectory. If however he lets himself be buffeted and carried by the force of the current then he renounced that degree if autonomous control he has.

[@havenbastion]

Since you are not free to want what you want to want, in what sense could freedom of the will be even potentially meaningful?

[@M0skit007]

Irony will forever be the answer.

[@janryan7183]

so no audio engineers in cambridge!? guess there was no choice! ;)

[@ummerfarooq5383]

Qadariyyah sect are those who believe in free will. They link(Salah) and face towards the east in their dreams. Jabariyyah sect are those who are fatalist believing in no free will and face towards the west in their dreams when they link/Salah. The best direction to face is north. That all power and might belongs to that which remains (Allah). And that Allah is ready to hear the prayer of whomever seeks him.

[@JavierMartinez-gd5dr]

Bad direction is to face south

[@lovelylanafansweetie4240]

1:18:08

[@vfiore0]

"This house LOL". I have no further comment, your Honor.

[@soggy___389]

Would you suppose these goofballs simply had no choice but to reach this intellectually lazy conclusion?

[@KoraOSRS]

Very unrelated and somewhat childish remark but I love watching Alex in the background during Professor Simon Blackburn's speech towards the end of the debate. He seems so fidgetty and distracted, looking all over the room, hands wandering all over the place, moving his mouth around distractedly, I wonder if he has ADHD haha But he's obviously still very attentive to the discussion, when Prof Blackburn says "ideology is just philosophy gone wrong", Alex smirks and nods his head in agreement, which I love to see haha

[@hanskraut2018]

Selfishness is helped by free will altho only in the impulsive shortterm like aristrocracy would have been a hard thing to argue against as a nobleperson. They would have been better off allowing for more trade and free economy with regulations and then be the aristrocacy of THAT. In the same way motivated cambridge people talking about how they dont see how there free will to do anything they want is much at risk would argue differently if a quota of adhd/depressed/bipolar/shizoprenic/parkinson/other stuff had to be taken in a population representative proportion to applicants altho i guess that might then insentivice faking. A pupet that is nueromolularely forced to hate something and like another thing that is opposed to its wishes every second of every day ever so slightly will not have the free will of a puppet who experiences pleasure and absence of discomfort every time it DOES act in accordence with its higher goals. Like a person who is fat altho they want to be sportive. Lazy altho they want to be active. In discomfort altho they would like the be in blizz. Repelled to higher pleasures and coerced into lower ones maybe by a biological system (comparable with multy layer renforcement algorythms might be forced to diversify as so not to be stuck in a local optima). In short if 10 person are motivated maybe the human modulatory system then coerses 1 person which it sees most fit to "try out" what happens if you "preserve energy" for example or be lazy. Just as to not miss a optimaly thriving strategy. After all 3.5 Billion years and a exponential reproduction of biological entetys like microorganisms are not to be underestimated as to the complexity of there current state. To say "humans do things because there brain is evolutionary wired to get food or starve" is a simplification akin to a cavemen explaining that fire is hot because it wants to eat flesh. No ur just way way way too arrogant because people that speak in confident strong statements that is to the shortterm benefit of the common audiences are very pleasant. Maybe it has to do with our amigdala that wants 1 thing and we having to resist it with our PFC on our limited jet very much extended understanding of the last 200 years of the industrial, scientific and made possible by something akin to "social justice warriors" of the in large part french/english/germanic idialists in the aristorcratic society of ~8 century when the book press invented until ~18 century when idialists and persecuted fundamentalists founded america. (Text = Very much simplified & in the constant open process of revision based on data.)

[@annethomas9302]

Answers are stored as are mistakes therefore you can correct at a later date or as required.

[@pierrelaplace2283]

Perhaps I am way too stupid but I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone who spends some time with other human beings cannot accept that free-will exists. I think if your reductionism leads you there you must stop and re-evaluate. My 2 cents anyway.

[@68m8rz]

I do kinda understand what you mean and I do accept that it seems intuitive and obvious, but I don't find the phrase "We have free will but we could not have ever chosen to act differently" compatible with free will

[@voidoflife7058]

Should’ve stopped after stupid

[@Silly.Old.Sisyphus]

if the chair had free will he wouldnt say um so frequently

[@AlexFengCheung]

I believe everything happening in this universe is governed by the law of cause and effect. That means what you are doing right now is because of what happened in the universe one second ago, which occurred because of what happened in the universe two seconds ago. That means what you are doing now was determined before you were fertilized and perhaps right at the moment of Big Bang if this is the origin of time and everything. Since what you are doing now was actually decided before you exist, you didn't make the decision of what you are doing now. Just like me, I feel like I am making the decision to continue typing here but in fact this is predestined. However, at the end of the day, is the law of cause and effect true? can we travel through time? And the fact that we don't know what we don't know makes everything possible and uncertain.

[@smhashimnasser5619]

Whats the point of morality if we don't make our own decisions? How can you punish someone with prison if their actions were predestined? Its funny how folk believe they're so educated they think the universe created itself and that every action we make is justifiable because we have no control over it.

[@takkiejakkie5458]

​@@smhashimnasser5619 The fact that there is no such thing as free will says nothing about what we should do with that fact. And to deny this fact because some may conclude punishment is wrong because of it is stupid. It's the same stupid argument religious people make when someone says God doesn't exist: "but then we would have no morals, so he must exist".

[@patrickkparrker413]

" Evolved to do so " , a completely meaningless statement.

[@jackwindensky5606]

What's the difference between your brain using deterministic logic to adjust after being told it has no free will versus you adjusting due to an exercise of free will? 12:55

[@Pivotcreator0]

Because "you" - the you reading this - didn't. Your conscious experience is not self-actualising, and it adjusts how it adjusts in a manner more complicated and incomprehensible than "you" could possibly be able to explain or account for.

[@mehdimehdikhani5899]

So the majority said there is no free will?

[@annethomas9302]

Use all your knowledge to find your answers and to understand.

[@adagietto2523]

If we don't have free will, it makes no sense to try to persuade other people to change their mind about whether or not we have free will.

[@crawbug8932]

Why not? What about determinism suggests that we shouldn't try to change peoples' minds? All the reasons it does makes sense in the context of free will also also apply in its abscense. You may as well say "What's the point of convincing someone of my political views if they have no free will". All the reasons you could give for wanting to convince others of your political views are unaffected by determinism. The idea that determinism renders these reasons pointless is a non-sequitor. While I understand your sentiment, it doesn't say much of anything when we pick it apart. It conflates not having liberatarian free will (which doesn't make sense when we pick it apart either) with the inability to change your mind. This is erroneous because people change their minds all the time. If I'm interpreting your comment correctly, you are saying "why even argue if they will believe whatever they are destined to believe". What you are failing to realize is that what they are destined to believe may be directly influenced by your argument(s). They may be destined to reject them, but they may also be destined to be convinced by them. And if it's the latter and some good comes from it (that wouldn't have occurred otherwise, you can say that arguing with them was a good, worthwhile thing to do.

[@Fahad-gf1wx]

@@crawbug8932 if there is no free will then criminals shouldn't be punished do no reason to put violent people in prison

[@crawbug8932]

@@Fahad-gf1wx Why do we imprison criminals? Does it have anything to do with the of idea that they could have not committed the crime, or is it to protect society?

[@JM-lz1oi]

@@Fahad-gf1wx You can believe in the lack of free will and still thinks it's a good idea to incarcerate violent criminals. In fact understanding that we lack free will and are the product of our environments and our condition then help us to understand how to more effectively prevent further violent crime, how to rehabilitate violent criminals, and how to protect those from violent criminals. There are more reasons for prison than just punishment. All acknowledging lack of free will does is highlight that the retribution aspect of it isn't necessary. I think that understanding the lack of free will gives us a better foundation for systems that are more humane and effective.

[@pfhastie]

An hour and a half on this. Could've been assessed in 20 seconds by asking someone to demonstrate free will.

[@godlessheathen100]

Demonstrate a counterfactual.

[@pfhastie]

@@godlessheathen100 If I did, it would only prove my point.

[@HarrySmith-hr2iv]

@@pfhastie You have zero free will. You are controlled by government. You are controlled by evolutionary processes. You are controlled by your DNA. Like any other organism in The Universe all you have is The Will to Survival.

[@nanashi2146]

What are the moral implications of stating that we don't have free will?

[@godlessheathen100]

@@nanashi2146 There are none. Morality is not what it seems.

[@stlouisix3]

Free Will exists

[@patrickkparrker413]

The last speaker spoke a lot of sense and people should take note .

[@celeritasc9207]

The last speaker made an emotional argument that is not based on seeking truth. It is irrelevant to the question does free will exist or not if the belief that it doesn't exist can lead to objectifying humans as less than human. While I certainly empathize with his horror regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau, I don't share his concern that believing that free will doesn't exist will lead to such occurrences. His argument is similar to Dan Dennett's position that continuing to believe in free will is important because that is what they believe will be most beneficial to society. That is not a good reason to believe something that is considered to be an ultimate truth. I am baffled why a philosopher would hold such a view. Also, the last speaker failed to show how the dehumanizing of the European Jewish people resulting in the Holocaust was due to a belief that free will doesn't exist. I really don't think there is any evidence Hitler was not a believer in free will. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with the gentlemen that raised the issue that the retributive justice system is based on the likely false belief that free will exists. This injustice system, on an ongoing basis is subjecting several magnitudes more of people (compared to the number affected by Holocaust) to dehumanizing punishment that is largely ineffective for its purpose. (I am not comparing the retributive prison system to the Holocaust in severity - in that respect the Holocaust was truly horrific). So on one hand there is a hypothetical proposition without a true basis on what may happen if we acknowledge a likely truth that free will does not exist. On the other hand, cumulatively millions upon millions of people are actually continuing to be subjected to inhumane conditions directly because of a likely false belief in free will. As the gentleman that raised the issue, I am not arguing that criminals should not be incarcerated but the justice systems needs to be reformed to achieve a better outcome for all by reducing the dehumanization of those that break societal rules (with the ultimate goal of reducing the number of such societal transgressions).

[@Derry123456]

Does anybody reading this not believe in Free will yet consider themselves to be right wing or more conservative in regards to politics? Iv been thinking about the implications that not believing in free will has on other beliefs people uphold. Particularly Religious and political beliefs and I can’t quite reconcile free will not existing with right wing ideology? Right wing ideology seems Massively reliant upon the idea of free will so I was wondering if some one out there believes they actually can reconcile the two

[@25hvghfgetr6]

Maybe if you think conservatism has some utilitarian value over leftist ideas, but that's a bit of a stretch. You need some mental gymnastics in order to take them both seriously.

[@Derry123456]

@@25hvghfgetr6 yeh Iv been thinking similar. right wing ideology to me seems so reliant upon the idea that you get what you deserve from life, that you earn your successes and deserve your failures. If there is no free will I just can’t see a justification for this way of thinking. I guess by arguing that you need the rich and the poor in society in order for it to practically function even if those who are richer and those who are poorer do not deserve to be so may have some merit, although it still seems a bit of a stretch.

[@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714]

I think that's a sensible assessment. Moral responsability of the kind that exists objectively is hard to argue for without free will. And judicial systems do rely on that moral responsability for the judicial decisions being made.

[@Chadladitoldyouso]

@@Derry123456 Well lets be careful to not ignore the practicality argument. In disregarding free will we ultimately open up the notion that actions are disconnected with guilt and we can then lead to many other justifications such as extermination or broad based classification and group guilt/blame. I think what should be the question is better to think of the argument from the collectivist and individualist perspective. If you believe that is right and left fine, but I think that's the base from which your argument is more pinpointed. Under collectivist ideology, we can begin to see how the lack of free will can then quite easily lead to justifications for arguably horrendous actions being practical, because at the end of the day groups are bound by certain actions and lived experiences shape the confines of behavior. From there a society may take the practical approach of eliminating such behaviors and we go from there. The individualist argument is severely harmed if free will does not exist since it relies on the value of the individual and such choices they make. I believe for one we can look towards intelligence perhaps as a better form of measure from free will, perhaps the more intelligent the creature the greater separation we can observe between instinct and choice, but that opens up the argument that one does not choose their intelligence, and this is where we get a little more nuanced. I think the answer becomes yes and no, or it depends. This is where again we can derive truth in both the right and the left (as defined above) because a mentally ill person perhaps did not choose to be so, and we in that cannot expect to operate the same, however another may be able to have better impulse control and so we can say their behavior is unpredictable in so that that individual may or may not fall to their primal or base line decision making. I take myself as an example if I may. My brain I have realized, is a left thinking brain (as defined above) I tend to view the world from the perspective of the left on many issues however have learned to place greater emphasis on the individual. This was done on self reflection and deconstruction of my own thoughts, I still catch myself drawing conclusions upon more collectivist ideologies, which is my natural tendency and fit the classical psychological triggers of a left leaning brain. I however am consistently going against my initial conclusions and not to prove myself wrong, but to break down and formulate logic trees in which I may find gaps or leaps. In finding these leaps I believe I am helping myself correct what is essentially primal instinct I have inherited for whatever reason that when I was younger (5 years ago) simply obliged. I agree with the notion that I believe free will needs to be defined carefully, and I align myself in the camp that free will is something that is learned not born with. In essence I come to you as a collectivist minded person who learned to value the individual and I'm self aware of where my mind wants to trend and choose to engage with those who think differently dispelling my innate belief the other is wrong and has overtime understood my own line of thinking and can deconstruct my own thinking to change or draw different conclusions. So again even if all of the above is BS, we have to then ask the practicality of not assigning guilt and how then we can justify for examples the actions of governments for collective removal because "people can't control themselves" (China & other nations in the past) and the practical solution or whatever works works solution will come out in the world which is a terrifying thought to say the least.

[@sevenman9672]

@@Derry123456 I don't know what you mean by 'free will' and 'right wing', but, for example, biological determinism would seem to be at least in part a postulate that discounts free will in at least the absolute sense, and I suspect would also, whether correctly or not, be generally considered as 'right wing' nowadays, as would perhaps be a strict Lutheranism (although doubtlessly 'left wing' from a Catholic perspective).

[@jupiterthesun3217]

Free will is subjected to the environmental influences and survival instincts and educational opportunities and genetic memories i think .

[@paddleed6176]

If your position is soft determinism it isn't a very strong one. Life is not binary choices but an almost unlimited number of equal opportunities.

[@paddleed6176]

@Glowing Leaf Oils and Elements GLOE Yes and there is an almost unlimited amount of choices with equal effects.

[@mycroftholmes7379]

@@paddleed6176 true

[@chitranshsrivastav4648]

I am here for Alex

[@annethomas9302]

Love cherries 🍒

[@artistryartistry7239]

The audio for this event is unforgivably bad and unprofessional.

[@ARMY_RUGS]

Aleeeeeeeeeeeeeeexx 🏅

[@robertseavor4304]

What made the proposers of the motion choose to do it?

[@chadmichael_]

The onset of schizophrenia is not inherited genetically. The statistics that make it seem that way have almost nothing to do with genes and everything to do with the trauma that gets passed down via the socially toxic environments the individual is brought up in. Same with religion and belief. I also think there’s sort of a similar case that can be made for autism also. Either way, no one chooses these things. EDIT: also the same goes for ADHD. Read “Scattered Minds” if you disagree. I agree that our genetic history lays the foundation but epigenetically these things can be avoided if the environmental triggers are avoided.

[@annethomas9302]

You are your own being.

[@thegoodthebadandtheugly579]

Why would you pin your statement on biology? Why not go to physics? The problem is before you are able to speak about free will, you have to establish that there isn’t a deterministic reality.. because before you are able to use your free will, you have to have some kind of a degree of freedom to do so..

[@cabellocorto5586]

Yes, that is true. Physics is pointing to the universe either being determined or random. Determined from the point of the big bang, which if we had enough information (I don't believe to be possible) we could determined the trajectory of everything. Or it is random on the quantum scale if the uncertainty principle means the quantum universe is random. Neither of which allow for the existence of a free will independent of causality.

[@annethomas9302]

Never assume.

[@borderlands6606]

There can be no higher claim than I feel like I have free will.

[@annethomas9302]

Making a mountain out of a molehill.

[@konberner170]

So when you say, "believes" this is not something you have chosen, but something that was inevitably imposed upon you? Thanks for the warning, I will choose to ignore this, as I don't trust the source... how could I?

[@josephparsons7896]

that is absolutely how all belief works - it is most clear if you think about strictly rational belief in particular

[@konberner170]

@@josephparsons7896 How can I think about strictly rational belief if I cannot make that choice? I'd have to wait around until it "just happened". Seems absolutely absurd. Either I can make choices like this or not, which is it?

[@josephparsons7896]

@@konberner170 of course you can make choices - the free will sceptic would just say that what you choose was not under your control in any meaningful sense - the illusion of free will that we all experience is entirely consistent with such a theory, which is probably why it seems so ridiculous to a lot of people because it doesn’t look like there’s any way of disproving it

[@konberner170]

​@@josephparsons7896 But that is just a dodge of the question. I disagree that if you have no free will that you can make choices. That just twisting language. An example: me and you wish to open a shoe store together. The contract is drafted and it comes time to sign. A valid contract requires that it be signed voluntarily without any coercion. I sign my name and turn to you and ask if you agree to the contract. You say that you do not have free will. I then ask you what your signature then signifies. You say that you have no choice in the matter, but if you sign then you made a choice. I look at you strangely as you are making absolutely no sense. I then ask you if you will have a choice about whether to embezzle store funds or not. You say that this is not under your control. Will I go into business with you or not? I can tell you that I would choose not to, and that is because I do have enough free will do make this choice.

[@mustafaidais8182]

if free will does not exist ...what is the meaning of freedom of speech insufficiently enlightined atheists

[@Soyozuke]

That we still want to do things we want? That is why freedom of speech has a meaning.

[@mustafaidais8182]

@@Soyozuke so free will exist

[@Soyozuke]

@@mustafaidais8182 So the fact that we want something means there is free will?

[@mustafaidais8182]

@@Soyozuke ask yourself 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@Soyozuke]

@@mustafaidais8182 Then no, the fact I want something does not mean I have free will.

[@andybintoro]

Say no freewill with freewill

[@ummerfarooq5383]

21:30 - is it me or did Daniel Dennett convert to i'slam.

[@letmesummarize1176]

She started as if it’s a ted talk

[@mcnoodle69]

After listening to this, I believe that it's hard to demonstrate absolute principles apply. My take is that free will and determinism may be understood as a spectrum (like light energy) than ALL yes or ALL no. WE can think of how this might reflect most of our other experiences with life. Is it all Heredity or all Environmental Selection? I didn't find the discussion all that convincing.

[@annethomas9302]

My life.

[@sundareshvenugopal6575]

Is it free or not free to believe that ?

[@npcla1]

Holy smokes, what's the average IQ in that room!?

[@davidevans3223]

85 depends how many vegans

[@singularity844]

Could easily be a bunch of mid witts

[@voidoflife7058]

85

[@nathan87]

about 90, it's a room of philosophers

[@nathan87]

@Here Comes Salvation definitely not philosophers taken as a group. I'm not being facetious either, the problem with philosophy is that by its very nature, any old person with an opinion can "do philosophy", opening the door to a lot of sub-par thinkers. Not all philosophers, of course.