Robinson’s Podcast Clips
Patreon: https://bit.ly/3v8OhY7
Full Episode: https://youtu.be/9bZcBh0qtKo
Robinson’s Podcast #194 – Daniel Dennett: Consciousness, Free Will, and the Evolution of Minds
Daniel Dennett is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Tufts University, where he was co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy. He is one of the most recognized philosophers today, and has made major contributions to the philosophy of mind and biology, among other areas, and is known as one of the Four Horsemen of Atheism. Dan’s latest book is I’ve Been Thinking (W. W. Norton, 2023), though much of what he and Robinson discuss comes from his earlier book, From Bacteria to Bach and Back (W. W. Norton, 2017). More particularly, they talk about the origin of life and reasons, the evolution of music, Robert Sapolsky and free will, famous thought experiments in the philosophy of mind, the origin of consciousness, and the relationship between mind and language.
I’ve Been Thinking: https://a.co/d/ahMEC0G
From Bacteria to Bach and Back: https://a.co/d/htcrcn7
Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.
Robinson’s Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com
Source
When I first stated listening to the discussions between Dennett and Sapolsky I leaned more towards the no free will side, but recently the more I listen to Dennett about free will and I think about, it's starting to make sense that we do have free will
Lots of arguments about what free will would imply if it existed, none demonstrating that it exists.
It is simply a fact that if free will exists, it is impossible for it not to be influenced by the material conditions. Ie our free will is impaired when we are drunk or high or injured or hungry or thirsty or having high testosterone levels or having brain damage that affects aspects of logical reasoning and risk aversion. I’m the face of all this, how is it possible to argue that given we are influenced by a myriad of conditions at any given time (most of which we may be unaware of) that we ultimately have the ability to overcome such a tyranny of situations. While it seems like if your Hungary you can choose not to eat food, in reality you’d be influenced by your bias to prove free will exists, or your too lazy to get up and get food or don’t want to spend money. Therefore it stands to reason that our decisions are controlled by our impulses which we don’t control which in turn are influenced by upbringing and genetics which arnt in our control.
Yeah let’s redefine the terms shall we
Free will is a yogurt
Therefore free will exists
Sadly, Dennett never acknowledged (let alone engaged with) versions of libertarian free will that aren't "contra-causal."
With all my respect for his memory (he passed away on April 19th 2024), how incoherent Daniel Dennett has been on the subject of free will !
– first he equalizes free will with self control (I'm able not to give in to my impulses, I can be considered responsible)
– then he says free will is not to be influenced by remote agents (I do as I wish)
– and it is not just a juridic stipulation, a concept with a definition, out of the blue, no : it is REAL. Because we WANT it.
– He also says a cat has more free will than a dog because a dog can easily be trained to be obedient.
– BUT humans are trained to behave well, thus exerting free will when they enter adulthood. I's an achievement.
– And last but not least, humans can be divided in two DISTINCT categories : those who are able to exert free will (about 90% of the people he says, who knows where that cipher comes from) and those who don't. No continuum here, although he recognizes the age of 18 or 21 is an arbitrary date. So, is the frontier that evident between having it and having it not ?
What we can find in his argumentation, beside incoherence, is a perfect exemple of ethical paralogisme : free will is morally desirable, therefore it must exist.
The free will debate is a debate about the definition of free will. Free will can be defined in a way that is clearly real and morally relevant.