ReasonPublic
A public lecture by Daniel C. Dennett, Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, entitled “Is Science Showing That We Don’t Have Free Will?”
Part of the University of Edinburgh’s Enlightenment Lecture Series.
Subscribe to the University of Edinburgh: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdinburghUniversity?ob=0&feature=results_main
More videos like this at http://reasonbroadcast.blogspot.com/
Source
At 6:12 there is a fellow in the bottom left who appears to be enthralled haha.
Determinism + free will is the same problem as indeterminism + no free will.. that is the reason why I can´t see any other position than hard determinism reasonable.
.. So the mere fact that there is a choice provides the freedom? Regardless whether you are forced into a decision?
I saw some people almost falling asleep. Too bad. But I think that says something about the format.
Dennett confuses levels of descriptions here, thus committing a category error. He is hand-waving at the high-level about being an 'avoider' of things (which is a perfectly reasonable way to describe it AT THAT LEVEL) but at the lower-level you still haven't changed the very un-Free nature one whit. It only *appears* Free at the higher-level abstraction because it's too complex to look at the details.
All comes down to how you define free will. is it being able to decide to jump, or is it the
ability or inability to jump.
Well, it really comes down to defining what you think a choice/decision is. If you think Dennett was merely talking about jumping and not jumping you misunderstood him. He is declaring that making decisions is an inherently deterministic process and that it's a mistake to suggest it is otherwise. And that in this context, freedom means something else than being able to choose otherwise.
And by the way, if you actually watched the entire talk you misunderstood it in ways that are really scary. It should be patently obvious that Dennett is a determinst, even if you have no clue what Compatibilism is going into this, there's just no way to honestly construe Dennett as arguing that you can get nondeterministic behavior by decomposing nature.
All he is saying is that a machine with a trillion degrees of freedom, an internal reality model, consciousness etc is more free than a brick in exactly the senses that are interesting to us when we are talking about freedom, for example when assigning moral responsibility. You can't ask a brick why it broke the window, but for such a machine, its brain might well be the causal focus of the action, such that putting it in jail might be a god way to avoid broken windows in the future.
Now, you're free to deny that this is "freedom", but if you are you are:
a) Not really attempting to understand the compatibilistic model Dennett is presenting
and
b) Missing some really important differences between objects in the natural world that you would have to make up another word for if you refuse to call it "freedom". That is, assuming you wish to forward an alternative theory with even remotely the explanatory power of compatibilism.
No @gnomefro , I didn't miss any of that – what I object to is using the term 'free will' to describe it, just call it 'will'. That is sufficient to separate us from the brick and it doesn't hand-wave.
Dan seems to be trying to rescue freewill by redefining it as something other than what we *commonly understand*. This seems a bit slippery.
OMG Dan, LISTEN BUDDY, PLEASE!!
I happen to LOVE the ideas you want to present. However, you're a "bully" in your lectures; I feel you antagonize those who you actually wish to convert though your sarcasm, while making the converted you preach to a stronger lynch mob. A new little army of mini Dan Dennet's all sarcastically telling church goers they are idiots. I mean, even if they are(hahaha) SEE how my sarcasm just there is in poor judgement?
Dennett wants to exterminate "memes" he doesn't like, it seems. His warning that discussing the illusion of free will was dangerous even made it into an article in my Belgian newspaper once.
Dennett on animal consciousness studies: "learning too much .. would have a .. poisonous effect on our relations with them .. then let us make a frank declaration to that effect and drop the topic, instead of pursuing any further the pathetic course upon which many are now embarked." (google for full text)
Free will is not true or false, not reality or illusion. It is nonsense. Words empty of meaning.
Wrong
What is the meaning then?
Our 'will' (intention) is not determined beforehand by physical causes, but is undetermined and caused by conscious intention of the agent. I dont know if thats true, it seems to me to have quite a few problems, but it seems that the words do have meaning, especially in relation to a debate about consciousness and determinism.
Semi correct! What a wonderful concept we experience but seldom recognize for what it is.
Just consider the possibilities when you are partially correct and the answers that you can get to each question. I love this thought process.
try to follow this.
if the vedantic concept of the projection of the Self [via Its innate power, which is what they call maya-shakti] into the manifestation of what APPEARS TO BE duplicitous egos (which are needed to make the leela or Life Play work) is understood, it will also be understood that free will is as much an illusion as is the illusion of the duplicitous ego. only if the ego were real, would free will also be real. no? or both ego and free will are only relatively real…at best.
Therefore, the poor, the rich, the young, those with potential, will all have their days numbered due to circumstance; because some are mean't to suffer from discrimination and racial determination dictated by quantum theory because your atoms happen to be in the right moment at the predicted wrong time? I find that questionable!
Daniel Dennett is a joke!
What about stamcells?
"build up by indirection" = buy time to create anticipation for an underwhelming argument
53:47 – he says "irregardless". Made me smile.
i watched this and understood it and i still reject free will as it is commonly understood.
37:36 – she is trying really hard to stay awake!
As an author, I thought Dennett would have said an agent is the guy who thinks you took 90% of the money he got you.
"Vacuously true" doesn't mean "tautologically true" or "definitionally true".
Oh man, it must be so depressing to get that last question after giving that entire lecture.
@SirDarkStar I think you are right. Daniel Dennet is just wrong. He calls it evitability when I dodge the brick even if everything that led to me dodging the brick was deterministic in nature? That doesnt make sense. If everything was deterministic I could not have NOT dodged the brick.
In his head he must have redefined the word "evitable" to support his weird claim.
I just had to say…..send me money…or hot babes……..or ore, gold or platinum
.
Oh, that mater fornicator is "Worthy," ehhhhh?
Sind sie sich des Paradigmawandels in der Wissenschaft bewusst? Im alten Paradigma gilt ihr Bewusstsein – also das, was Sie ausmacht – als ein Epiphänomen des Gehirns. Im neuen Paradigma ist Ihr Bewusstsein die Grundlage Ihres Seins und Ihr Gehirn ist das Epiphänomen. Fühlen Sie sich jetzt besser?
Wenn das Bewusstsein das primäre und das Gehirn das sekundäre ist, fragen wir uns natürlich, wie wir das Gehirn möglichst optimal nutzen können, damit es dem Bewusstsein und seiner Entwicklung dient. Die Erforschung des neuen Paradigmas ist seit einer Weile im Gang, aber es gibt bisher wenige Autoren, die dieser Frage nachgehen und sie brillant zu Ende führen. Um das Primat des Bewusstseins explizit zu betrachten, bedarf es der Quantenphysik. Seit den Anfängen der neuen Paradigma-Revolution galt die Quantenphysik ein fundamentales Interpretationsproblem. Sie betrachtet Objekte nicht als festgelegte „Dinge“, sondern als Wellen von Möglichkeiten. Wie werden dieses Möglichkeiten, wenn wir sie beobachten oder „messen“, zu den eigentlichen Dingen unserer Erfahrungen? Wenn Sie meinen, dass unser Gehirn – also der „Ort“ unseres Bewusstseins – die Fähigkeit hat, aus Möglichkeiten Gegebenheiten zu machen, dann sollten Sie noch einmal darüber nachdenken.
Erkenntnissen der Quantenphysik zufolge besteht das Gehirn selbst, bevor wir es messen, bevor wir damit ugendtas beobachten, aus Quantenmöglichkeiten. Wenn wir, also unser Bewusstsein, ein Produkt des Gehirns wären, wären wir ebenfalls Möglichkeiten, und unsere Verbindung mit einem Objekt würde weder das Objekt noch uns (unser Gehirn) aus dem Bereich der Möglichkeiten zur Aktualisierung verhelfen. Machen Sie sich nichts vor! Eine Verbindung aus zwei Möglichkeiten ergibt sich nur eine größere Möglichkeit. Das Paradoxon wird noch größer, wenn wir uns selbst als dualistisch denken – als nichtmaterielle, duales Wesen, das nicht an Quantengesetze gebunden und unabhängig vom Gehirn ist. Doch wenn Sie mit dem Sie nichts gemein haben? Die Philosophie des Dualismus ist ähnlich widerspenstig wie die Wissenschaft. Es gibt eine dritte Art, über diese Dinge zu denken, und diese führt uns zum Paradigmawandel. Ihr Bewusstsein ist der primäre Stoff, aus dem die Wirklichkeit besteht, und die Materie (inklusive Ihres Gehinrs und der Objekte, die Sie beobachten) existiert in diesem Stoff als Quantenmöglichkeiten.
Wenn Sie etwas beobachten, wählen Sie dabei aus all den Möglichkeiten die eine Facette, die sich in ihrer Erfahrung realisiert. Physiker nenne diesen Prozess den „Zusammenbruch der Quanten-Möglichkeitswelle“.
Avoid or pursue.
Whether we have free will or not doesn't matter. Nothing changes either way. But, personally, I find it inconceivable that free will exists. Try to imagine what free will is…It is like trying to imagine a universe in which nothing exist. It's impossible to imagine nothingness and it's impossible to imagine free will. Try to describe free will. If you had free will how would your life change? It wouldn't. You would continue to live your life as always, free or otherwise. Consciousness is a coping mechanism to overcome obstacles. Will plays no part. Life is merely stimulus-resonse.
At 1::11:05, Dennett claims that chimpanzees don't have free will but humans do. The reason, he argues, is that they have very limited capacity to think ahead.
Wouldn't that just mean they have a limited free will, and not none?
Since they're such close cousins of ours, isn't it safer to assume that they have some self awareness, some feeling of shame and pride, some free will, some of everything that makes us human, rather than having none?
Personally I'm wondering if free will really works like a multiple choice question. The higher the intelligence and life experience, the more choices you have. But you can only choose from the options that come to you from your sensory perceptions and your subconsciousness (memories, instincts, etc).
All these verses are in RED LETTERS. Now where did Jesus say anything AT ALL about Free-Will Choice? Go watch Calvinism in a Nutshell (John MacArthur) 27:33 long. The word Calvinism means PRE-destinated which is in the Bible 4 places as free-will choice is in zero. IN FACT, Jesus spoken against it also in Matt. 7:21-23 and Self-Willed – Lost in 2 Peter 2:9-10, Not Self-Willed – Saved in Titus 1:7-8
Matthew 7:21-23
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; BUT HE THAT DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN!!!
NOT FREE-WILL CHOICE OF YOURSELF HERE ON EARTH
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name DONE MANY WONDERFUL WORKS?
23 And then will I profess unto them: depart from me, ye that work iniquity, I NEVER EVER KNEW YOU!!!
CAST INTO HELL 4 ETERNITY
Jesus ALWAYS DID the Will of God as we must do the same!!!
John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, TO THEM GAVE HE POWER TO BECOME SONS OF GOD, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the WILL OF THE FLESH, nor of the WILL OF MAN, but of God.
8:36 If the Son therefore shall MAKE YOU FREE, ye shall be free indeed.
8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye CANNOT HEAR MY WORD.
8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore HEAR THEM NOT, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF GOD.
John 10:3-4 To him the porter (door keeper) openeth; and THE SHEEP HEARETH HIS VOICE: AND HE CALLETH HIS OWN SHEEP BY NAME, AND LEADETH THEM OUT.
4 And when he putteth forth HIS OWN SHEEP, he goeth before them, and THE SHEEP FOLLOW HIM: FOR THEY KNOW HIS VOICE.
10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are NOT OF MY SHEEP, as I said unto you.
10:27 MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE, and I know them, and THEY FOLLOW ME:
13:18 I SPEAK NOT OF YOU ALL: I KNOW WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: BUT YE KNOW HIM; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
15:4-5 Abide in me, and I in you. AS THE BRANCH CANNOT BEAR FRUIT OF ITSELF, EXCEPT IT ABIDE IN THE VINE; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: FOR WITHOUT ME YOU CAN DO NOTHING.
15:16 YE HAVE NOT CHOSEN ME, BUT I HAVE CHOSEN YOU,,,,,,
15:18-19 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, BUT I HAVE CHOSEN YOU OUT OF THE WORLD, therefore the world hateth you.
17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, THAT HE (Jesus) SHOULD GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO AS MANY AS THOU (God) HAS GIVEN HIM.
17:5-6 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I HAD WITH THEE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.
6 I have manifested (revealed) thy name UNTO THE MEN WHICH THOU GAVEST ME OUT OF THE WORLD: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
17:9-12 I pray for them: I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD, BUT FOR THEM WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN ME; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name THOSE WHOM THOU HAST GIVEN ME, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE, AS WE ARE.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: THOSE THAT THOU GAVEST ME I HAVE KEPT, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
17:24 Father, I will that they also, WHOM THOU HAST GIVEN ME, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN ME: FOR THOU LOVEDST ME BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
Aaron Swartz, in his blog, nailed quite right the stupidity of DD's argument based on the words "inevitable" and "unavoidable" that begins around 21:20. He noted, with amazement:
"One just has to marvel at the sheer stupidity it takes to advance such an argument, much less base a 368-page book on it. I mean surely in the course of writing such a book you would come to notice that your core argument is based around a pun. (Shame also on Gazzaniga and Steven, who also base their argument on this absurd piece of “logic”.)
Yes, Daniel Dennett is literally arguing that because in some deterministic animations depict things being avoided, determinism does not imply inevitability. (It would seem an obvious corollary that Mickey Mouse has free will.)"
I was watching this video intently, trying to understand and appreciate Dennett's every word, until he said "irregardless" at around 53:45. Then he lost me.
They should have taken the mike away from that last guy, not given him a new one.
Free will is consciousness.
We have free will. We experience it every day. However, that is not the same as having choices.
Daniel Dennett is "emerging" a philosophical magic trick.
If you don't have freedom, free will, you must have slavery. There is no other option. Naturally, I opt for free will. It makes much more sense personally and socially.
>>>>>>>Now
look at what happens to all those who says and believes there is WHAT
THEY CALL,,, Free-Will Choose, as Jesus ALWAYS DID the Will of God
the Father!!!<<<<<<<<
Jesus said in
Matthew 7:21-23
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;
>>>BUT
HE THAT DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN!!!<<<
>>>Not Free-Will Choice of Urselves HERE ON EARTH
in the FLESH!!!<<<
22Many will
say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, haven't we prophesied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name >>>DONE
MANY WONDERFUL WORKS???<<<
23And then will I
profess unto them, depart from me, ye that work iniquity:
I NEVER
EVER KNEW YOU!!!
Cast into a Lake of Fire 4
ETERNITY!!! Rev. 20:11-15 read it
This is a Very
Deep,,, but also Very True subject that many people are slipping and
don't understand the truth of, as ETERNITY is to LONG to be
WRONG!!!!!!
Read John 8:47 – 9:31 – 10:3&4 – 10:26-27 –
14:17 – 15:16&19 – 17:2&6&9&11-13 – 18:37
Now if your opinion is different then the Word of God Almighty,,, Take It Up With HIM!!!
Is it just me or does it seem like the editor(s) were trying to only include footage of the audience where someone is yawning or starting to fall asleep?
If we all share the same future, then it is impossible to escape. If you want to argue free will, then we need to accept solipsism and a uniqe universe for every will. There is no evidense for that.
Has he read Spinoza? He should.