Free Will vs Determinism - Dr Julian Baggini, PhD
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2024
- Get early access to our latest psychology lectures: bit.ly/new-talks5
Do you have free will? Or are you simply a product of your culture? How much responsibility should you take for your actions? Are your neural pathways fixed early on by a mixture of nature and nurture, or is the possibility of comprehensive, intentional psychological change always open? What role does your brain play in the construction of free will, and how much scientific evidence is there for the existence of it?
In this talk, Julian Baggini will explore free will from every angle, blending neuroscience, philosophy, sociology and cognitive science. Contemporary thinking tells us that free will is an illusion, but Baggini challenges this position, providing instead a new, more positive understanding of our sense of personal freedom: a freedom worth having.
Julian Baggini is a British philosopher and author of several books including ‘The Ego Trick’, ‘The Pig that Wants to be Eaten’, ‘Freedom Regained’, and most recently ‘A Short History of Truth.’ He runs the popular blog: Microphilosophy, and writes regularly for national newspapers and magazines such as the Guardian, the Financial Times, the TLS and Prospect. He is a regular guest on BBC Radio 4, and tweets at @microphilosophy.
Links:
Get our latest psychology lectures emailed to your inbox: bit.ly/new-talks5
Check out our next event: theweekenduniversity.com/events/
Julian’s books: amzn.to/2TDKTAf
Julian’s website: microphilosophy.net
The ability to revise on the basis of what we observe ourselves doing has nothing to do with free will. Revision is done, but there's no individual do thereof.
I reread the last chapter of Freedom Regained last night and then thought long and hard about what I actually believed about freewill which I've never articulated to myself and never even read (in its totality) but which seems to agree with Baggini's conclusions.
It seems laughably obvious and simple so I don't know why I've never seen it expressed in this simple way, (would like your thoughts)
There are only 3 things I (the awake conscious ego "I") can control:
What I pay attention to (determines to a large extent what I experience)
How I interpret my experience (determines to a large extent what my thoughts/feelings are about the experience)
How I react to my experience (determines to a large extent the course of my life.)
Most people do not actually experience free will because all 3 of these things are automatic (knee jerk, autopilot) although they are almost entirely under one's control. This is partly what people mean about "being present".
That's it, the whole free will enchilada, to me.
Am I missing something?
Rings truthfully.
I agree with you. That is what I'm working on in my thesis.
There is actually no way to prove that you could have done something different than what you already did.
I think of it as the two paths problem. We could think of it as more than two paths, but, only one alternative path is needed to display the problem.
I sometimes think in detail, why I made the bad choice, and I believe had to, because I wasn't feeling well, or I was distracted, or whatever small details that affected my decisions.
We get to feel that we are the agent of change, but we can only do what we do.
I can try harder next time, but I can't go back in time and do it over.
So the argument is ...ofcourse we dont have free will, there is no such thing if you define it as having actually being free, its incoherent .... instead , if we define free will as not existing, then we have it
The table being actually real even if there's also a deeper level of reality where it wouldn't seem real doesn't prove that free will is real at the level we experience it. The sense of free will we have is isn't real absolute free will not even on our own level of reality because it is merely the result of the process doing its processing which includes thoughts arising in consciousness and then correcting itself based on prior inputs (education, culture, upbringing, genes) and events (mood, life events, external factors) and so forth. It recognizes that the process is 'processing' and it concludes I the process do this. And it does. That is real . The process is truly processing. The problem arises when people say that at this level of reality the process could have done different than it did. That is just a mistake. It couldn't have. And we'd know that by looking deeper. A table is a bad example. Let's take a self driving taxi with advanced AI. It might recognize that it is choosing to park here rather then the spot next to it. But it does so because it has calculated within it's possibilities. So it's true to say it chose it. But it's not correct to say that it could have done otherwise. It might do otherwise afterwards to try and prove me wrong. But that doesn't change its prior choice and definitely shows that once again a cause is present in it trying to prove me wrong. If the car's AI has bugs and suddenly can't drive anymore makes illogical choices , We should actually look at a deeper level to see what's wrong , what's the cause rather than to blame the AI as if it chose to. To know we would actually have to look deeper into reality.
So insightful and helpful answer! Thank you heartily! I have never fully believed the TALE about FREE WILL!
With the hashkey analogy there's also a problem. He seems to be saying that there's a code written on the computer making it so that if we push that button on the screen will come a hashkey. He seems to argue that the code is the true reason for its appearance on the screen. You could still know that the code follows the laws of physics as it was programmed on to or through the use of the hardware. He acknowledges this. But he asks does this means that the code is not real? Well obviously..The code is real, but the code will still run as it was programmed...... So the processing of thoughts and the illusion of free will that arises from it is real but it runs as programmed. A more correct view would be that consciousness gives the thought process awareness of thoughts and it can affect the process of thoughts by thoughts 'seeing a thought process and it's potential fallacies. But the results following from awareness 'recognizing' thoughts are just thoughts once again arising exactly as they are going to within their parameters of causes and effects. The SENSE of free will is real. It's meant to feel that way because the brain does actually do processing the best it possibly can do. There are calculations being done. So the process creates a sense of I doing this. And the process is really doing it. But the idea that that sense of I doing is a separate entity that could have done otherwise is incorrect. The sense of I doing it merely is an observation that causes and effects are taking place and being mistaken for it not being causes and effects. For free will to be true. The code would be able to have to say. Today I will purposefully choose to not do what my code says and instead put on a number 1 or three. And you could say but don't we do that? It seems that way. When we choose to not stick to our routine for example it's because prior events lead us to get out of our routine finally. Our code allows us to change our routine if we go insane from doing the same thing long enough. It's cause and effect .
👏🏼 I can really appreciate elaborate answers like this.
@@MeAsMeButMe thank you. Thanks for your compliment
If we don't have free will then nothing is my fault. I'm just here for the ride.
This is the crux that I'm attempting to understand. This lecture was a lot of rambling, only to come to no conclusion.
Precisely.
It depends if we define fault in a moral sense or if we say fault as if your code was just faulty or dysfunctional for a healthy society. I guess you mean it in the moral sense but unfortunately something being grim or having dangerous implications doesn't make it untrue. I'm not assuming your stance on this btw, it's more for those who may interpret what you said to mean it can't be true.
Half way through I was really digging it, thinking, yeah, screw reductionism but then, closer to the end, I got lost. From what I understood, he says, that our inability to have done otherwise IS our free will 0.0 I like the idea of properly defining free will but professor Baggini has stretched and distorted it beyond recognition, IMO. Let's take that example of making a romantic commitment. Sure, being a slave to one's desire is surely a strong incentive to pursue a relationship but that's not how I understand freedom of choice. If, for example, I pressed letters B-L-U-E and I saw letters L-E-F-T (or any other combination that doesn't correspond to what I typed) I might say that my computer is beginning to act according to its free will. Therefore our behaviour which follows previous conditioning (by nature or culture) is NOT an expression of free will.
However, an interesting question seems to appear in the light of professor Baggini's reasoning, namely, is free will really worth it? That depends on how useful, effective and beneficial our conditioning is. I would say that the lucky ones don't need to exercise their free will because they've been optimally programmed, which doesn't mean that they don't feel responsible for their decisions and choices. Of course they are. It's natural and easy to take responsibility for your successes. The unlucky ones (people who have been badly conditioned especially by their early life experiences) feel the need to exercise their free will to overcome their self-defeating inclinations and that's where they find out that free will is an illusion.
Yet they might still find that learning is possible. Learning new skills , knowledge etc. You don't need free will to become better.
The levels of explanation. I'd agree that the principled version is the more correct one. Different levels of reality that we can see are still levels of actual reality. But in actual reality there can still be illusions (enough of those on CZcams) One level of reality being more important depends on the situation. But as with most things the more data you use in your decisions I'd say the better informed your decisions will be and it's also more commendable to take in more data. So for example with judging criminals. The right way would be to take in all the data that's known . That means on our personal level of experience of reality but also taking into account that a person with a low IQ should not be judged for not thinking like a person with a high IQ. Which takes into account third person perspective illusion of free will clearly recognizing that they chose within their confines caused by causes and effects. So this approach doesn't actually negate free will being an illusion in an absolute third person perspective. Free will is nothing more than the result or a process recognizing that it is processing and the process saying I am processing. It doesn't mean that it could process differently. It's as if the hashkey code became aware that it has a code leading to the hashkey on the screen. But since its code is so limited it can't alter that code it will provide a hashkey each time. If it didn't recognize or deny the third person perspective or the confines created by the code it would then conclude I choose to put a hashkey on the screen. The user I put would be the countless causes that are so complex we can't imagine. The effect is the action and the idea that we could choose different
1:01 “our conscious mind has a role to play, it acts as the supervisor the ability to be aware of our own awareness. I’m not sure what percentage of our subconscious mind determines our actions compared to our conscious mind but the percentage doesn’t matter . As long as their is a small percentage that is determined by our conscious mind then we have some self control an ability to modify what we do in the future”
That’s the crucial part and for me where this theory breaks down. From what science and various experiments tell us the unconscious mind is responsible for none of what we do and our subconscious mind is responsible for everything we do. Our conscious mind is essentially the tool we use to experience information. That is it, our subconscious mind tells our eyes ears nose tongue our senses to work to experience information the subconscious decodes the information sent to it from the conscious mind and then sendsinformation back. At no point does the conscious mind ever have the ability to decide anything. The act of reflecting on options and deciding how to change for the better in the future is done subconsciously before you are aware of it consciously. To say the conscious had even a small percentage of governance over what we do goes against the science we have on the issue. So definitely don’t think that this claim can be made
What if your trauma affects your decisions? Your brain circuitry is damaged what then.
@@friendsforever5012 don’t quite understand the objection? Why would going through trauma give you any more free will than not going through trauma?
You say it yourself that the subconscious and conscious mind communicate and send information back and forth, so it can't be the case that the conscious mind has no say in anything. I think learning anything would be virtually impossible if we couldn't absorb information consciously and it having an impact on our subconscious
@@andrew3249the awareness or the process becoming conscious of its thoughts is a part of the process. Which then gives rise to new thoughts that are created subconsciously arising again in consciousness. The problem is the idea that the thoughts that arise after becoming aware or conscious could have been any different than it has been given your education, mood , culture , genes, upbringing, and so forth. If you rewind the clock of the universe you wouldn't have hindsight and so it would all just happen the same way. For you to do different you'd need hindsight which you can't have if you rewind the clock. And randomness if it exists isn't free will so any changes because of randomness is just that, randomness no free will. This idea that the awareness part of the process changes the process in a way that's outside of the process is wrong. Yet That's often what would need to be right for free will to exist in many people's definition of it. That's where the fault lies. So the process saying I chose this because I calculated this way and was aware of the calculation, is correct. It did calculate and it did become aware of it. And you don't have to look at atoms or causes and effects if that is the definition of free will being used. But for the claim that awareness can choose separately from the process is wrong. And for you to be able to make a different choice then what cause and effect dictates you'd have to be separate and you aren't. Awareness is merely a cog in the the system.
That's not how QM works. The Kochen-Specker theorem shows that, for some quantum particles, there are *no* possible hidden local variables describing a given measurement. This is why Conway says that a quantum particle is making a choice, and why they call their result the "free will theorem". You can call it a random choice, but as you point out, QM itself is not random.
The brain created but we haven't. But we are our brain. He implies therefore we have created the thought. Yes we the process arising from the brain have created the thought. But as you said you couldn't have done otherwise. You don't know what's going to be said any sooner than the audience. Again. You can't define this knowing that the process made a decision as the same type of free will that is more defined in an absolute sense. As if, if you looked at a deeper level you could have done different. To say that you could have done different in that exact moment if you rewind time but without the knowledge coming from hindsight to know if that's true you actually have to look at a deeper level and we already know what the answer is. So it's faulty to mistake the two kinds of free Will. If you're going to define it as the latter you have to look deeply.
Anyone who has ever learned any skill knows, the subconscious is created by the conscious. It takes years of conscious practice to develop a subconscious capable of doing anything. Sure, we may have inherited instincts which make us jump when we hear a loud bang but this must have evolved over a millennia of conscious decisions
The conscious effort to stick to the practice of the development of a skill is itself arising from the subconscious. The drive to do so. If I want to become a piano player to avoid boredom. If I was lucky enough to have a brain that reads books on how the mind works I'll have picked up some hacks to make sure if my drive to play wanes I still sit down to practice so I can progress. When the mind doesn't want to do something and we consciously make an effort to do It anyway that conscious effort is still in arising from the subconscious. The thoughts to deal with lack of motivation either arise or they don't. If they do arise then the process has some reason for creating thoughts that can overcome lack of motivation. But both the lack of motivation and the drive to overcome that lack of motivation with arguments are just the process in action. Using knowledge etc.
@@Contribute_TakeCare_Learn_Playwell put
Oh, also, that's not how Coltrane's music works. On one hand, he certainly claimed to be divinely influenced; but OTOH we know that he did a lot of maths in order to compute his chord changes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltrane_changes
Why the adverts in an academic lecture?
Simply put. If by free will you mean the process of thoughts and awareness working in a loop to further process and claiming I the process chose this. Then yes that is true. But the idea that you could have done otherwise truly without the current knowledge of the choice rewinding the universe's clock. To see if that's true you have to look deeper and from the third person perspective and will see that no you couldn't have done different. So you can't claim a third person perspective ultimate reality kind of free will without looking at that level of reality. You can't claim a table is only a table you have to look at a deeper level and you will be disappointed to see that it's not only a table.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
Were all robots waiting to be plugged in. Quote by me .puppets controlled by an invisible master.
Consciousness is the human soul. End of fucking story!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The question is what are you free for
Great lecture which comes as a breath of fresh air after the nonsense from hard determinism which can be found on CZcams. Nice take on creativity!
I've tried all of these approaches on different Determinists in the comments here on YT and they are immune to reason or understanding. They will say you are redefining Free Will from the historic or common understanding, so your view is invalid. They also stick with their tautology of "you couldn't have done differently", always phrasing it very carefully in the past, since saying "you can not do differently" is patently stupid and obviously silly. There seems to be some perverse motivation for playing these games in order to protect such a crazy idea as Determinism, which is basically a restatement of the religious idea of Fate. One way to get through the barriers of this psychological defense mechanism is to just say the magic words, "you can choose, but you couldn't have chosen differently". Most of the time, as long as you start with this, the Determinist will agree with almost anything that was discussed in this video.
I reqlly don’t know why anyone bothers with philosophers anymore . All they do is attempt to obfuscate reality. The science has made it very clear that free will is a non-starter.
How has the science done that?
@@andrew3249 1. The experiments beginning with those of Libet 2. The fact that we never see a breach of causation above the quantum level anywhere in the universe.
@@davethebrahman9870 1. If I understand the new data thats been coming out recently, the "RP" brain activity thats been recorded during the experiment was shown to be sort of "noise" that didnt neccesarily have anything to do with performing the action. Some other research has shown that theres a 200 ms timeframe after the RP where conscious thought can interrupt action. Also, even If his findings were true, think about how much impact this would actually have on our human experience. We think, have emotions, deliberate rationally, and so on in conditions that are far from those in the lab. Does the fact that an unconscious signal is sent beforehand, for an action that a subject had consciously agreed to performing, is really that surprising? Even If it was true, I'd be doubtful it would be enough to infer that it applies across the board to all human action.
2. Causation and determinism don't presuppose eachother at all. In fact, its Impossible to prove causal determinism without an insane prerequisite of knowledge. Take this example: An alarm clock wakes Tom up at 8:00 am. He gets dressed and goes to school. This seems like a very simple A -> B scenario, but to actually make it work, we need to exclude an infinite amount of possible events at every point of this "causal chain" to make it work. For instance, we need to exclude the possibility that an earthquake wakes Tom up before the alarm. Or, that the legs on Toms bed gives in and he is woken up by the sudden movement. Or maybe just quantum randomness causes his phone to glitch and his alarm never goes off. This is why most scientists say "determinism" and not "causal determinism". To prove causal determinism, you'd need to know about every single possible variable in the observable universe, have a unified deterministic theory of everything that perfectly explains all observable phenomenon, and some way to gather data about everything in the universe and some way to compute all that data. Easy, right? I recommend reading this fantastic entry on the SEF about determinism because it covers all of the problems and strengths of the hypothesis perfectly: plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#ConIssDet
@@davethebrahman9870I like to think of it, like a book with no pages missing, or a math problem with no lines or numbers missing.
Gaps would mean there was magic.
Magic or Supernaturalism isn't explanatory.
Reasons aren't in you're control either.
Too many advertisements
So the car and driver example is a really bad analogy and here's why.. The brain creates the mind. Although not identical it does arise from the brain. Poke or stimulate the brain enough and the mind experience changes. In the car example there is a huge problem. Imagine the battery broke down as he said. What is the real cause? He implies determinists would explain the physics of it for how this man came to not charge his battery. And caused it. Or if it's only about the car how the battery eventually failed but if that's the case it could be implied that it's the man's fault or just the battery actually dying. Which probably isn't what they meant to say. It seems they focus on the man being the cause. If not then it's actually a non argument anyway. I'll show the problem by showing, how that analogy should have been to be more correct. The battery has inputs coming from the entire car. The battery also has an AI chip giving it the potential to process and be aware of the battery and the car it is in. When driving,the battery will recharge itself. The chip will know when to do so via the inputs. We determine in this case that the battery has broken down. The cause? It didn't charge so let's say that the input is broken. Let's say for the sake of argument that the inputs needed to charge made it not charge. In the brain or mind if an action that should have been done isn't done that might be because the correct inputs (education, circumstances, etc) weren't available. Or the right thoughts didn't arise. The chip is limited to its programming and its data inputs. Imagine a different cause the man (as was meant to in the original argument if not it's a non argument anyway). Imagine the car stood in the garage for a year and the man was standing next to it at his house with a dead battery. This would imply that because the man didn't drive the car for so long, the battery drained. The man is the cause. But since the battery and the AI chip are the brain and the mind getting inputs and processing it. The man in this example is actually just an external circumstance. The man could be seen as the reason why the brain or mind didn't get the necessary input or education. For example parents who chose to keep their children from going to school. The parents are the external cause for the lack of possibilities arising in the mind of the children at least in one point in time. The human in this example is an external factor to the car. So it's not a good analogy for free will. If seen through this correct analogy it actually disproves it.
Spaghetti Bolognese anyone?
I would argue that with criminals it can actually enhance your view of what should happen in judgment, if you practice reductionism looking at the deepest level. Concluding free will doesn't exist. Then once doing that one can still see how we experience the world at a non deeper level and merge those. I'd argue because looking deeper we'd actually become more rationally compassionate and come to better humane conclusions on how to handle prisoners then if we were to deny deeper reality or minimize it.
Need to stop... too many loud, intrusive ads.
Exactly!
Stop watched it. Averaged bout 5 min twix.
Dr. Gaggini was a great speaker until he picked up that damned bottle of water. He then slurped, swallowed, and made disconcerting grunts, which turned me off, and I turned him off. HE should take Toastmasters to learn how to speak publicly. God, I could not handle all those noises from that bottle of water!!! Maybe you can.