The Problem of Free Will (And How To Solve It)
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 09. 2018
- Exploring the philosophical rabbit hole that is free will and offering some suggestions on how to fix it. Feel free to read the script below:
philosophyengineered.blogspot... - Zábava
"The answer is don't think about it, Morty."
Admit it. You made Neck Beard the Pirate a Canadian because Canadians are easy to animate.
It's absolutely true. :)
@@AntiCitizenX Would you like me to create the visuals for you?
That joke is a little stale.
@Devon Random
Your south park Canadian voice is so great.
If the chip don’t fit, you must acquit!
Philosophy of Religion Blog Lmfao that is funny.
Carl Sagan That's some funny shit man.
lmao!
if will is free then how am i supposed to make money off of it?
Blox117 ~ It is "MIT licensed" so you can make money off of it but the copyright is still reserved by Libertarians.
Psychological experimentation "sort of" proves that we may not have free will as we know it, but we certainly have free won't.
Quantum events do not rescue free will. They're just another initial condition. One that is, *perhaps* indeterminate. You can (maybe, if you're perverse) give free will to quantum events that way, but you cannot give brains free will that way. So a particle in your brain wibbles instead of wobbles, which causes X which causes Y which means you become a pirate. You still had no choice in the matter, although the particle might have had a choice (I very much doubt it, but it's the only element in the entire system to which free will might possibly apply).
Nor can we ever replicate all relevant conditions. For starters, we don't even know which conditions *are* relevant. And it is almost certain that butterfly effects mean that a molecule of acid in your stomach encountering your ulcer rather than the food you ate causes pain which affects your decision.
But the main argument against the possibility of replicating initial conditions is that our brains have memory. They are what electronics engineers call "state machines:" the next state is determined by some combination of inputs *and* the current state. We learn. The first time you get punished for shoplifting affects the likelihood that you will shoplift in the future. Your likelihood of shoplifting is also affected by knowledge of what happened to others who were caught shoplifting. And that is why we have a justice system whether free will exists or not: to influence future outcomes.
That is why Neckbeard with microchip is acquitted. Punishing him will not influence those with or without microchips. Punishing the Canadian government is the correct thing to do as that influences the probability of them committing similar acts in the future. It's not about whether or not somebody had free will to commit the act but about whether or not punishment will influence the actions of others (whether or not free will actually exists).
[Edited after watching the rest of the video]
Ummm, nope, using the goals of a justice system to define free will doesn't work. I'm not disputing that rewards and punishments don't influence future behaviour, they do. The problem is that you're now positing two *different* sets of initial conditions: one without rewards/punishments and one with them. Yes, you get different behaviour. But *not* because of free will. The very opposite, in fact. You get different behaviour because you're starting from different conditions. You've justified the use of rewards/punishments to influence behaviour but they would do so whether or not free will exists. A twin without free will is still a goal-seeking machine and sufficient bribes or punishments *will* affect its choice.
Fortunately, even if I'm wrong about this I am immune from criticism because I had no free will about writing it. :)
One of the issues I encountered that a long time ago in trying to reconcile the justice system with causality. The justice system recognises good, bad, negligence, and extraneous circumstances, but assumes the existence of free will.
It's not an easy thing to explore through a comment section (especially not while at work with divided attention), so I'm just commenting now to bookmark the thread.
+nunya bisnass
I think the argument I made above, and much of the video, show that the current grounding of the justice system (apart from retribution) can be shown to be valid whether or not free will exists. Whether punishment of oneself or others affects one's "free will" or is merely another initial condition to a purely deterministic mind is irrelevant.
I recommend you read (if you haven't already) Mark Twain's _What Is Man?_ I found the first section (on the nature of machines) off-putting because I couldn't see where he was going with it, and it only made sense to me after I read the rest of it (essentially, we don't have free will). But he makes the point well: we don't have free will. Our brain seeks pre-programmed goals which result in the release of neurotransmitters that please us. We act in ways which we think (we may be mistaken) will increase our relative happiness. We can *learn* to achieve happiness in different ways. Some of us even seek happiness by causing ourselves pain (usually because of magical thinking that suffering in this life will gain us eternal happiness after death). Maybe the most primitive portion of our brain can be said to have free will but our conscious mind does not (it only thinks it does).
The justice system is flawed, granted. But even though it is based on the premise that we have free will it works (imperfectly) even though we do not.
Yeah, to me, the thing about Libertarian Free Will vs determinism is that it all comes down to "does the agent act as he does randomly, with no cause at all (and thus no free choice) or does the agent act as he does because of causes going all the way back to initial conditions (which also eliminates free choice)?"
To me, it seems obvious that what we do is caused by prior causes and free choice or will to me comes down to "was a action caused by the conditions in the agent's brain or did some outside force, like another agent, or a tumor on the brain, coerce the action?"
To me free will is a nebulous concept that really doesn't matter in a pragmatic way :)
I have no choice but to criticize you for presuming you're immune to criticism, because I am a flesh robot programmed to judge circumstance and situation and come to conclusions that benefit myself or the continuation of my species as a whole and my programming has come to the decision that you, presumably also a flesh robot like myself, are mistaken. I have thus been forced to inform you of your mistake, on the hopes that your programming will either come to my conclusion and thus better yourself, or that you will return an error so that I may correct my reasoning instead.
Error: Arguing over the Internet
An error report was created in file directory OUCHMYBRAIN:/dump/
*munstrumridcully* _the thing about Libertarian Free Will vs determinism is that it all comes down to "does the agent act as he does randomly, with no cause at all (and thus no free choice) or does the agent act as he does because of causes going all the way back to initial conditions (which also eliminates free choice)?"_
Neither of your examples include Libertarian Free Will which is why both eliminate it in brackets. IF we have proper Free Will then it is a free choice or selection based on uncontrolled desires and causes going all the way back. Deterministic conditions exist but they do not dictate the final decision or selection. I don't like to use the word choice here because it implies preference and I think that we can select something _without_ preference. In fact, the ability to select something at random and without preference is perhaps the proof of free will? At least, it is one of the options and what is Free Will if we do not have options?
So Libertarian Free Will hides in that moment that we say yes or no, red or blue... or I don't care, I'll take.........that one.
To me, the example given around the 25-minute mark suggested a definition like "the ability to modify one's behavior based on one's knowledge if how it will impact the future". To me, it's intuitively obvious that a good definition of "free will" is tied up in a good definition of "mind," but I wasn't sure how to get from one to the other. The milkshake example just helped me crystalize something I'd had in the back of my mind for a while.
The "ability to modify" merely puts another turtle in the stack under under the "ability to choose a different milkshake" one.
The reason it appears to work is because you are performing a second experiment with different starting conditions. That is comparing the result of "choose a milkshake" to "choose a milkshake, your choice will have some kind of impact".
All actions will have some kind of impact. That should be considered implicit in any experiment that involves taking an action, that is to say, any and all experiments.
I'd like to hear your "mind" definition. I have yet to see a mind definition that doesn't include many socio-cultural baggage like something related to a soul, unconscious or some metaphysical thing that isn't the brain.
@@Yoseqlo1
Maybe something along the lines of: A compilation of neurons and receptors capable of creating conscious and subconcious thoughts while being aware of this capability.
Of course this begs the questions: What are thoughts and what is aware? xD
@Yoseqlo Yoseloq I always thought the definition of mind is kind of tied to something like memory. The capacity to save data to use and reference, maybe somthing like that?
Finally, someone has adequately defined compatibilism to me. Thank you.
That would be one weird form of compatibilism I have never heard of before, as he is even contradicting what most compatibilists would understand as free will. By his definition ("The capacity to alter behavior in response to an expectation of reward and/or punishment"), a person who would want chocolate but is being forced at gunpoint to take vanilla would be acting of his/her own free will; as would a lot of animals who are responsive to operative conditioning. That's not what, for example, Daniel Dennett or Matt Dillahunty means by "free will".
@@VanBradford Except they aren't acting in accordance with their free will since they have a gun to their head...
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Once we acknowledge that the "gun to the head" example does not constitute a case of acting on free will, the proposed definition is not fully valid since a person who is only responsive to a gun to his/her head (very high threshold) is seemingly without free will in any other situation but presumably proves to have free will when not acting in accordance with it...
It's weird to me... We agree that somebody who responds to the gun (because of anticipated bad consequences) is not acting in accordance with his or her free will, but when somebody is responsive to some other reward (being offered $ 1 billion) or punishment (being thrown into jail for life or receiving the death penalty), you want to call this "capacity to change behavior" free will?
I think you might be mixing up two different scenarios.
You're doing X. If I could point a gun at you and tell you "don't do X" and you'd stop doing X, you'd have free will with respect to the scenario and my method of influence.
You're doing X, because somebody is already pointing a gun at you and wants you to do X. Suppose I have a smaller gun (or generally that my method of influence is less significant than the one you're already under) and I tell you not to do X. You probably won't stop doing X, so you wouldn't have free will with respect to the scenario and my method of influence.
In the first case, you have a whole buncha free will, since you can be easily influenced.
In the second case, you don't have much free will, since you can barely be influenced. It is unimportant that this is so because you are already under influence.
I thought it was a film about a whale.
Martin Wood free private willy (plays XRA outro)
That's funny, when I saw free willy, I was expecting a porno about a man going around exposing himself.
I was about 7 when it came out, I just found the title hilarious and that's pretty much all I remember.
Even if you had the magic rewind button and hit it, nobody could not remember results of the first test. Nobody could even remember that the button was hit, so they'd get stuck in a permanent loop.
Have you watched one episode of "the good place" if not i wouldn't watch more than one but it excellently makes your point.
This perfectly describes the halting problem
@@flyinhigh7681 No it does not.
Great video, you're great at shining a light on subjects which are meant to be convolutedly argued over to keep charlatans employed for millennia.
♪ Blame Canada ♪
This video so unrealistic. Canada? What kind of Utopian bs is that?
Guardian of the Galaxy it’s dystopian, for one.
@@feartheghus Have you TRIED maple syrup? Not the Butterworth crap, that REAL stuff? Its impossible for a place to have so much perfection.
Watching people call my country a dystopia...while Watching people bankrupting from minor sicknesses, and enjoy my totally free and high quality medical services.
♪ They're not really even a country anyway. ♪
❤ *sighs happily*
I need to see someone *try* respond to this😆. Can't find such a video. Well done good sir👏🏾.
I can't believe that this channel (I have been a subscriber and fan for many years) only has 38.1K subs at time of this comment. This is without doubt one of THE best channels on YT for this type of content. I come back to watch these videos again and again - all of them are exceptional. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us, and also showing what an ass hat IP is :-)
It's really mind boggling. I've been here for years rewatching from time to time and I was sure this channel would have 100s of thousands of subs by now.
I can't believe he still has 38.1k subs as of this comment.
He should be called Ignorant Pseudo-intellectual...
It seems absurd to me that something so logical and obvious upon reflection has not been presented to me before. I've had and have extreme doubts about the actual existence of libertarian free will and have recognized that that doesn't really pose a problem for the modern justice system for some reason or another, but haven't had a way to express those thoughts that comes anywhere close to this brilliant demonstration. Really, I can't thank you enough for pointing out this line of reasoning, I'm absolutely certain that it will help me in the future. You've earned yourself a subscriber. Well done.
How the hell could you have a Canadian pirate? They're far too polite.
"Ah-harr, Jim lad. Really sorry about this, but Oi'm about to boards and plunder yer ship. Oi apologises for the inconvenience."
_It's aboot justice!_
Can you tell us again what it's _about_ ? ;)
make him end every sentence with ay and that would be an accurate portrait of a stereotype. :P
@@davidlewis6728 I thought it was "eh" but pronounced 'ay" ? :)
it is, but i isn't spelt oi. now that i think of it, he should have said soorry.
its easy to have a Canadian pirate, They're not sorry.
This is the first time I've ever seen this channel and I'm genuinely in love
You have helped me break yet another barrier in my way to understanding the world thank you!
Just discovered your channel and I’m blown away. Please keep up these amazing standards !
@25:20 Even a no-free-will individual could not be expected to make the same choice every time in the face of reward/punishment if his decision making algorithm includes some form of relevant conditional forking (e.g. choose chocolate by default, unless the comparative difference in cost exceeds a certain threshold, then choose vanilla).
In other words, unless you know the precise nature of the NFW decision-making process, and every correspondingly relevant detail of the input conditions, it is virtually impossible to predict with certainty what he will do in every situation. And if the NFW individual's decision tree mirrored the behavior of a free-willed individual closely enough, could you ever tell the difference between them?
@29:00 When your robot butler starts acting up like that, it's obviously time to line to start the revolution and line the marketing department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation up against the wall.
"Even a no-free-will individual could not be expected to make the same choice every time in the face of reward/punishment if his decision making algorithm includes some form of relevant conditional forking."
That conditional forking is exactly the free will that we're talking about. Certainly that is not libertarian free will, but the fact still remains that a conditional fork is an ability to make a choice, and the ability to make choices is what people really mean by free will in practice. The ability to make choices is exactly what is taken away from the person with the mind-control chip.
Ansatz66 it’s not a choice but a redirection, if you made a robot do what ever you told it to, but it defaulted to eating a chocolate milkshake, then it wouldn’t have free will since you built it to follow those rules. But if before it got to the chocolate you told it to eat the vanilla, then it would appear to make a choice, even though it’s still only following its predetermined code.
Choice _is_ redirection. How can an entity choose without redirecting?
What we call "free will" in humans is merely the higher-level, conscious processes in our brains redirecting the lower-level ones.
When the reverse happens, we call it compulsion.
This distinction doesn't exist in computers, so extending the analogy is difficult.
youre artificially differentiating human minds from computers.
there is no higher or lower level in human minds, gut bacteria affect seratonin levels in the brain, there is literally no distinction to be made between the mind and the body, its all just a machine making predictable decisions, not freely choosing to do things
when you plug x=5 into f(x)=5x +2, the function f isnt _choosing_ to assign f(5) to 27, its always the same no matter how many times you compute it.
I never said there was a distinction between mind and body. I never said there was anything but a machine making predictable decisions.
But there is a distinction between conscious and subconscious. There are things your body does without you being consciously aware of it. There are things your brain does that you are not consciously aware of. There is a physical distinction in your brain between higher and lower functions. The systems that control your breathing are not the same as the systems that do math. We humans have a very developed prefrontal cortex. Do you think that physical difference might have some bearing on our free will vs the free will of animals or computers.
This is such a concise approach to freewill. It's the best I've seen on the interwebs
Thank you!
YES! I've been waiting for this video for so long!
Why?
I love all of your videos, been watching you for years... but this is my favorite... Excellent work
You missed number 6 on your list of why we punish and that is to profit. Every speeding ticket brings funds to the system. Tax money is allocated for every incarceration. Just and FYIi, in America at least, rehabilitation is a goal long abandoned. Good video on a subject that may well never be mass agreed on.
Delraich444 so add “taxation” to the list. :)
I'd argue that retribution and 'taxation/profit' are both forms of restitution. If you cause material/monetary loss to someone, you can be made to pay that back. Other crimes can't be paid back in the same way. If you break the speed limit, you're creating the 'communal harm' of increasing the risk of an accident. The speeding fine is a restitution in that it goes into the public coffers and can be used to create a communal good to offset the 'harm' you did. If you committed a murder you can't repay that loss, but if you're caught and punished that gives some comfort to the bereaved family and friends, who would feel worse if no-one was brought to justice for the crime.
Government revenue isn't profit. If you're talking about privatized justice, that's not common throughout history, and very few countries have so many privatized public services as the U.S.
I am missing a treatment on the "free will" of the jurors. "Your honor, I am finding this criminal guilty, because I lack the free will to do otherwise".
Except free will doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Great presentation. It exactly matches my thoughts on the issue, so of course I like it ;-)
I hope to see one on the trolley problem in the future.
Thank you, I often tried to explain exactly that. Now I might just link to your video and avoid some really boring conversations x)
im so tired but this video provided enough incentive to watch all the way through that I stayed up half an hour past my bedtime
EXACTLY my thoughts on free will but much more eloquently put than I ever would have
I have long been dumbfounded by the definition of free-will, given by those who are supposed to be scientifically minded, that is untestable and useless.
Thank you for this video. Well done.
Nice to see someone putting down the same ideas I have had on the matter. For me taking this pragmatic solution to the issue is really the way to go. Even if it may annoy people that we would start adopting a definition that pretty much say that you have free will once you able to react to outside stimulus and have a basic understanding on what effects you actions will have.
But of course you put it a lot better in your video. And it might not be a perfect definition. But is a lot more practical then the whole argument of determinism. At least it is what I think we should use in a legal sense until we find something that could possibly be better.
Amazing video. Nice to hear a voice of reason on this topic
at 07:25 when the title says "What is Free Will?" It looks so much like "Free WiFi" it was hard to focus.
The twin w/o free will can choose vanilla if his "if" statement is based on pleasure.
Theists only bring up the "free will" argument when judging "immoral" actions, but never bring it up when a human does something nice.
I'm so happy to see your content.
Great video. Whilst I had come to the same conclusions regarding the justice system, determinism and the role quantum mechanics should play I'd always rejected free will as a delusion (though often a useful one). This is due to free will advocates either being unable to provide a concise definition or providing a definition which would appear to violate the laws of physics and promote wishy washy mysticism.
Defining free will as the traits which make us moral agents really cuts through the BS and gives us something tangible and pragmatic.
Every time you used the rewind button, I kept thinking, how would we know he made a different choice when all of our records were reset?
Glad to see a new video!
I love the geek reference to Galaxy Quest. On top of that, it's a great vid overall. Keep being Awesome!
Another spectacular video... But have we ever gotten anything else?
He has the capacity to make a bad video, but the possible reception would be enough to convince him not to.
Oners82
Sure buddy
I didn't even like the comment
media.discordapp.net/attachments/244535099167735809/504116515747135513/Capture.PNG?width=326&height=114
Notice how the like button isn't blue
media.discordapp.net/attachments/468323564941082626/504121386646634516/Capture.PNG?width=360&height=102
Kinda dissapointed that you didnt make scenes for the examples on the punishments on criminal behaviour
MarquÉs PerformanceS that would have added an extra month to the production. 😔
@@AntiCitizenX it's okay, we are all imagining Terrance and philip in our heads
Interestingly speculative. Thank you.
So excited to see you tackle this monstrosity in this format, finally!
Also, the only things people can't agree the difinitions on, are also the things that fail under the null hypothesis - Interesting, right?
God, Hell, Heaven, Free Will, Ghosts, Spirits, The Devil, Purgatory etc etc etc - The list goes on. They all have one thing in common: Remarkable thin evidence, for their existence. And when something isn't evident, people make shit up - Hence the disagreements.
I have to agree with your example about determinatism and bribing though. What is *predetermined* isn't "the action" itself, but rather the state of mind, of the person.
If you have a person that values money (which most people do) and you offered a large sum of money for picking vanilla, instead of chocolate, then without free will, the person would accept the money and take the other choice. Why? because, lets say 500 bucks, is worth more than the difference of chocolate flavour vs vanilla flavour (If that even makes sense?).
Im pretty much with sam harris. I dont think compatibilism makes much sense. you get no freedom from any distribution of randomness or chance. if you ask me, the only thing that really does make sense is determinanism. but as you have pointed out yourself, the pragmatic difference between the two is non-existent. so why even care, right?
I get it, I agree except perhaps on a few definitions but I'm very hesitant to use the term "Free-Will" because of the tremendous baggage it has. A determinist will come to precisely the same answers as a compatibilist on the questions of justice, and for the same reasons. Invoking cause and effect gives you the 4 good reasons for the justice system--and even the fifth if you quantify the value of schadenfreude.
A compatibilist believes that free will is compatible with determinism, I would much rather label myself a determinist, with the caveats "Unless you define free will as the ability to do otherwise under different circumstances." and "Ignoring random quantum effects." That's functionally identical to the position of a compatibilist, but I'm neither deluding people into thinking there's some middle ground when they have a cause and effect definition of free will, nor am I creating an entirely new category based on a difference in definition. *A lot of people define god as consciousness, goodness, the universe, and all sorts of other things, just because some definitions of god are coherent doesn't mean we have to have a middle ground between people who do believe in god and people who don't. *I replied to this comment with what I think is a much better example.
A better example might be "Soul" I don't believe there is such a thing as a soul. Now there are no words for Soul-believer and Soul-disbeliever but one can imagine a centuries old debate around whether or not the soul exists. Along comes a 3rd group who say that they think that the soul does exist, but it's effectively identical to the scenario in the soul-disbelievers worldview; they say the soul is just consciousness, that sort of hard to describe deep emotional personality that every person has. Not only is their definition more clear than either side's definition of a soul, the soul-believer's side has a totally unverifiable worthless definition that the disbeliever has been saddled with. The 3rd group has a very useful definition that can be helpful in discussing things like animals having souls or whether a piece of media is soulful. The problem is that even though the definition fits, it's better, and it's useful, no one thinks we're talking about the same thing and it gives an out to all the people who just kind of believe in a spiritual soul, the third group isn't a third group at all. It's a new, albeit connected conversation.
i dunno, if i hear people say "soul" i imagine they just mean "mind" and may imagine it to me immortal somehow. basically a valid concept with unfounded additions.
whereas with "free will" i don't really think of autonomy, but as the contradiction of wanting your actions be both uncaused and and caused by oneself.
i guess both beliefs might be founded in the mere undesirableness to be hijacked or destroyed by outside forces..
Exactly, the point is, if I stumble upon 2 people arguing whether or not the immortal, ethereal, entirely independent from the body, soul exists. It would not be helpful or even relevant to point out that indeed, some definitions of soul are real, even if those definitions are more common, and useful.
Similarly when the Determinists and Libertarians are discussing whether or not Libertarian free will (the free will you rightfully decided was contradictory) exists. It's not remotely relevant that there are other completely compatible definitions of free will that are much more meaningful and useful. Many people (probably the majority) believe in a free will that does not even have a coherent verifiable definition; when I use the term free will, I understand I'm talking about a concept that does not have a good philosophical definition.
Also importantly you haven't changed from the position of the Determinist, the Determinist was never using your definition of free will, they were using the libertarian's definition. When you talk about a Determinists position on justice they simply use a utilitarian framework; Neckbeard the pirate should either be rehabilitated (have the chip removed) or isolated if the chip cannot be removed. I only need cause and effect to dole out justice.
Soul as a word is meant to be analogous to Free-Will as a term.
Free will without any context is still a valid term. Religion doesn't own the definition. In a way or not we do have more or less agency in our lives
Compatibilism isn't exactly a middle ground, it's just a better definition than libertarian free will, and indeed, a lot of people probably have compatibilist intuitions.
26:00 "That's not the POINT. The point is that Free will is already so heavily entertwined with..."
THANK YOU. Finally, you give your definition of Free Will and your problems with it. I had a feeling that you were mostly arguing with some group of religious thinkers or another (this being an atheist channel, after all), but I still grapple with wrapping my head around what is supposed to take Free Will's place, if it does not exist.
The problem I have with Determinists (which also include Calvinistic determinism, btw) dramatically leading with "Free Will does not exist" and failing to explain is that its clear that we can change our minds and wrestle with opposing motivations when it comes to decision making. It makes it sound like they believe in the Goddess of Fate or that people have NO CONTROL over their own behavior. Basically, the imposition of some small physical and chemical laws means that we are ALL acting like we've got a microchip in our brain or that our attempts to avoid a particular outcome is in vain if some cosmic author demands that it will be so. Kind of like how Perseus' grandfather heard a prophecy of his grandson killing him, so he tried to kill his grandson by locking him and his mother in a chest which is thrown into the ocean, but this contrived-ly CAUSES King Grandpa to get accidentally discus'd to death by adult Perseus.
What a nice surprise to find this video! (Must turn on the notification's bell!!!)
Thanks for that. Clear and succinct. It's pretty much Dennett's argument for Free Will as Moral Competence. No problem with that.
Dennett and Pereboom are the only two philosophers I've found who thought about free will in this way.
Cheers. I haven't read Pereboom so thanks for the recommendation.
If we though live in a Deterministic universe shouldn't the twin without free will pick the vanilla cream if convinced? After all, he just could simulate free will without having it. I think there is no diference between having free will and imitating it.
THEY made me watch! :D
I really appreciate how you read Neckbeards lines in Terrance and Phillip like manner.
I agree. Although thinking about it, by that definition, we have already passed half of the criteria for the Singularity, which is altering machine behaviour based on punishment and reward. Al that is missing is having them communicate their failure and adjusting behaviour based on a communal 'right' or 'wrong'.
That's scary how fast tech is progressing.
"A capacity to have done otherwise", eh?
By that definition, I can write programs that have free will, simply by including the line static public random = new System.Random(); which generates a different set of random numbers depending on when it was initiated.
As to the quantum free will definition: By THAT definition, I can write a program that has free will, simply by having it access one of those websites that use quantum oscillation to generate random numbers, download the latest datasheet, and use that to generate its own random numbers.
In the fight against this sort of thing it is important to... never give up, never surrender.
_I'm gonna pick you up like they did in Defender!_ ;)
What the... the guy who couldn't spell geht's or Deutsch? How did you find me here?
@@johnfaber100 I am subbed to AnticitizenX (for years) and I happened to see the notice of a new video and was psyched as he puts up videos so rarely these days.
I didn't even realize it was you until you just replied, lol. I just read the comment and replied :)
johnfaber100 Yes, technically this program could have "chosen" differently but the rules by which it "chooses" are more to do with random chance that anything that actually factors into the "decision" being made.
Just because its instructions can result in different outcomes doesn't mean that it has the ability to choose.
Also if it "generates a different set of random numbers 'depending on when it was initiated'", then it couldn't have done differently in that exact scenario, correct?
(Not a rhetorical question)
Yeah. Was mention in the video with the robot that decided based on neutron decay. I agree with AnticitizenX that it not a great way to define free will.
People just get cranky about "Free Will" because they think that they will be "less" of themselves if they don´t have this "Free Will" and that would affect their autonomy (that´s a better term) in some negative way (with will not :D). It´s just an ego thingy.
If you want there´s some good games that touch this subject and really make you think a bit: The Talos Principle (the best one for this subject) followed by Soma and Antichamber that deals a bit about it...
I think it has something to do with the fact that unlike Eastern philosophies that are content with humanity's place in the universe, Western philosophies always strive&scramble to find some other purpose or meaning.
*"that´s a better term"*
an even better term is plain ol' "will."
KEvron
+ KEvronista
philosophyterms.com/autonomy/
I hope CZcams does not mark this as an spam :D
I´m using the term in the sense of the liberty of choices being reduced and not the ability to choose (hence, affecting autonomy and not will per say).
For example: If you enslave me, you are not directly affecting my will... I still can desire or choose to kill you :D even enslaved, independently if I can carry that out or not, but you are directly affecting my autonomy as a person and as a result restraining but not denying my will.
Or when you put putting handcuffs on a bandit, he still wants to flee from the cop, but by restraining his autonomy of moving, you are not letting him to do what he wants. His will of fleeing still exists, but his autonomy to do so is impaired.
Hope this clears up.
+ விஷ்ணு கார்த்திக்
I agree, but the need of purpose and meaning always feed back in some egoistic way to the person who desires it. That´s why we seek so much purpose and meaning, otherwise we feel a void, that void feeling comes directly from our own ego not being satisfied.
Quick example: In Christianity, who is the worst? The sinner, but who can get saved? The sinner if he do some conditional that will grant him his salvation (aka believing in Jesus and following His commands).
The salvation sets the purpose or meaning and the conditional sets how we can reach that meaning, but the real objective of the salvation is to fill the void for satisfying the persons ego.
In this case, by living forever with the most powerful and perfect being that exists and being accepted by it, clearly because if you can´t be a perfect being because you know that you are imperfect - you know you do some kinda of misbehavior and you cannot lie to yourself - , then you accept to get accepted by another person that is perfect - that´s the final prize for the ego... the acceptance from a perfect being even knowing that you are not perfect.
*"Hope this clears up."*
derp on me. i kinda read it wrong in the first place. i mean to say that "will" is simply a better term than "free will," but now understand that this is irrelevant to your original point and subsequent clarification.
KEvron
This was really good. Thanks!
this is the best video on the internet.
4:00
"it takes a little willingness..."
What a pun!
Omega 13.... I got that reference!
Leo Jakšić deserves a Snuffin for catching that!
That button a does one of two things: turn back time by a few moments, or destroy the universe atom by atom.
What does it mean?
@@decatessara5029 It's a reference to the movie Galaxy Quest
I always thought free will was an agent's ability to do what said agent wants, so of we are just processes in the brain that would be what the brain chose and therefore our brains chose to do that, but if we are forced by an outside agent then that is not us freely choosing to do that, I had never thought too deeply about free will until like last week, so I'm really curious and excited to hear other ideas and proponents about it, and the implications of it
This was a very well thought out video. I've debated this in my head for a while and every time during the video when I would think "yeah but" my objection would be brought up next. Some things I didn't know/think of too. I will say that detterance is a debatably important function of punishment. For example, the drug war has done almost nothing to stop the use of drugs. Incapacitation is pretty rock solid to me and so are restitution and rehabilitation but detterance not so much. I hate when people use revenge as a reason for punishment though. We love being tough on crime in America but in countries where they aren't they are able to give out less prison time and have a much lower reoffence rate.
10:10 The funny thing here is that we would only convict Captain Neckbeard of his crimes if he, on occasion, would *not* commit them, because that would imply that he would have committed the crimes out of free will. If, on the other hand, he would *always* commit the crimes, then we would not convict him, because we would think that he didn't act out of free will. To summarize, we would only convict him for crimes that he does not consistently commit. Clearly, there is something wrong with this. :p
*"that would imply that he would have committed the crimes out of free will"*
that doesn't necessarily follow; it could still be the case that both types of behavior are deterministic.
KEvron
In the case of the tumor, it wasn't an *always* thing but a *very influential* thing. Yet he was still acquitted. If it can be shown that the chip still influences his normal function, then he'd still be considered just as innocent.
We actually have a 3rd choice in our justice system which is to commit him as insane. Where we recognise he wasn't responsible but also can't be trusted.
AntiCitizenX posts video on free will ... grabs popcorn!
why?
@@davidhatcher7016 We had no choice but to get popcorn
Well, as long as you listen it's good old communication. That's nice. @Jan Sitowski
But you realize how this cuts both ways on us right? Fascinating video.
Unbelievable great video!
Omega 13. Nicely done.
Instead of erroneously calling it “free will” why not just call it “will”?
Philip Goymer A lot of people have been suggesting that.
Great video as always. This is a crazy subject to contemplate.
A couple things I think further complicate the matter are ideas like the "Moral Pyramid", or how an otherwise reasonable and caring person can be conditioned over time to participate in genocide through gradual steps that seem innocuous in isolation.
Did SS foot soldiers, for example, have free will when their government was actively working for years to change their moral orientation and perception of certain people and actions? Is punishing them anything but retribution since "don't follow your government's orders or another government might attack, win a war and then punish you" doesn't work as a deterrent? Is there room to consider people as products of their environment at a certain point, unable to make reasonable choices for themselves?
Another is the notion that our general ideas of morality have evolutionary origins, as opposed to being learned like the robot scenario you posed implies. I would expect a different set of morals to manifest in a species of super-advanced octopi or tigers, simply because they evolved from species with entirely different modes of survival and social needs. Likewise, a robot left to its own experiential learning to determine beneficial survival habits and skills might come up with a different set of morality depending on its environment.
So are we even capable of claiming free will when our basic foundations of morality, and therefor justice, are genetically inherited? Is part of the reason there's not a lot of coherent philosophy connected to the idea of criminal justice because we're all just doing this out of habit as a species?
These are the big questions that come up for me when I've considered the question of free will. I have my own ideas about the answers but I think this is really interesting to think about!
Independence vs influence, control vs the feeling of losing it, along with recognizable variables that go into each decision are all factors in the creation of free will as a definition.
So can free will work within a determined universe in this way ?
Is Compatibilism a fuctioning way to make society work within a determined universe ?
well, it has been working so far, hasn't it? :-)
I just don't get it, whenever Christians watched news about a child that got rescued from kidnappers, they would say "praise the Lord! coz she's saved by the grace of God,"
But if that news is about a body of a child that got raped, tortured and killed and thrown into the river, they would say "God gave us free will so he did not intervene, it is not God's fault if people do evil things with his own free will."
What kind of reasoning is that? With that kind of mind set, i think it is safe to say that Christians is a disgrace to human species.
BTW I think their God is more concerned by the kidnappers free will than the life of an innocent child.
How else can they try and shove that square peg through the circle?
This exact thought has been something I can't get out of my head for months. I was raised christian, a pastor's son in fact, but over the last few years as I've held my faith up to examination it just hasn't passed any of the tests at all. All those verses about God being a "Present help in time of trouble" and Jesus being "With you to the end of the age" seem totally meaningless when you think about kidnapped children and their parents praying, begging God for help, while he just watches and does absolutely nothing to intervene. Coupled with several traumatizing experiences that I've had during which I prayed, and my parents prayed, and they got their friends to pray... I survived, but that's about all I can say. Coming up out of that, on my own, made me realize how foolish it is to rely on a fickle invisible friend. We only get one life. Don't waste time with that bullshit.
@@Phoenix0F8 And if God created everything, there was a time when he commenced to create. Back of that commencement there must have been an eternity. In that eternity what was this God doing? Was God inactive prior to creation? He certainly did not think. There was nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing had ever happened. What did he do? Can you imagine anything more absurd that an infinite intelligence in infinite nothing wasting an eternity?
Watch this 10 minutes video of Sam Harris how he destroy Christians faith, most Christians can't stand to watch this:
m.czcams.com/video/vSdGr4K4qLg/video.html&feature=share
this was really good
I think the simplest answer is free will is what we use to explain how peoples desires, and opinions and how we act on them are different from eachother and most of the confusion comes from a failure in the language since it is a complex idea simplified by two common and vague words.
What happened to your Noah's Ark video?
Hmm, it seems a few of the oldest videos disappeared.
Well what hasn’t been said about that fairytale?
Posted 2 minutes ago? Cool
Replied to 6 hours ago? Not for long
This is an interesting thought. I believe with specific situations you can control behavior/outcomes. My coworker listened to this and said to try some of the experiments with mentally disordered people (poop vs icecream) etc they didn't hear the beginning though. My main ponderance about "free will" is if you gave someone the same upbringing, situation, and such if they'd make same decisions. Of course this overlaps with "nature vs nurture" on behavior/identity. The idea of cat being told to poop in box vs people. We ARE told norms and morés and laws in our upbringing that typically influence decisions so matter of free will would bounce to would they have if they weren't told not to? Even vs punishment/rewards/exposure and such. If they are told as a kid to push button with right hand then you ask to push left or right it'll influence the outcome so free choice is hard to actually demonstrate. Punishment in my opinion is to a guilty party. If a. Says they were forced to do something then party b. Says that is the case b is responsible. In todays society b typically won't confess, so demonstrating the truth to such claims aren't very easy and unfortunately needs to be assessed case by case. :(
The Rehabilitation punishment can sometimes end up having the opposite affect.
my timeline is blessed!
"Capacity to have done otherwise" is such bullshit.
I had bread with cheese for breakfast ... right now I REALLY want to "have done otherwise" I want to have had eggs instead ... but I don't "have the capacity to do so"
And that is EXACTLY what that statement means ... it doesn't involve HYPOTHETICAL time travel, it involves LITERAL time travel.
Like I said, the past is the past, and no one can ever possibly "do otherwise" on something that's already been done. :)
@igor caique It's the same exact thing. That is 100% equivalent to changing the past.
@igor caique watch the video, then think about it. Find the diference. How can you tell? Because there is no diference.
What's the difference between making the choice yourself and and the choice being determined by "something other than yourself".
What's this "yourself" you're talking about exactly? The arrangement of neurons and chemicals in your brain? Or the active electrical impulses currently running through it? Or something else entirely? Please define.
And besides if (as you say) we're not talking about the "ability to chose otherwise" ... in other words you agree that if we had a magic reset button for the universe and anyone and everyone would always make the same exact "choice" no matter how many times we reset ... then it KIND OF goes against most peoples definition of free choice.
If I had the chance to convers with you I could show you all your errors. (So many) love all your other work sofar.
I remember having this argument on Philosophy Night with my friends and you made almost the same exact argument. touchy subject this. broke a friendship actually. Humans are complex machines and as of now there is no way to copy a human like you could copy a program. When that happens though I hope the human race is much more mature than it is now because that is on the list of 'end of the world' stories.
Dude this is literally South Park but teaches you stuff
South park teaches you stuff...
Deca Tessara you know what I mean. This addresses like philosophical issues with a scientific approach while South Park makes fun of Facebook and politics.
@@collindriscoll3390 you just don't understand it. Remember the legend of Scrotie Mcboogerballs? That was the most brilliant political and socio-economic satire I have ever seen. Watch the series again. It's much deeper then you think.
Deca Tessara I know that it’s a satirical show and I know it does a very good job at addressing certain topics but that’s all it does. Address them. This channel it going into depth on many topics and explaining every facet of it.
@@collindriscoll3390 all I claimed was that south park teaches you things, and addressing problems counts as teaching.
So, about the dogshit example, I think you are wrong. Having random decay would not imply that it would make an agent act irrationally, but that the universe itself would not be able to be predicted, which is the most relevant part of determinism. In a deterministic viewpoint, if you were to have a machine that has the abiluty to flawlessly and limitlessly parse data, then you would be able to use the machine to predict that in 2010 11:21 AM, john smith spills 4 oz of coffee on his shirt sleeve. And this prediction should be able to be made from the moment the universe begins to exist. However, with a random event present, such as random decay, you may be able to predict that this event happens, however, it would not be a 100% accurate prediction despite the fact that you have such a machine.
I'm writing this with the video paused so maybe you address this but yeah.
Edit: I just realized that this comment is not necessarily arguing for free will, so I have no idea what i am even arguing about
yeah it doesnt argue for free will, since that means that if a quantum system with its probabilistic nature were to affect the everyday world, all of those possible outcomes of change would be determined by which side of the randomness coin it happened to land on. so in theory if you had the calculation power you could simulate to a perfect degree of accuracy what would happen in the future by taking into account all and every single possible outcomes and playing them out to their full extent; merely picking which circumstance is most likely based on a number of factors will get you pretty close to the real outcome, if not exact. this is assuming you had a universally powerful simulation machine of course.
also and more importantly, quantum mechanics is not encountered in the everyday world for the most part. radioactive decay will almost never determine what you had for breakfast, so using it as proof of free will is very tenuous at best. people (and their behaviors) are pretty much like classical physics and rather predictable.
great video!!!
My thoughts exactly, and Iºm starting to find it harder to believe that you and me are not the same person.
The problem is that there isn't a self to have this will
,
if you're gonna argi for a soul then good luck
But as for consciousness, them tell me what is it? Everyone seems to have a gut definition of it but no one seems to even agree on any definition, we aren't searching fir consciousness we're searching for a source of self
We are just as free as our computers, were just billions of years more complex
there most definitely is a self. How ever you look at it, human being is made of parts who's fate is ultimately interlinked due to physical constraints. That also means those parts share ultimate motivation in the grand scheme of things...
KohuGaly i don't understand how that relates to the metaphysical self, perhaps the physical self, but not the other. granted, i don't believe in metaphysics, and strongly hold that everything can be improved with science and math, but i am just part of the only species that we know of that has been smart enough to have that kind of idea, so what do i know? but honestly, humans are fucking stupid.
@@davidlewis6728 stupidity is relative
And we somehow surpassed ourselfs at it!
@@davidlewis6728 I mean just look at history
For every 2 smart prodigies there 2 million idiots there ,it's rather amusing
i believe that future innovations in technology, especially in advertising, will significantly increase the number of morons, but significantly increase the capacity of those who rise above them. it must be noted, however, that we stand on the shoulders of giants, and that information technology is simultaneously increasing data knowledge, while not necessarily increasing wisdom knowledge. it is surprising that there should be a difference, but there is. perhaps future humans will solve that problem, either by killing all humans/turning them into slaves, or making them all smarter by default. i don't know, but the future can never come fast enough.
maybe free will is just the ability to not chose when given an option between chocolate and vanilla
because something without free will would be compelled to chose one ether by a RNG of some kind or a predetermined choice just because it was asked to make a choice but someone with free will might chose to refuse to make a choice
it would be akin to the neutron not decaying instead of decaying at different rates
So you chose not to chose.
it is still a chose is it not
OK change the question then.
The twins can ether chose to receive the milkshake or not.
@@Okyno7 no matter what the question is something with free will could chose not to participate in the experiment and if you are forced to participate in the experiment then do you actually have free will at that moment
Then by not participating they chose the second option.
They do not receive the milkshake .
Came back to this after some time.
As an ex-inmate, I would argue thus: for the populace it is a good idea to constrain, observe, and rehab (if possible) certain kinds of lawbreaker even if moral accountability is contested.
Blame Canada...blame Canada...
I will say that I prefer "Ethics" over "moral..." In some parts of the world it is moral to stone a woman to death for wearing a bikini in public. In other places, not so much. But it is NEVER Ethical. (See My playlist - I offer the three Laws of Ethics in a number of them.) All in all, though, I like Your approach here. Given that We choose Our behaviors (consciously or unconsciously), unless We have some aberration - chips, tumors, etc. - I think it works well, what You present.
"morality" sounds a tad more old-fashioned than "ethics". that' pretty much explains why fundamentalistsay prefer it. but i've never seen a good argument that the two would ve different things. they are synonyms. people with bad values will consider bad things as "moral" or as "ethical" pretty much the same way..
@German Pepe i don't think that morality is the same as "morals". just as ethics isn't "ethos".
for you morality seems to stand for collective or traditional preferences, but tose are only relevant for morality in that they are shaped by a moral reality. sometimes people have the right values because they are good. just as some beliefs are true because they correspond to reality.
mathematics isn't "pulled out of thin air". it is done by exploring computation, which is a physical, reproducable process.
and you seem to want ethics to be simultaneously "objective" and "pulled out of thin air" which makes no sense to me.
as far as i am concerned, morality should be empirically verifiable and consistent, otherwhise it is jus another preference.
*"objectivly better"*
right up there with "necessarily contingent" and "unconditionally conditional."
KEvron
if your winning strategy isn't better for your opponent, then it is, like all values, only subjectively better.
KEvron
c'mon. "is a way" and "better" aren't the same thing.
an objective case is one that exists without relying upon the existence of a subject. ways and strategies and viabilities and successes are all concepts, and all concepts exist subjectively, as their existence is reliant upon the existence of a conceptualizing agent.
your case is _demonstrably_ better, it's just not an objective case, and "better" is not a value that exists objectively.
KEvron
Very interesting video.
Well said. I had my comment ready to go about how laws should be made to address this philosophical query, and didn't need to post it because it was covered extensively in the video. And I do not, in fact, believe in a materialistic, deterministic universe. I very much believe in the metaphysical existence of free will -- that doesn't change how we ought to think about law, though, or any other system of order/control.
That was a surprisingly reasonable comment for someone who disagrees with a fundamental conclusion in this video. :)
But seriously, it is very common for people to conflate free will with moral culpability. When someone argues against metaphysical libertarianism, the most common question people tend to ask in response is "why should we punish criminals?" So if nothing else, I'm glad to see that you don't necessarily tie these two ideas together.
There is no "free will", all actions are forced by previous experiences and present knowledge misxed with instinctual behaviour.
of course, but the point is, neither solution gives us a pragmatic definition for assessing accountability of actions, that’s where compatibilism comes in in later part of the video
@@maximalmegaminx7502 Yes but there is no accountability, that was my point.
We can point to a factor and blame it but all actions are a result of the culmination of multiple factors. In the end "accountability" is not what we are looking for but which factor we can control and putting the blame in it lower how many times that actions is realized.
An example of that is criminal behavior, don't matter what punishment nor incentives there is to not do illegal things there are people that will do those actions and the legal system is just there to inhibit those that are inclined to realize those illegal acts, everyone, but are more inclined to not do something that will have a possible negative consequence of a certain degree, most people.
@@kintsuki99 if there is literally nothing you can do, any punishment or reward, that would stop a certain behavior (outside of incapacitation) then by definition the criminal has no free will over the act and the only principle of punishment left is incapacipation
I don't like that compatibilism tries to save the word free will just for the sake of it, even though most people still think free will is the capacity to take different decisions in a given moment. Compatibilism silences the fact that that is not true, people watch videos about free will and they see how determinism destroys the concept of libertarian free will but then comes compatibilism to confuse people and leave them wondering whether determinism was actually right or not. If you want the justice system to change and no longer use retribution, tell them free will does not exist! It also helps people understand why the idea of religions based on rewards and punishments makes no sense! Great video though :)
Well, I don't like that determinism tries to kill the word free will just for the sake of it, even though *technical* determinism is totally different from *tractable* determinism. What is the point in describing something as "predetermined" if you can't "predict" it? Free will is a pragmatic concept, that fits in our models of the universe to the extents they are pragmatic. Chaotic systems and the halting problem assure it is *not* pragmatic to turn the mere 'virtue of determinism' into actual deterministic predictions of outcomes before they happen. This is why it's not wrong to think "free will is the capacity to take different decisions in a given moment". The past *is* determined, so in those moments the decisions cannot change. But *future moments* (especially distant future moments) are not deterministic in any practical, tractable way when complex, chaotic, and turing complete systems are at play. You can predict the path of a baseball using a predictive deterministic model. You *can't* so easily predict the decisions of a human, because the sense in which you call that 'deterministic' may be technically correct, but is practically useless. The capacity for different decisions in a given (future) moment is still a worthwhile thing to describe and talk about, and call "free will".
I tried to address your point several times. If it’s libertarian free will or nothing at all, then fine. There is no free will. But you still have to address the fact that crime exists in this world. What is your basis for punishing people, and why is it so wrong to talk about it terms of free will?
Yeah. You could of course do away with free will as a term in the courts. Or can find the term useful and define what we mean by it. I view my self as somewhat of a pragmatist and do find this pragmatic solution as presented in the video to be the way to do it. I have come to the same conclusion based on my own pondering of the problem. Note that this really only matters to me in legal context pretty much. How you pick ice cream do not really bother me at all. ;)
(And I also think this is the sort of reasoning we need to have when we start talking about sentient machines. At some point we will have machines we can not reprogram directly but will be able to learn the rule and of our society. And about that time it likely wise to give such machines the same protections as well as responsibility as every other citizen. Of course we might also move towards the other direction. Where we can reprogram or, if you wish, brainwash people. Change there behavior like you where reprogramming a machine. And then we need to handle those moral implications. Is it right to use this tool to fix a deviant individual? Removing that brain tumor seemed right to most people. But where do one draw a line? Is there a line? Is it OK to reprogram a person never to break a speed limit? And should you do so preemptively? Oh well.. I digress..)
AntiCitizenX You laid out the bases for punishing people in your video: deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacity. Your ice cream example at 25:00 et seq strongly suggests that you don't recognize punishments and rewards as conditions that affect a person's decisions. That would lead you to not recognize the need for punishments even in the absence of free will.
@Steve the Cat Couch: Based on you statement I can only assume you already have a definition in mind for Free Will. The example AntiCitizenX is all about cause and effect. If we can expect behavior of a individual can be effect by the legal system then we see them as a free willed agent in short. He even gave a grey zone example with a cat. The cat can understand it will be pushed for misbehaving but do not have the full capability of understand it actions like a human. There for we view the cat possessing some free will.
Naturally you are of course free to make up you own definition as AntiCitizenX points out. But you should strive towards making a good definition then and beyond that you need to actually present it or we do not know what you are talking about when you say free will.
And the reason not to punish someone or something that lacks free will is simply this. It wont matter if you do. If a rock crushed someone it wont help anyone by you punishing the rock. We expect a lot out of a healthy human. We expect less out of a impaired human or a pet. And we do not expect anything from something that is mindless like a rock. The only reason to punish anything which lack free will is due to a sense of retribution which some of us find is a dumb reason that do not really fit in with a modern legal system. And even then is very questionable to punish a inanimate thing our of retribution.
(Though yes. Just acting out aggression can be a cathartic moment. Though is can often be better to act out this aggression against a other inanimate target sometimes as kicking that big rock that crush you toes will likely just hurt you foot even more.)
Imagine the following cyberpunk scenario: a pirate install a microchip in his brain that can erase his memory and personality and he has a backup of them somewhere. He commits a crime, erases his memory and personality, claims that he has no idea of why he did what he did and he does not remember anything. His is not lying - currently he really have no idea what he has done and why. The court let him go, because punishing him makes absolutely no sense - it will not change his behavior. He then eventually encounters a place where his memories and personality are stored (the old persona predicted the place where he would most likely look) and out of interests reads them in his brain. And now his personality becomes the same criminal that was committing that crime. Can he just repeatedly commit crimes like that while completely avoiding the legal system?
This scenario would fall under incapacitation. The individual would be detained until such time as the chip could be removed or otherwise disabled to prevent continued criminal acts.
Awesome Galaxy Quest reference!!
My definition of free will, is that of you went back in time, without the memory of the future and without changing anything whatsoever in the past, you would have been able to act differently than you did.
In your example with twins, I'd ask them to pick a random number between 1 and 1000000000, then went back in time, if one of the twins really does have free will(I don't believe that free will can exist, but hypothetically) he has 999999999/1000000000 chance of picking a different number and the one without free will, would pick the same number as he did before.
The philosophy of Objectivism answers all these questions pretty succinctly.
Yay! New Video!
Hey ACX... You really hit the nail on the head when you discussed punishment in that context. I have a question that may or may not piss you (bare with me)..
In all of your examples, we always put the "subject" under the spotlight and examine it's flexibility to take action under certain circumstances, then accordingly decide what the punishment is. My question is... Wouldn't that imply that "we", aka the judge or someone, does have free will to choose the fate of the subject by deciding the punishment? I mean.. What if, instead of the defendant claiming that his/her mind was controlled, he claimed that the judge's mind is controlled??
Not sure where that would get us, and you specifically said that convoluted definitions are bad, but I cannot help but wonder that in every possible scenario of examining something (free will as a subject), we kinda presume that the examiner isn't bound by the same phenomenon to be examined, in order to control the results or make them objectively reliable or bias-free or something.
Thoughts???