Why Free Will Doesn't Exist - YouTube

[Rational Agnostic]

This is CosmicSkeptic's refutation of free will. It's the simplest and best argument against free will that I have heard. I can't think of any problems with the argument. Thoughts?

 

[exchemist]

This is CosmicSkeptic's refutation of free will. It's the simplest and best argument against free will that I have heard. I can't think of any problems with the argument. Thoughts?

I don't watch videos of unknown provenance on discussion forums. It is normal to make the points for discussion oneself, in writing.

I would merely observe that if our will is not strictly free, it is as close to being so as makes little practical difference. The laws of nature are not deterministic, and the influences on us are so numerous, intricate and varied that nobody and no conceivable computer program has any hope of determining our courses of action in practice.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't watch videos of unknown provenance on discussion forums.

I would merely observe that if our will is not strictly free, it is as close to being so as makes little practical difference. The laws of nature are not deterministic, and the influences on us are so numerous, intricate and varied that nobody and no conceivable computer program has any hope of determining our courses of action in practice.

Well, the video is definitely worth watching. But for those who want a quick summary:

He defines free will as being the "ability to have chosen differently." I think that maybe a better definition would be the ability to "make choices that are not determined by factors outside one's control." Anyway, the argument is basically:

1. Everything we do is done either because (i) We want to, or (ii) We are forced to.
2. Actions done because we are forced are clearly not free by definition, and actions done because we want to do them are not free either, because we don't choose our wants.

There are a lot of objections that he addresses in the video, and he explains why they all fail. But, for those who don't have time to watch the video and want to raise what they think are objections, I can address them as they are brought up.

 

[exchemist]

Well, the video is definitely worth watching. But for those who want a quick summary:

He defines free will as being the "ability to have chosen differently." I think that maybe a better definition would be the ability to "make choices that are not determined by factors outside one's control." Anyway, the argument is basically:

1. Everything we do is done either because (i) We want to, or (ii) We are forced to.
2. Actions done because we are forced are clearly not free by definition, and actions done because we want to do them are not free either, because we don't choose our wants.

There are a lot of objections that he addresses in the video, and he explains why they all fail. But, for those who don't have time to watch the video and want to raise what they think are objections, I can address them as they are brought up.

What about all the things we want to do but decide nonetheless not to do?

 

[Quintessence]

Sounds a bit too simplistic when it comes to human behavior. The causes of human behavior don't neatly boil down to "wants to" and "forced to."

Short of biological imperatives, there is very little a human can be "forced to" do in terms of behavior. Even those cases, that is be mediated by other factors. For example, humans are "forced to" relieve themselves, but when, where, and how they do it is more nuanced and enters into "wants to" territory. So I think the dichotomy that's being set up - if you're presenting it accurately, Hubert - is a false one. That's not to say that the problematic nature of this dichotomy negates the argument. I don't think it does. There is potential for the claim that "we don't choose our wants" to be problematic, though.

In our example of a human being "forced to" relieve themselves out of biological necessity, the places we do that are shaped by culture. This constrains the "wants to" options that come to mind, but there's inevitably going to be multiple places to relieve oneself. For instance one could "choose to" relieve oneself in an office restroom, wait until going out for lunch to do it in a restaurant, or wait until at home. On what basis does the person argue that one couldn't have chosen differently?

For the record - I'm a determinist. I'm familiar with the arguments, but they all also rest on assumptions that are in of themselves precisely that - assumptions.

 

[Nakosis]

So, to start, although we can't actually go back in time and alter our choices, we can do so mentally. We can also imagine the numerous consequences of making this alternate choice. While we can't change the past, we can change the future as a result of creating any number of possible scenarios and the outcome.

Next, can we choose what we want? Yes, we can. Through our ability to imagine just about anything, we can alter the wants and desires of the subconscious mind. What we imagine doesn't even have to be factual, it can be pure fantasy. It is really not that hard to manipulate our unconscious desires through our conscious thought. So he is simply wrong about our ability to control what we want.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

What about all the things we want to do but decide nonetheless not to do?

Those things don't exist, at least as far as I can tell. The example he uses in the video is the decision to workout instead of sitting around and eating junk food. You might claim that you go work out even though you don't want to, but that's not actually true. There is a reason that you choose exercise over junk food, and that is because of a want to be healthy that is stronger than a want for instant gratification. So, ultimately, the action is still determined by a want, and the want isn't chosen.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

So, to start, although we can't actually go back in time and alter our choices, we can do so mentally. We can also imagine the numerous consequences of making this alternate choice. While we can't change the past, we can change the future as a result of creating any number of possible scenarios and the outcome.

Next, can we choose what we want? Yes, we can. Through our ability to imagine just about anything, we can alter the wants and desires of the subconscious mind. What we imagine doesn't even have to be factual, it can be pure fantasy. It is really not that hard to manipulate our unconscious desires through our conscious thought. So he is simply wrong about our ability to control what we want.

I'm not following. How do we change our wants? And furthermore, what would prompt us to even try to change our wants? It would be another want, that is, the desire to change our wants. We can continue tracing this chain of desires all the way back to something out of our control: genetics or childhood environment/experiences.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

In our example of a human being "forced to" relieve themselves out of biological necessity, the places we do that are shaped by culture. This constrains the "wants to" options that come to mind, but there's inevitably going to be multiple places to relieve oneself. For instance one could "choose to" relieve oneself in an office restroom, wait until going out for lunch to do it in a restaurant, or wait until at home. On what basis does the person argue that one couldn't have chosen differently?

Simple: whichever place one chose was chosen because they wanted to, and the WANT was determined by a variety of factors outside one's control: how strong the urge was to go, cultural norms, genetics, etc.

 

[exchemist]

Those things don't exist, at least as far as I can tell. The example he uses in the video is the decision to workout instead of sitting around and eating junk food. You might claim that you go work out even though you don't want to, but that's not actually true. There is a reason that you choose exercise over junk food, and that is because of a want to be healthy that is stronger than a want for instant gratification. So, ultimately, the action is still determined by a want, and the want isn't chosen.

In that case you are defining "want" to be simply: "whatever we decide to do, having considered the matter".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those things don't exist, at least as far as I can tell. The example he uses in the video is the decision to workout instead of sitting around and eating junk food. You might claim that you go work out even though you don't want to, but that's not actually true. There is a reason that you choose exercise over junk food, and that is because of a want to be healthy that is stronger than a want for instant gratification. So, ultimately, the action is still determined by a want, and the want isn't chosen.

Now without doing actual science as neuroscience, there are 3 possible situations:

• You are a caused process in nature. Then you don't have free will, because you are the effect of something else.
• What you do, is random. That is not free will, that is random.
• Free will is a causation which comes about out of nothing. When you choose something you create the causation out of nothing as it is not related to the rest of the world.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

In that case you are defining "want" to be simply: "whatever we decide to do, having considered the matter".

Not quite. I'd say it would more precisely be defined as "whatever makes you decide to do something." What is it that makes you choose the gym over McDonald's (or vice versa) and do you have control over it? There has to be a reason for the decision, right?

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not following. How do we change our wants? And furthermore, what would prompt us to even try to change our wants? It would be another want, that is, the desire to change our wants. We can continue tracing this chain of desires all the way back to something out of our control: genetics or childhood environment/experiences.

Through our ability to imagine. It is IMO one of the main roles of conscious thought, to alter what we desire. To control what we desire. The subconscious mind response stimulus and from that stimulus sends a desire as information to the conscious mind. Consciously, we can take that information and manipulate it through a thousand scenarios, as we do this we are providing feedback to the subconscious mind which can alter its/our future behavior.

Our desires are altered all of the time. Usually through media, ads. The purpose of which is to alter our desires. Usually this occurs of a subconscious level and we robotically follow along. However, by taking control of our conscious thoughts, we can do the same thing to alter how our subconscious responds to this stimulus.

Yes, it is a want. Free will is a product of want. You can't have free will without it. It being a want is not a problem because we can control our wants. For whatever "reasons" as long as it is a conscious choice, it is fine.

 

[exchemist]

Not quite. I'd say it would more precisely be defined as "whatever makes you decide to do something." What is it that makes you choose the gym over McDonald's (or vice versa) and do you have control over it? There has to be a reason for the decision, right?

OK yes fair enough.

So a want is "whatever makes you decide to do something", then. And the claim is that whatever makes us decide is not us, right? So you (or the video) is saying that we do not choose these decisions.

But how is that conclusion reached, seeing as, to us, subjectively at least, it feels as if we do make these decisions?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Through our ability to imagine. It is IMO one of the main roles of conscious thought, to alter what we desire. To control what we desire. The subconscious mind response stimulus and from that stimulus sends a desire as information to the conscious mind. Consciously, we can take that information and manipulate it through a thousand scenarios, as we do this we are providing feedback to the subconscious mind which can alter its/our future behavior.

Our desires are altered all of the time. Usually through media, ads. The purpose of which is to alter our desires. Usually this occurs of a subconscious level and we robotically follow along. However, by taking control of our conscious thoughts, we can do the same thing to alter how our subconscious responds to this stimulus.

Yes, it is a want. Free will is a product of want. You can't have free will without it. It being a want is not a problem because we can control our wants. For whatever "reasons" as long as it is a conscious choice, it is fine.

That standard you assume is still not free. Because you end here in your reasoning for a free standard to choose from:
Agrippa's trilemma.
You either dogmatically choose one standard of choice over another, you commit a circular act of reasoning or you can't choose because your standard of choosing requires a meta-standard, which requires a meta-meta.- and that never stops.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

OK yes fair enough.

So a want is "whatever makes you decide to do something", then. And the claim is that whatever makes us decide is not us, right?

Well, not exactly. The claim is that whatever makes us decide (either the force or the want) is not changeable by us. And though not directly addressed in the video, I think that the reason we can't change our wants (whatever makes us decide) is that there is a want that causes every want, and the first want is ultimately caused by something outside our control (genetics or environment).

For instance:

Why do I want to go the gym? Because I want to be healthy.
Why do I want to be healthy? Because I want to feel good and live longer.
Why do I want to feel good and live longer....? I think in this example, it only takes three steps to get to something outside our control, in this case, to the point where natural selection has led to genes that favor self-preserving behaviors over self-destructing behaviors, at least in most people. Now some may still choose self-destructive behaviors. But again, I think the causes of these choices can be traced back to prior experiences and genetics, neither of which one has control over.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Through our ability to imagine. It is IMO one of the main roles of conscious thought, to alter what we desire. To control what we desire. The subconscious mind response stimulus and from that stimulus sends a desire as information to the conscious mind. Consciously, we can take that information and manipulate it through a thousand scenarios, as we do this we are providing feedback to the subconscious mind which can alter its/our future behavior.

Our desires are altered all of the time. Usually through media, ads. The purpose of which is to alter our desires. Usually this occurs of a subconscious level and we robotically follow along. However, by taking control of our conscious thoughts, we can do the same thing to alter how our subconscious responds to this stimulus.

Yes, it is a want. Free will is a product of want. You can't have free will without it. It being a want is not a problem because we can control our wants. For whatever "reasons" as long as it is a conscious choice, it is fine.

But would you accept that there is a cause for every want, and a cause of every cause of every want, and that ultimately the chain of causes can be traced back to something outside of our control?

 

[Nakosis]

That standard you assume is still not free. Because you end here in your reasoning for a free standard to choose from:
Agrippa's trilemma.

I'm not trying to prove a truth so how do you see this being applied?

You either dogmatically choose one standard of choice over another, you commit a circular act of reasoning or you can't choose because your standard of choosing requires a meta-standard, which requires a meta-meta.- and that never stops.

What meta-standards do you think are involved here?

 

[ecco]

, and actions done because we want to do them are not free either, because we don't choose our wants.

Wordgames.

I want to go to the store to buy an ice cream. You/he are saying I didn't choose to want an ice cream. Then what caused me to want an ice cream? Too hot? Ice cream will cool me off. Old memories? Ice cream just tastes so good. Too sad? Ice cream always makes me feel better.

Dang. All this analysis. I don't even want ice cream anymore.

But my free will steps in and says: Aw, what the heck. And I go and get the ice cream.

 

[Nakosis]

But would you accept that there is a cause for every want, and a cause of every cause of every want, and that ultimately the chain of causes can be traced back to something outside of our control?

No, because we can imagine any scenario. We can manipulate time, facts, reality. This is all an internal process with no necessary connection to anything external. What we choose to imagine is entirely in our control.

Our subconscious mind is somewhat predictable. We can use this to manipulate it. As I said, this usually slips past our conscious awareness unnoticed. However as you become an observer, you can begin to see what stimulus creates what desires. You can begin to learn how to use our ability to create infinite realities to program our unconscious desires. You replace external stimulus with internal stimulus.