Determinism in Philosophy - Correctly Understanding the Determinism vs Free Will Argument

The question of whether we have free will or not is one of the most important and most confusing today.

You’ve probably watched videos or read articles stating that even if one were not to have any free will and the universe is fully deterministic, we shouldn’t worry about it. Those arguments couldn’t be more incorrect. If free will can be proven not to exist in any form or philosophy, which I’m going to take a look at in this video, it would have drastic ethical consequences for society.

Part of the confusion regarding the free will vs. determinism debate is that many experts, philosophers, physicists, and others don’t clearly understand the question’s semantics, what we even mean by free will vs. determinism.

This video will go over determinism in philosophy and analyze the free will vs determinism question.

0:00 Free Will and Ethics
0:32 Experts Misunderstand the Semantics
0:46 Causal Determinism Defined
1:12 Predeterminism vs Causal Determinism
1:22 Free Will Defined
1:49 Compatibilism vs Incompatibilism
2:39 Laplace's Demon
3:22 Quantum Mechanics & Predeterminism
4:27 Randomness Doesn't Disprove Causal Determinism
5:21 Strawson's Argument
6:08 Can There Still Be Free Will?

[robertward]

Thanks for posting, I have struggled with the concept of freewill for years now. I feel as though I have it but I am being told that it is an illusion, damn good one if it is.

[tyhatch]

I consider free will to exist on two levels: human perception and ultimate reality. From a level of ultimate reality, free will cannot exist because, just like Laplace’s demon, the universe is deterministic, and we cannot act in a way that betrays Newtonian physics.

However, on a level of human perception, I would argue that free will does exist. The fact that we do not know all of the variables in a situation is what makes it “random” to us. Sure, if we knew the weight, speed, and direction of a die as we dropped it, we would know exactly how it would land before it settled, but the fact that we don’t is what makes it random to us.

Our choices are the same way, the fact that we do not know all of the variables that go into our choices is what makes it “free will to us, ” free will only doesn’t exist to Laplace’s demon because it know all, but to those who don’t, it does exist from their limited perspective.

[stephenlawrence]

The definition of causal determinism is incorrect. Not "regardless of our will". It's that our will is also causally determined.
Very basic error that needs fixing.

[kentrey]

I'm leaning towards compatibilism but I'd like to think that I'm texting this right now of my own free will. The only reason I'm commenting is because I hope you find enough time in your life to let all this go and enjoy it. Most who are obsessed with these topics don't.

[ldunn]

Looking forward to your continuation of this subject - very interesting!

[kallianpublico]

"Even if things are unknowable, causal determinism CAN still exist."
First off sequence, the idea of one thing coming before or after another is probably how we would like things to work. How else could humans organize their knowledge or, more pertinently, communicate it to other humans.
There is a science fiction story by Heinlein called "All you Zombies". In it a man travels back in time and "arranges" for himself and a sex changed himself, to meet and procreate himself. It goes neatly, one step after another he creates himself. Thus referring to us who are not self-created as zombies.
It is perfectly logical, given the science fiction assumptions it makes; and it is perfectly sequenced. Now, given that there are unknowable things, such as time travel, how would causal determinism deal with it? Would you say: "Given unknowable things, causal determinism MIGHT NOT exist. For if you can go back and birth yourself you can also go back and cancel yourself, can't you? Thus negating the sequence whole cloth.
I think sequence is good for ordering our thoughts. Physicists often use the term initial conditions to make their calculations pertinent, specific and clear. Without these initial conditions it becomes unclear and confusing as to when and how the equations should be applied.
Sequence can lead to paradoxes, however. A logical sequence leading to an illogical negation such as: "I always lie".
What does it say about humans that they accept the answer that causality and causal determinism exists AND that there are things that may be unknowable? I think it says that in the midst of possibly, illogical chaos we cling to our order.
Furthermore, can we accept the limits of our human nature, understanding and our place in Nature as a creation with "initial conditions"? These limits "determine" what is unknowable to us.

[randywa]

I don’t think free will as we think of it exists. I mean think about it. No matter what you believe you know we have motivations and desires. Said desires are what control what we do. I mean what even is a choice really but a battle between your desires. If you say your desires don’t rule your actions, then what does? Some kind of soul? What rules that souls decisions then? You don’t do something without motivation and if you do it’s not a choice, it’s just random actions. Our will is based on our desires, but we didn’t choose those desires(as we couldn’t have without desires in the first place) so we don’t have free will in the sense that one is responsible for our decisions. Even so, we feel that we are and that we would be. When someone hurts us, we get anger and therefore want them to be held responsible. Guilt is similar. I think it stems from the belief that you could have made a different decision and so you are “bad” for not having done so.

[dylandodds]

Dude, I was listening to this, and got half way through listening to what you were saying and had to pause the video, because I was trying to understand How you can come up with the idea that randomness means we aren't bound to cause and effect, because we're bound to the values generated by randomness. Then I played the rest through.... and am just like... THANK YOU!

I'm interested in your next video. I am also curious to what you believe the ethical consequences for society are, if free-will were not to exist. Because from my perspective, I think our entire philosophies of justice are flawed. If this it is true that free-will were not to exist, It is only unethical if we were to refuse to acknowledge that.

[danielhoward]

A person, try as they might, cannot trace where a thought comes from. Its genesis is a product of a complex nexus of biology and environment of which the person has neither conscious control over nor chooses. Where is the free will if one cannot control or choose one’s thoughts?

[cosmicprison]

My teacher to a Muslim student: "Can God create a stone he himself can't lift?"
Me now: "Can Laplace's Demon predict what it itself will think next?" 😂

[LiquidZulu]

The causal determinism in this video relies on a faulty understanding of the law of causality. Causality doesn't relate antecedent events to necessary consequent events, it relates an entity and its actions.

[WeebSlayer]

Just one thing:

In quantum mechanics, particle's don't just exist and not exist.. we don't know that yet.
As for now, scientists and scholars say that particle's always exist, that there was an inception of some sort in the universe (Big Bang theory) and the particles simply always exist, but when measured (I. e. put to a functional test) the probability of a property (of a particle) to be present in that function is varied.

[MarvinMonroe]

I like this argument for Determinism. If I make a statement about the future, do you agree with me that it's either true or false? We don't know which, but the answer is definitely either "true" or "false"
I'll say "by the year 2150, humans will have colonies on Mars"
Is either "true" or "false" an acceptable reply to that statement?
If you answer "yes, it is". Then you have just said that you think the future is determined
It's a decent way to get a person to realize they believe the future is determined.
BTW the future still isn't Predictable and therefore, for all intents and purposes, we have Free Will

[tonizzle]

Ben, your beard is killing me. The left side is not lined up with the right. I couldn't unsee it once I noticed it. As a hairstylist, it was driving me nuts.

[MarvinMonroe]

A big problem in my opinion is that people conflate "determined" with "predictable".
So I say we have Free Will and everything is Determined. BUT it will never be possible to correctly predict everything.
No matter who great our models of the Universe are, they won't ever contain everything they need. The model would have to contain a model of itself, modeling itself, modeling itself, etc. We can't ever get "outside of the system" since the Universe is the system. If we could get outside of it, then yeah it'd be easy to run a perfect model of the Universe.
It's like if you tried to run a PlayStation 4 emulator on a PlayStation 4. It's obviously going to be slower than the original.
So in the future maybe our universe model will be correct but it's impossible for them to be 100% right
Determined doesn't have anything to do with Free Will (or the illusion of Free Will) if stuff was Determined AND Predictable, then I'd agree with that line of thought that says we have no Free Will

[guruoflight]

Determinism as time Only Exists in one's own mind,
However the hands on the clock go round And round like a treadmill,

[caricue]

Determinism is not the same as cause and effect. Laplace's Demon would not be able to calculate the future because choices made by animated creatures are part of the functioning of the universe, and are not controlled by cause and effect. Living things utilize reliable causation to act and respond with intention and goals.

[tonyburton]

I am learning a lot from your channel, as interested in these issues - but not my area of knowledge. However, I wish you would slow down in speech speed! Often have to listen a number of times. Other than that, please continue to make more content - but perhaps just slow down!!...?

[davidgeffeney]

Little rudimentary but it was a decent run at it. Wish I had a rejoinder to add but not worth the time and well...I cannot choose one

[eddieking]

"Can we become conscious of an unconscious thought?"
~Sam Harris