Five Minutes On Free Will with Daniel Dennett Part One

Daniel is University Professor and Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. He has held visiting positions at Harvard University, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Oxford, the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, and the London School of Economics.

[rhodrimorice]

For me the Deterministic information we receive, from the genetics we are given and the life experiences we experience, are meshed together in the mixer that is 'Me' using our consciousness to make the most desirable decision for Me. That is my will, not entirely free but once it has passed through me it is wholy unique, and represents me and the choice I decided was best.

[dewinthemorning]

The work that philosophers should do, is develop the philosophy of the autonomous science biology. Biology has different basic principles than the physicalist sciences physics, chemistry, mechanics. I am making videos on that topic lately on important books by biologists like "What Makes Biology Unique" by Ernst Mayr
Free will is not a thing! There is no such "thing" that we have or lack. We should be talking about the human faculty of thinking, reasoning and making choices.

[Adamd-rrrr]

Determinism gives rise to freedoms worth wanting because we are able to weigh between options and respond appropriately I think that's what Dennett is saying which is true biologically speaking we do have the power to choose so in that sense determinism is (kind) of compatible with free will because we always make choices and think ahead about our future behaviour

[nonycount-jeuf]

I like when he says that determinism and in-determinism have nothing to do with this thing called 'Free will' - actually I dont even no why we need a word like 'Free will' when choice would suffice. Having the word 'Free' in there is the

[carlhaldeman]

I think what he is saying is that good health allows us the potential to make good or benefitial decisions within the deterministic framework and that that is what we should be starting from in our philosophical considerations. I don't know if I'm right about this. I haven't studied the man or his work.

[MACLOVIO-SOSA]

Responsibility is the key word which destroys free will. Not one human is responsible for anything. How can we be? We're we given a manual how to do right or wrong? We are on this earth to experience good and evil. Nothing else.

[stephenlawrence]

One of the issues is people do believe we have free will by the "simple minded definition"

Dan Dennett should be more concerned with that issue. When he says "we have free will" people just assume that means the free will they believe in. Which it does not.

[EveryTimeV]

But if we want others to be morally competent we will eventually be met with questions of what is good and how good can be redefined. I personally feel that I have a good grasp on what a moral action is, typically, if you don't antagonize someone for no reason, or just a really 'bad' reason, you are moral.

But I guess morals can be defined by using a goal.

We can easily define our morals by defining what state we want to be in, in the future.

Actions which we can reasonably assume to lead us away from our preferred future can be determined as immoral, or 'destructive'.

Actions which move us towards our goals are the opposite, are good. I think this simple system is really clear and helps communicate to the world what we want.

I think one issue is that although we have an end goal, we may or may not be able to achieve that goal. But in the pursuit of a good world, we will gamble on being able to do so.

Using these rules, we now enter a world where we have a goal which can contradict with other people's goals. And it will, inevitably, come into conflict. Conflict resolution follows a few different paths but, I feel optimistic because society's goal tends to be on the right track, and the evidence for that is; we arrest people for killing, and other crimes. If the world was much more grim, we would have killers ruling above all.

That isn't true.

That isn't in anyone's interest but the killer's either.

So the power discrepancy between the killers and those who would rather be alive is so great that it is improbable that our goal of a good future will ever be overcome by these kinds of people. It is still an arduous task to give a full definition to what I think is 'good' though, because it is not really a succinct definition at all.

We can say for example, that in a just world, everyone gets to enjoy their life, with minimal pains, and optimal amounts of things they want which also do not impede other people. I think given this definition the absolute height of human achievement is probably simulations of worlds wherein the person themselves are Gods.

It requires a post-scarcity environment and futuristic tech to achieve, though.

Well, doesn't this mean that I would espouse that the pursuit of more technological advancements is the 'ultimate good' for humanity? Yes.

Under the assumption that it doesn't have obvious costs, though. You have to do it without impeding others.

[NYCeesFinest]

What variations of free will do we have that Daniel says is "worth having?"

[IRod]

A moralistic incompetent person would damage his own posibilities of being more...by going to jail if a crime is committed but then again this is relative itself.

[BIngeilski]

Well, prove that fish doesn't have free will

[DC-zise]

Free will exists. Otherwise everything is predetermined, which scientifically is impossible as of yet because physics' probabilistic nature.

[janscott]

What a snob. He can't accept that his ideas amount to nothing. Complexity does not grant freedom from physics. We are all products of various influences.