Al Mele - Philosophy of Free Will

Free will is a classic and perennial problem in philosophy. It is a probe of profound issues of how the world works as well as how the mind works. What are the primary issues of free will? What are the opposing views? Can philosophical analysis help? What are the philosophical challenges? What is the current state of play?

Alfred Remen Mele is an American philosopher and the William H. and Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[TheTroofSayer]

00:46 - "... whether freewill is compatible with determinism or not." Determinism usually implies, in the spirit of physicalism/materialism, bottom-up causation. No mention was made, throughout this interview, of top-down causation. As a simple, easily understood example, top-down causation is what takes place when culture wires the human, neuroplastic brain. People make choices from culture, our identities are inextricably intertwined within it, in our languages, customs & experiences. Choice-making is freewill at work, it relates to meaning, and the science of meaning is semiotic (CS Peirce). In the absence of top-down causation, freewill will always be incompatible with determinism.

[excripto]

The title almost made me think this video was gonna talk about Artificial Intelligence.

[stephengee]

Consciousness has free will. As consciousness matures, it can self reflect. The decision to self reflect is what causes evolution and responsibility for actions. Self reflection is how the infant matures into the adult.

[michelangelope]

Free will is the capacity to choose between alternatives. How could anyone deny we have free will?. We choose all the time so how is it possible to deny the existence of free will? I am a psychologist and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. You choose to understand or not. Am I right and atheism is a logical fallacy or am I wrong? Atheists commit the atheist logical fallacy everytime they use the word "god" because they believe God is what they call "sky daddy" and they don't believe God exists, and they are wrong because they believe. Atheism is a bleak, nihilistic, alienating, despairing understanding of reality. With God anything is possible and without God there is no hope. It is better for you if God exists because for atheists death is the end. Is there any life and death worse than for an atheist? It could be argued that a religious life and death is worse. I offer an understanding of reality being Time past, present and future to live well eternally if it is possible. If you understand we are accountable for all our life without deceptions your life would change incredibly for the better. Atheists think the universe is uncreated and theists think the universe was created. Who has the burden of proof? Atheism is the idea that the universe is eternal because there is no evidence that the creator exists. Theism is the idea that the universe was created by the creator. You don't have to believe in God because God is necessary because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. For atheists all reality is created and intelligence is created from non intelligence, which is impossible. I am censored and to end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Thank you.

[genghisthegreat]

If I am the only agent of an action I take, and if quantum effects are just not relevant in my entire consciousness of the prevailing circumstances of a decision, then I'm responsible in my agency. I'm trying to improve my circumstances, as I perceive them, and there's a menu of available options.

Free will exists, because we don't live by coin flips.

[johnbowen]

Dictatorships like Russia, China, North Korea, others the people have far less free will they have to do what the government tells them period ? In democracies people have more free will to do what they want and learn from their choices which system is more succesfull has a much higher standard of living ? So than free will is logically better than non will and therefore is a reality of how things work ?

[Robinson]

I also want to be a philospher, but I'm afraid it will be bad for my hairline

[evaadam]

"Philosophy of Free Will"

One grave error common to many religions such as Islam, Christianity, etc., is the belief that the "Free Will to Choose" was created by God. This grave error is making God all responsible for the evils that men choose to do because, without the creation of free will, men would NOT be able to freely choose evil or good.

Understanding one's personal ACCOUNTABILITY based on CREATED free will would be impossible to do if you do not even have any idea why you exists here in the first place. The following light may help you see the whole picture, pls read w/ patience :

Consciousness was once the sole power of the Holy Spirit when He was all alone.... but, after God split Himself into free souls to have a free family to love and to be loved, this sole power of consciousness was also split and shared...Free Will was therefore NOT created but shared..

...and for you to understand, we all are responsible for the existence of our Physical Universe because we were once ONE WHOLE GOD who created this Great Cosmos before He split Himself into free souls (us).

In other words, as One Whole God, we all have the hand in the decision to split and the decision to create this Universe. So, God alone is not all accountable for all the consequences of the decision to split just to have a free loving family. WE ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE !

You soon will discover this truth when your temporary "life's chance of salvation through faith" ends where only your immortal souls survive...

In the beginning is the "WORD" which does not mean man's vocal chords but means the vibrations of spirits from a tiny portion of God's infinite Spiritual World that had FUSED to create our Physical World. This is how the Universe begun, not by explosion nor inflation but by FUSION...

...and,   as ONE WHOLE GOD before we split, our purpose for the creation of this Cosmos is to provide a temporary home for free splits, or us free souls, who may go astray for a chance of salvation through faith.

...by the way, natural calamities, diseases, or all sufferings you undergo in this Universe can NOT destroy your immortal soul. Only losing faith or without faith in a loving God can hurt your soul.

This Universe was magnifecently  fine-tuned with imperfections for us to understand what is bad, good, better, or best, ugly or beautiful, so for us to have a hint that there is better or worse place out there (heaven & hell) to hopefully find faith in God.

So, focus more on your soul's fate because it is your immortal soul that survives when your temporary physical body dies and rots.

Once again, the purpose of the creation of Physical Universe is for lost souls, who fell from Heaven,   to have a temporary home for a chance of salvation through regaining faith in a loving God.

Our lost souls were sent here (on our request) so to have a chance of salvation by regaining the faith that we lost that ended us all in hell - a state of cold dark nothingness...We lost Heaven because we lost faith, so only by regaining this faith that we can return Home.

... In other words, we were not sent here to know but to believe because knowledge can compromise your free will to believe,   so, evidence or proof is not required to have faith so for us all to be welcomed back to Heaven which is our Original Home. THIS IS THE MAIN PURPOSE.

I do not know this. This is my understanding of the light that I believe was shared to me because of my strong faith. Believe it or not, you are free to choose. Pls share this light to all if you believe. This may resolve Christianity and Islam differences to possibly unite as one religion of faith in a loving God.

[ronhudson]

How does the idea of block-time or quantum uncertainty square with the free-will idea? Most personal free-will decisions are in response to the needs of the immediate moment, the near-future or the longer-term anticipated future. She kissed me, I’ll kiss her back. I’ll bring her flowers tomorrow. I’ll book her ticket on our couple’s-cruise next spring. Other peoples’ choices affect us in all time frames. My kissing her led to nothing more. She refused to open her door! Even though I could see her through her window. She told me it was off and I couldn’t get a refund on the tickets. Accepting block-time, all of the actions and outcomes have existed since the beginning of the universe - so no free-will - just the illusion of free-will. We remember the past and act in anticipation of the future but only directly experience and interact with events in the present, however you define it. So, from our perspective we feel we have free-will, but perhaps we’re the needle in the groove of the record. Remembering the past, experiencing the present moment and anticipating the near, middle and far future. Which may or may not transpire. If another possible but unanticipated event - the dog knocks the player off the table - happens, everything changes. Either is equally plausible, in my view.

[mikel]

What a bunch of mumbo-jumbo!
Total BS!

[drchaffee]

Odd to think that most of the one and a quarter million fast food fry cooks in the United States would not have chosen their professions differently, but maybe that's merely the philosophy of Incompetent Will - a position which few philosophers seem to argue against.

[-by-_Publishing_LLC]

(2:00) *AM: **_"Usually what they would like is that you could have made another decision."_* ... ALL of the arguments against free will are predicated on the fallacious use of semantics. *Example:* You have five items to choose from, so you choose one of them. The Hard Determinist (HDeist) will argue that you had *no other option* but to select the item that you did, ... therefore there is no free will.

Unfortunately for the HDeist, his argument requires the use of a *nonexistent "time machine"* that can travel back and watch you make the same decision every single time.

First, time machines don't exist. The only time that matters is the moment you made your decision. Second, once you've made your decision, the decision-making process comes to a screeching halt. There are *no other options* to choose from as you've already made your decision.

The question of whether you could have chosen differently is only applicable while you are in the act of deciding. In this scenario, you had *five items to choose from* and you could have chosen any of the five ... _or none of them._

[CrowMagnum]

Free will is in the feedback path that updates the system that chooses, but that pattern is fractal recursive

[sylvestermumba]

Its difficult for us to determine if free will is there or not because it requires for us initially to be presumptively free do to discern in the first place

[SRAVALM]

We don't possess freewill, as in a thing we own( we don't 'have' freewill).
Antithesis to freewill is being 'acted upon' or controlled.
Being acted upon entails karma(action) and something that's more powerful than what is below.
Being 'acted upon' implies that which is in act after being acted upon must participate in that which acts.
What is that which has the authority to act upon other things?
There's 'That' which is not in act nor acts upon any; that which can not be acted upon, but acts upon others; that which is acted upon and can act upon others; and that which is acted upon but does not act.
What is this great 'Will', this revolution, this procession and then regression?

There is something in man, the Intellect. And it's capable of going Up, and also going down. If there's something like freewill it is there, and is a potiential.

[mickeybrumfield]

It seems inherent as part of the condition of being a finite being that we can never know if we have free-will. It takes an all-knowing all seeing being such as God to know to what extent we have free-will. It would also seem that when we as humans think of the idea of free will, we have a bit of a prejudice in the outcome.

[Nonconceptuality]

"Will" refers to the future and includes a "Won't". Every human has said "I will do..." and "I won't do...", only to have those statements turn out to be false. How many times have you declared, with all sincerity "I will do..." and then end up not doing that which you willed? How many times have you declared: "I'm never doing..." only to end up doing exactly what you will-notted?

It's a narrative that projects the illusion of the separately existing identity "your name here." The narrative has been written in such a way as to make it appear as though there is a choice to do something other than what is being done. The voice in your head isn't controlling anything that is occurring in the physical realm, it is creating a fantasy world that branches off of the experience of the senses (the physical realm)

There is no "will" or "will not". This is a system manufactured by the voice in your head, to project the illusion that the Self IS the voice in your head.

[neththom]

The assertion that determinism is compatible with free will (compatibilism) is just that, a mere assertion. No amount of argumentation can make a blatant logical contradiction valid.

[holgerjrgensen]

Life is Eternal,
Will, goes in developing-circuits,
from minimum to maximum.

[dr_shrinker]

Freewill means unhindered choice -- yet, every choice we face is hindered by physics. What does this say about freewill?