Thalia Wheatley - Big Questions in Free Will

Free will seems obvious, simple, common; but it's subtle, profound, maddening. Free will probes the deep nature of human existence. But big questions have big problems. How to make progress?

[TheGreaser]

We are listening to nuerons (her) that are attempting to tell other neurons (us) that other nuerons (everybody) are not actually individual persons 'they" are nuerons only.

[anthonyc]

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them" - George Orwell

[papa]

Excellent! - We all know the major obstacle we have in understanding these sorts of concepts, that obstacle is equal to the only tool we have to apply to understanding them (ourselves).

There are fundamental limitations on systems when they engage in self referential behaviors. For this reason we are constrained to proceed very carefully in order to actually untangle the tool from its attempt to understand itself.

This video represents an excellent way to go about this.

[IIllytchnonadinfinitum]

I'll start with this: 7:07 - 7:08

[Warning: I have a dark sense of humor and this will be a very verbose comment]

I agree almost entirely with her. We, as individual agents, are but a way for the "will" of the entire universe to express itself. It is not the "I" or the "you" that wills anything, it is the entirety of reality that does via what our consciousness is a function of (our brains).

To point at an individual and say, "You are a morally bad person and you need to be punished because you raped your neighbor's dog to death in front of their young children after ripping off their eyelids and strapping them down in a chair forcing them to watch the despicable spectacle, " is to make it seem as though the individual acted out that behavior in a kind of vacuum, one in which nothing else in reality could possibly affect his/her behavior. This is not the case, as many experiences/stimuli in the individual's past have been a causal factor in the resulting behavior (An experiment on yourself: Drink a gallon of whiskey and go walk around town and simply "will yourself" to be a normal citizen). Something as macroscopic as their being forced at gunpoint (mind you, this sidesteps intention, but notice my next point) or as microscopic as the molecules that effectively bring about said behavior, in which case if there were no such molecules or the molecules would be ordered differently, that the behavior either wouldn't exist at all or would exist differently; essentially, our cognitions and sense of volition are a function of the underlying mechanics of a physical system, our brains, not a soul or immaterial spirit (One would need to prove the existence of souls/spirits to change my views on this, and yes, the burden of proof is on you to prove their existence, not mine to disprove them, heh. I recommend Shelly Kagan's course on "Death" from Yale's open courses.).

Oh, and even if one tries to invoke the "quantum uncertainty" argument to bolster the idea of a truly free-will, I'd simply say that randomness does not equate to volitional control in a vacuum. It's random/probabilistic, not freely controlled. We continue...

Albeit a slightly subtle distinction, casting blame (or praise, a la B.F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity") is not the same as reacting to an anti-social event in such a way that minimizes its likelihood of recurring in the future. (Also, I see no reason why subjective morality, a collective effort on the part of all individuals in a given society, isn't enough for us to live by. Why invoke objective morality when it's not needed? When you do so, it also seems to edge you closer toward the existence of a god of some kind, which, again, is simply unnecessary.) So to look at the aforementioned dog rapist and take a kind of tertiary measure to manipulate his/her behavior in such a way that works in accord with society's subjective code of conduct is to do society a pro-social service, while at the same time needing no such individualistic, moral blame as though the individual's behavior was not a factor of numerous variables of which may never be pinpointed and was instead "all his/her own".

Now, and here's the big part, to acknowledge the importance of these albeit extremely complicated and likely unknowable (in their entirety) variables, we, as a society, can then begin to really isolate said variables that LEAD to such anti-social behavior in the first place. This is primary prevention instead of dealing with anti-social behavior after it already occurred. This involves looking at the big picture of causal factors of a behavior we dislike (or, could also be used in the case of pro-social behaviors we like as to increase their likelihood) rather than saying, "You know what, my human brain is too small and the task of figuring out what actually led to your behavior is quite tedious, so I'll just conclude that YOU DID IT, YOU BAD PERSON, TO PRISON FOREVER WITH YOU!" = The U.S.'s recidivism rates.

Alright. No one's going to read this.

tl;dr
Fuck it, leave me alone. Go away.

[KyleOttoX]

She absolutely nails it, exactly inline with Sam Harris' "Free Will" (highly recommend).

[Aerex]

I agree that deserving blame is a social construct and is an illusion as much as free will is. It is reason why bothers me when people get upset when someone does something wrong instead of fixing the actual problem. It is like getting angry at a computer.

[WetRabbit]

The assertion that "that's all neural activity there so there's no free will" presupposes that there are only deterministic functions which can operate via neural activities. 1. A simple true random operator could disprove this. And lord behold, our current best scientific theory (Quantum Mechanics) guarantees such an operator and its actually very easy apply such an operator (see random.org for example). 2. Determinism as a doctrine is the strongest possible assertion about the universe. Why? Because one single undetermined action would disprove it.

[atthehops]

What is the origins of this notion of free will that it persists?

[brigham]

I find this entire free will discussion very confusing. And I had no choice but to express that! Or did I??

[RickDelmonico]

There is a hierarchical nesting of behaviors that in the higher levels is cultural. Our definitions as a culture should be clear. Having gray areas can be problematic. These behaviors are intimately related to value. These values are emergent properties that fluctuate. When we attend a moment, we give it value as a consequence of memory and if we place intention upon it then the value fluctuates as it branches out into the future as possibilities.

[michaelp]

Thalia, Very well put. What else besides neurological and other physiological activities can bring about our activities and behaviours. Certainly not fuzzy invisibles like free will, the soul, ones spirit, the power of the mind etc. These invisibles are just names we give to certain feelings and thoughts that emerge from specific neurological activities.

[Pheer]

It's funny because at around 7:00 you realize that she only believes in this idea in an academic and scholarly sense, but she in no way lives this way. I've suffered from depersonalization and I can say, for someone who has never experienced it, it's very easy to talk about the self and free will being illusory because they have no clue what that implication actually has on every day life. When you live every day feeling like you are an illusion, it becomes difficult to take these people's words at face value.
She very likely studies this and goes to talks, but goes home at the end of each day and goes back to being a person who very much behaves as if free will exists. A great deal of this I feel is empty rhetoric, because at the end of the day we know much less about the brain and consciousness than some people would like to admit.

[madmax]

It may be true, but they can't cherry pick this. If there is no free will, there is no moral responsibility and further, there is no responsibility of ANY kind. No responsibility for career you choose, the clothes you wear, who you love, who you hate, how honest you are, whether you cheat, the conclusions you reach, what college you go to or whether you go at all, what car you buy, how many children you decide to have, how you treat the environment, how you engage in the scientific method, how good a scientist you are, what kind of art you appreciate, what goals you have in life and on it goes. You would ultimately be responsible for nothing.

It could be true, but it fundamentally changes all that we consider vitally important in regards to what it means to be alive and human.

[jakesimmons]

You are free to decide how to look at life and your attitude toward it. Even if you can't control everything you do and everything that happens to you, you are still free to decide how to take it.

[eddieking]

This is totally unrelated but she is a very attractive woman. Kind of reminds me of Emily Blunt.

[xspotbox]

We are born animals and became human latter, after our brain grow up enough to be able to learn symbolic language. Mind must fight natural body senses and functions as is, than we construct another conscious master top of it. Animals know no morals or crime, but are not vengeful and sadistic also, they just do what all animals do. And it's hard to blame a master also, civilization can't be a reward for repression of self basic instincts. This is why people evaluate all three conditions separately, physical, psychological and moral aspects of behavior, so problems could be resolved by material compensation, detailed explanation and sincere apology. But people are also free not to choose any of those actions, this is where it became complicated. Everybody can choose to be free, at any time, some societies respect that principle, more primitive ones allow only worst criminals and sinners to roam free.

[oladejiadelekan]

People like this dont even live the way they preach..who lives like they dont have free will....Holding criminals responsible too is determined i guess...since no one has fee will

[viennavienna]

I would be affraid to go to a psychologist, who is convinced, that I'm a machine.